skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ok, but am I, as an individual, allowed to store information myself? Could I build a personal search engine that does what Google does, and index everything on the internet? Would I be forced to delete things from my personal search engine if someone wants me to forget? I can't imagine you think someone has the right to tell me to delete something from my own computer in my own house.

If you allow that, do I not have the right to share that information with my friends? Strangers?

If I can do that as an individual, why does it change if I group together with other individuals and form a company?
Was waiting for someone to post PaulG's take on this. So here goes:

http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html
Fair point.

But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this:

> I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too.

They were clearly talking about themselves, and a rule they apply to themselves.

That said, one of my "cleanup routines" for writing and posting, is I look for instances of "you," and often change it to "I" or "me."

I would have probably written it like so:

> If I can't stand by a position, maybe I shouldn't air it.

BTW: I apply the same philosophy to my own posting.

There's a very valid argument for online (and offline) anonymity, and I don't like the specious "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." argument.

I just find using that as a fig leaf for trolling and stalking people is rather annoying, as that behavior actually puts the people that really need it, at risk.

Standing up for my Principles can sometimes be quite scary. I've risked losing jobs, for refusing to carry out orders that were unethical, and I am routinely attacked, here (but politely -this is HN, after all), for holding some of the views I hold.
I don't think the commenter is challenging this idea. Many companies do this with "off the shelf" CI/CD solutions without committing large amounts of money into bespoke tooling.
> If it's so horrible, why do so few people want to get rid of it?

People fear change? And media reinforces that.

Things suck now . . . but how much worse is the unknown? [cue scary music]
it's a great idea, but - depending on where you live * - in the current political climate (i.e. corporate consensus) it's on a scale of "unlikely" to "the opposite is more likely"

this might fly in the Germanic countries (sans England), but in most Western countries the corporate pushback would be far too high.

even if long-term it would be cheaper, businesses a) don't like change, and b) don't like being restricted in any way whatsoever. imagine how hard coca-cola would lobby to keep using their classic bottle design. imagine how easy it would be for the corporate-owned press to sell this as Sovietism reborn or some other such nonsense

I feel like in America and the more right-wing countries, you're far more likely to be seeing a law enshrining the future rights of businesses to non-homogeneity

*America, based on your use of fluid ounces
> this event will have prompted a lot of folk to set up sponsors

Shh, you're not supposed to explain the trick.
Fundamentally I think you missed the point of Ecclesiastes. It is: anything you do is meaningless compared to God, and you should fear him and therefore do what He has commanded of you.

Excuse my French, but this God is a real asshole, and I think it's best that people ignored these threats.
The lack of transparency bit. All the brokers had margin requirements escalated according to formulas written years, in some cases decades, ago. Robinhood was given additional discretion to come up with capital versus being shut down, as the rules would have required absent discretionary intervention.
The wealth inequality in the US is now higher than at the time of the French revolution, so I find this assertion to be highly questionable.
Google is not a great tool for commerce. It wastes a great opportunity to close a sale by allowing garbage. They should just connect people to useful information.
The origins of zoning were to exclude black, Chinese, and jewish workers and residents from white neighborhoods. https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-sin...

Today, they continue to be used to exclude poorer residents from richer neighborhoods through mechanisms like minimum lot sizes (housing is much more expensive if you require 10000 sqft lots, etc.) and prohibitions of multi-family dwellings (which make housing cheaper by allowing multiple households to split the cost of land).
there is lots of prior art but it's still not ideal. the one you posted, for example only has reverse mode AD which sometimes is good, but forward mode is sometimes asymptotically faster (and has lower overhead, and some numerical stability issues)
The solution is to decrease the power of hyper-local interests whose incentives do not align with those of the broader polity. Small cities and even neighborhoods benefit from regional economic growth but would rather their distant neighbors pay the cost for it in terms of density. That's a recipe for dysfunction.
Americans haven't heard about hierarchical zoning. For them zoning means you can only do one thing and nothing else. This means you have a dedicated residential zone, dedicated commercial zone and dedicated industrial zone.

Everything is far apart because the zones aren't mixed use. In most sane countries you can build low impact buildings in every zone, medium impact buildings (commercial real estate) in medium impact zones and above and high impact (industrial real estate) buildings in high impact zones.

Yes, you can build your house near a factory but the factory can't be built near your house.
Ask HN: Most Secure Browser? Chromium?
I am looking for the most secure browser for daily browsing. Excluding any other parameter like privacy or functionality.

Chrome : the privacy breaches seem to be large enough to actually become a security threat as well. Is that a fair statement?

Firefox : seemed pretty good to me until I read this article https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html. It claims that Firefox is more insecure than Chrome/Chromium, in large part because of a weaker sandboxing mechanism. Even if this mechanism seems to be catching up, this points to a significant lag in Firefox's security

Safari : is it secure?

Chromium : it seems to be the best bet to me, because it seems to contain the best security mechanisms, without the Google spyware. However:
1) it does not seem to provide an automatic update system
2) I read that it's unstable because it contains bleeding edge code. That actually sounds like it's less safe than chrome because of that => is there a way to know which Chromium version Chrome is using, and just using this version?

I am grateful for any thoughts.
Algolens – Algorithm Lessons
This is a total, BS-grade shade throw.

If I answer "Me", what is going to change for you?
Not sure if you meany to imply this or not, but Ecclesiastes is not Christian writing, it's Jewish.
Ask HN: Where do you publish projects?
I've written up a few projects for the Twilio blog (https://www.twilio.com/blog/author/