skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pretty much. Now VISA has to compete with every other protocol deployed on the permissionless network, some of which may charge lower to no fees and provide different user experiences. Users can also, as they desire, connect with the base layer if they wish to circumvent the VISA-like protocols entirely. An example of that might be a company moving or exchanging several million dollars without wanting to deal with VISA-like fees and control mechanisms.

In truth, we may not see VISA-like protocols on the blockchain for some time, as most users are finding the counterparty risk small enough with the base layer that there is little demand for chargebacks and transaction disputes.
Applying what we could call progressive ideas without thinking them through is a problem. IMHO we should vote for smarter politicians who don't have ideological baggage limiting their decision making.

> Politicians claiming to be be progressive then pandering to corporate interests has.

That doesn't have much to do with SF's problems as far as I can tell. Quite the opposite actually.
There's no contradiction in interconnected economies being both better for global stability and more volatile to global instability. On a populist level, these kinds of questions are always presented as either-or, when in reality it is a pretty delicate balancing act. No, we shouldn't be completely reliant on potentially adversarial states for our basic well-being, but intertwined economies change the cost-benefit-analysis of a lot of adversarial geopolitical actions, and that has led to a lot less war in the world.
Parallelization makes a program get to its result faster sure but thats not the same as faster computing. It seems like it takes the same amount of computing time just done in parallel, I think thats misleading.

> No matter the performance benefits — if you promise to make something run in a second instead of a year — if there is any chance of returning incorrect results, no one is going to use your method

This isn't particularly true depending on your definition of incorrect, often it doesn't need to be correct just close enough. As an example the fast inverse square root function in quake give results that are incorrect but close enough and is 10x faster than getting the correct result.
They won't. GCP is a investment. Building DC/backbone infrastructure is a lot harder than x application. Still they need computing power to own products. Maybe in the paper they're losing money but in reality they're securing position in the market
> the likelihood that you could actually use their charger with another device (especially of a different class) is at best a coin toss.

I've been able to use all my USB-C chargers for all my USB-C devices. That's 4 chargers and 4 devices.
Time off in lieu or the acronym? I've had time off in lieu but I have never seen that acronym before.
Cardiovascular diseases are the number of cause of death worldwide BY FAR. Millions of people die every year from consuming fast food. Fast food does not really serve a purpose apart form being tasty/quick/cheap. You could fulfill your dietary needs much better with different food.

Should McDonald's be banned? I do not think so. Anything can be misused.

To answer your question about what "good" uses there are for deep fakes: Cheaper and better special effects, available to a MUCH broader audience than before. I cannot even imagine all of the great use cases creative people will find for this.
It sounds like an innovative way to add a different type of pollution (microplastics) to a bitcoin transaction.

US bills are a cotton/linen blend, and the larger denominations don't age nearly as quickly. We should embrace $1 coins, but we won't.
I used dash to buy food for people in Venezuela during the height of the Maduro conflict (still ongoing really but this is while it kicked off) when all other methods had failed.

It was farmer that turned his farm into direct sales, used an Uber like service to deliver and used DASH as point of sale and store of value...is what I did illegal??

There are a ton of uses cases out there where blockchain tech can provide a faster better solution, not every single case but it's there.

Even the 'criminal' side is nothing compared to the USD and how it's used. That same argue applies even stronger to fiat currencies.

A bankless note isn't a new idea, ops solution is novel and well thought out and there are markets that it solves pain points.
Trash Fence Stops Plastic Tsunami in World’s Most Polluting River (Then Fails)
> one the two other important Haskell "design-patterns" (Functor - Applicative - Monad)

These days you should probably add Foldable and Traversable to that list, as they are closely related and appear throughout the standard libraries and even in the Prelude.

Traversable is a generalization of Functor to include Applicative effects. It reduces to Functor if the Applicative happens to be the Identity type.

Where Functor and Traversable replace values one-to-one while preserving structure, Foldable represents reducing operations (folds) which consume the values from a structure in some defined order to build up a result. This includes basic functions like sums and products, as well as more complex operations like `sequence`.
Generally, it would list the things that aren't included in that tier but are in higher tiers. Like they do for most of their features.
Seconding this recommendation. Bob (author) did such an amazing job of that book. I proudly display it in my office. The illustrations alone are worth the cost.
Mike Clark, the architect of Zen says in [1] literally that ISA doesn’t matter and that it’s all about the microarchitecture.

Quote: “Although I've worked on x86 obviously for 28 years, it's just an ISA, and you can build a low-power design or a high-performance out any ISA. I mean, ISA does matter, but it's not the main component - you can change the ISA if you need some special instructions to do stuff, but really the microarchitecture is in a lot of ways independent of the ISA. There are some interesting quirks in the different ISAs, but at the end of the day, it's really about microarchitecture.”

In the end, ISA is such a small part that impacts the design of a modern high performance CPU that it is almost negligible. It is physically impacting only the decode unit, but the decode unit is only a few percent of die area. Feel free to listen to the whole interview to get a feeling.

1: https://youtu.be/3vyNzgOP5yw
Money needs to be reinvented since politics has hijacked it and used it as a tool to deliver policy (at the expense of money's functions). I think it's evil to harvest the wallets of poor people for scraps, pile it together and give it to the richest, which is effectively what inflation is.
funny story and super relatable.
Tho, just want to clarify: did you fire him (because you're his boss), you got him fired (by telling his boss), he quit, or you quit?
The point you're raising here is a semantic argument, not substantive one. It asks the question what do we both mean by the word "discover"? And is only one of us using that word correctly? Not only that, but you've already pivoted your semantic position to: when I say "discover" I mean "predict"...

I have no interest in jumping down a semantic rabbit hole with you lettergram (are you just trolling?).

As a Go enthusiast with an entire bookshelf dedicated to books on Go like: Invincible, The Games of Shusaku, and 400 Years of Go in Japan, I'm comfortable stating that in my opinion the new moves popularized by AlphaGo mark a cultural shift in the game that is as significant as any of the big names in the history of the game.

Take for example the wonderful Wikipedia article on the innovations of Go Seigen[1]. Seigen's innovative opening plays in the 1930s is one of the reasons he is considered by many to be "the greatest Go player of the 20th century". [2]

Again, my point is this: Go Seigen's beautiful discoveries on the Go board made him a Hero to generations of Go players.

We can debate whether AlphaGo's discoveries are equal or lesser than Seigens, but they are within the same order of magnitude: both players triggered a once in a generation sea change in how Go Culture thinks about the game.

To brush aside AlphaGo's discoveries, would be to brush aside Seigen's as well.
Which is demonstrably wrong.

So, fine. Is "discovery" the wrong word for what Alpha Go has achieved? Whatever. I don't care.

Lettergram, If you really have a point, and you really care about convincing me of your point, then reframe your argument in such a way that clearly differentiates Go Seigen's accomplishments in a meaningful way from those of AlphaGo. In what way does Go Seigen's legacy stand apart from AlphaGo's?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinfuseki
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Seigen
I don't code at home as a hobby, or because I want to code. I code at home because I want the computer to do something. When I want that enough, then I code at home. When I don't want it enough, then there's plenty of other things to do at home. So that's my answer to the motivation question - when I want the result enough, then I have motivation to code at home.

I don't code at home to hone my skills. I have, essentially, a full-time job honing my skills. I don't have to do it some more on the side.

But there are exceptions to that. My wife occasionally asks me "What do you need to learn now for the next five years of your career?" For that kind of thing, yes, I'll take some of my own time if I have to (though I've been fortunate enough to often have my employer pay for me learning it). But I'm not going to grind leetcode in my home time just in case I need it in an interview somewhere down the road.
> How can you know that someone hasn't transferred the bitcoin out of the wallet before they give it to you?

How can you know someone hasn't transferred the money out of their bank account when they hand you a check?
I don't think it's disingenuous at all. They both have in common the fairly-recent idea that it's time to work less: whether a shorter week for the same pay, or in the case of UBI you get money for no work at all. These two are not the same, but they're in the same space of recent re-examinations of the relationship between work and money.
I think this is a good scenario to consider especially now that we're running into this issue just from trying to build passenger rail networks in California where the expertise for it isn't domestic at all.
I don't believe you are correct. I believe an existing installation of Authy is required.

>Can I reset my Backup Password?

> Yes, it is possible to reset your Backup Password by tapping on Change Password in the Backup Password area of the Settings menu within the Authy app. You will have to ensure all 2FA account tokens are decrypted on your device (No red lock icons). Once a user resets their Backup Password on a device, all other devices with the Authy app for this user’s Authy account will require entering this new Backup Password.

https://support.authy.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036077534-Aut...
This seems more applicable for the SaaS hosting model where the database service is managed by a 3rd party. So the use case is "I trust your SaaS service is compliant with my legal obligations to protect my customer data, but it'd be easier for everyone involved if your database service also has no way of seeing sensitive data fields. That would make it easier for me to pass my compliance audits, otherwise I need to audit you." So the data is encrypted client-side before it's sent over to the database service, and the database service is not able to decrypt it, but can still can include the encrypted value in a query.
Yeah, after hand scrubbing the "grill" of my car several times this year (the concave plastic bit that replaces a grill on lower-end Teslas), it definitely seems like a lot of flies, but I'm no entomologist.
We aren’t remaining there by force. Germany wants our base there.
Except of course, that most central banks function perfectly adequately despite the nation in question having very limited military power, and it isn't as if Bitcoin mining operations don't depend on there being enough use of force behind the rule of law for property to still be enforceable.
Gopher came slightly after WWW, so I'm not sure how much influence WWW had on it, but it makes me think you're right. Other people were working in the problem space.
See "triple store" and "columnar database" for similar products. Salesforce got a patent circa 2000 for a database that automatically builds indexes based on the queries people make that left a huge gap in database products available, one reason why people looked at graph databases and the semantic web and said "meh".
If you don't trust the bill, scan it to validate the multisig, re-key the note or
cut the note to claim the Bitcoin. If you can't validate the note, don't accept it.

We don't store key material. We have 0 capability to spend any Bitcoin from the notes.
Right, from which you can infer that you don't get a 30-minute SLA. But not that you get no SLA at all.
As I said in the post, if the company can grant access to me - they can grant access to themselves, or a malicious insider, or my twin sister.

The pertinent question is - are you happy with that trade-off?
Well I live in SF and I can tell you for certain it is as bad as everyone says
I mean, maybe they should have been? Just comparing apples to apples (it takes X amount of COBOL code to the same thing that Y office jobs would have done), maintaining the office job over a long period of time might be easier than finding and retaining COBOL engineers, because you get more active practice at it—people naturally want to streamline their work, new people always have to be onboarded, etc. I don't think things are ever so clear-cut apples-to-apples though—there are things you can do with COBOL that you couldn't feasibly do with any number of office workers, and there are things you can do with office workers that even the best COBOL probably isn't going to handle well.
It's certainly true that there's a line, but i've never heard a principled case for why they ought to be different. Money and speech are really not much different in terms of their power to organize problematic activity.

Certainly dragnet surveillance of speech could prevent a fair amount of terrorism, mass shootings, child pornography, etc. Dragnet surveillance of money flows accomplishes that too.

We just as a society decided it was worth it in the case of speech, but for some reason have decided the opposite in the case of money, except when that money is physical cash. None of this seems particularly well grounded in any kind of principled argument for one vs the other.

The benefits to anonymity and privacy are always highly diffuse and hard to observe, particularly in the moment. In another comment you ask for someone to enumerate the upsides, but i'd ask you the same question for speech privacy. What are the upsides to you being able to talk to your friends without the government listening in?
A worse situation: What if you ARE insane, it's just that this time it's not your imagination running wild, it's actually someone stalking you? People that have some mental problem, whatever it is, have a much harder time since no one will believe them. It's always just "I know you are feeling bad right now..." even though the diagnose is ADHD or something else irrelevant.
This is straight out of a fairy tale. An evil fairy can make money that looks just like real gold (I mean Bitcoin) and even passes the test when a lesser mage waves their wand (I mean smartphone) over it. But then it will evaporate in a while and will have no value at all.

I love it!

In other words, this whole scheme depends on the NFC chip doing exactly what it claims to.
> highly-interconnected

I think the problem is, decision makers need to understand what interconnectedness means, and not just on an abstract level. If you make things, you're intimately familiar with just how many components come from China. You're deeply aware of the fact the machines you use are made in basically every country in the globe. That the materials you consume come from literally every corner of the planet.

People tend to think about globalization as a matter of buying discrete commodities from different places: bananas from panama. They don't understand that essentially all products today are amalgams from different factories scattered across the globe. That leads to crazy weird decisions like Brexit, silly trade wars, etc. People don't realize that cutting a country out of the system is less like not talking to somebody, and more like cutting out a big chunk of one of your organs.
> you can set up your own matrix server

Synapse is still one of the worst installation processes[1] I've gone through. I'm extremely comfortable with Ansible and Docker but their install process sucks if you aren't exposing your Matrix instance to the world and don't have a domain pointing at it. On top of that, there are so many moving pieces to it if you want to bridge it to other services.

I got it all installed but ended up dumping it because I felt the complexity wasn't worth it. There are so many moving pieces imo.

Are there alternatives to Synapse for homeserver software? Or is there a less complex deployment method for a homeserver and bridges that I am not aware of?

[1] https://matrix-org.github.io/synapse/latest/setup/installati...
how feasible is the x86 windows virtualization? ive looked into UTM but it seems to be quite slow, how easy would it be to port this to windows then? "theoretically possible" could mean anything, but its a shot in the dark, haha.
I don't think you read the website. You can verify the funds aren't spent via NFC chip and the blockchain itself. You then rotate the user key so only you can spend it after receiving the bill.

A bit cumbersome but your criticism about trust is incorrect.
The term for this is transfer learning.

https://learningcurrents.weebly.com/visible-learning-surface...

It takes a minimum of about 3 semesters to be able to get linear algebra to the stage of transfer learning. There are slower ways to do it (which most people follow), but there aren't shortcuts -- there is no way high school Algebra 2 can get you there in the time allotted.

That kind of high school surface learning is not a step you can skip, though:

"Surface learning is critical because it provides a foundation on which to build as students are asked to think more deeply."

There are a lot of shortcuts which can cut back on the number of hours, mostly by spreading out the number of years. Early surface exposure helps a lot, as does revisiting topics in different contexts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_approach
Hefty search – search everywhere at once
> There are endless lisp purity quagmires to get bogged down in and it completely avoids every single one of them

Which is odd, because purity has never been a defining characteristic of the Lisp family of languages. It's somewhat analogous to the disputes over what is and isn't a rogue-like game. It's more a matter of spirit than any particular feature. Although there are features that the overwhelming majority of Lisps have, like a syntax that is pretty much directly is a tree representation of the AST (modulo reader macros if available). Of course the very first Lisp is an exception thanks to M-expressions!
handy tool: for images you can search google, pinterest and flicker all at once. for search engines search google, bing, and duckduckgo. for social media search from twitter, linkedin, and fb. shopping -- ebay and amazon. plus other categories -- wikipedia, imdb rotten tomatoes and add custom groups and custom searches.
Even an extreme example -- The technology to build an automated drone with a camera for targeting and a gun on a gimbal and deploy it to do a mass-shooting -- all exists today. All it would take is for some madman to pick the pieces up and assemble them. In fact, I'd be willing to bet $100 that we'll actually see some kind of tragedy to that effect in the USA within the next 5 years. The technology cats are very quickly getting out of the bags.
Consider a hypothetical analogous argument against supporting fundamental science made in 1900: What they are working on is completely useless for humanity and doesn't help solve everyday problems... the "and so what?" about the photoelectric effect or quantum theory. Because those people in 1900 could not conceive of inventions like lasers and transistors. They didn't just lack imagination, they lacked total conceptual inability in that context. Just as you are seeming to do here. But of course, either of those two inventions have transformed human society on a level with fire, language, writing and metallurgy.

"Is there a comparable impact on knowing that the Higgs boson is +/- 10^-9 (or whatever) aligned with the theoretical model?" perhaps there is! Might not understanding the fine points of the theoretical model help with something like a reactionless thruster? Could this unlock the door on direct manipulation of spacetime? Assist in devising exotic materials, like say some sort of stable muonic matter and opening up a whole new world of chemistry/solid state physics? The potential is staggering, and by nature is almost completely unguessable until it happens.

If the world followed the lead of yourself or the Sabine Hossenfelders of the world we might never know. The argument that this hypothetical collider can only be used to explore unconfirmable symmetry theories is simply false. The cost of such a facility is insignificant compared to the potential.

My back-of-the-envelope game theory perspective is that humanity should double down on all fronts, at all cost, to push these boundaries. The only impediment is the folks like you, mired in the present and seemingly unable to realize that the unimaginable results are very much unimaginable. Just as those lasers and transistors were 100+ years ago.
It's a good case made here. I don't disagree. But what it raises is interesting & challenging:

> There are many known problems in physics right now. $100 billion could fund (quite literally) 100,000 smaller physics experiments. There may not be enough physics labs on Earth to carry out that many experiments!

It's amazing & a bit problematic how big-biased we are. For reference, LHC cost a bit under $5B by compare. I have a hard time imagining what it would take to get $5B in funding for physics. How much effort would each physics project have to spend to go get funding, versus how much time did it take the LHC to get funding?

I really like the idea of diversity, of a range of medium & small projects. But it feels like structurally we are disposed towards bigger higher ticket tasks. That once the ball is rolling, once there's critical mass, we can get the checkbooks opening. But by compare the channels for getting small & medium funding is more case by case, that large pools of money aren't as available or accessible.
Seems like it's been resolved.
And when that happens I lose all the data on the device and access to a device for months at a time.

And all I gained from this is that I will have to buy a cable separately from the device itself now.

But hey, at least I'll only get 5 new cables in a decade instead of 10! Such incredible savings.
This reads like a parody
What's the issue here? Didn't you see OPs reply? He/she didn't feel flamed. Why did you?
2FA can be "backed up" by either using a 2FA soft token program that allows for backups, like 2faone or Authy, OR by the services themselves granting backup codes for emergencies. For my threat profile, I have no problem storing my 2FA backup passwords/codes in my master password safe. If that is compromised, I was doomed anyway.

If a service does not allow the use of "generic" TOTP ala Authy or Google Authenticator, AND it does not allow for one time use backup codes, then I do not use 2FA with that service unless required. My main bank forces the use of their own built in 2FA (Symantec VIP on the backend) which pisses me off. My work uses Okta and RSA. Oh well.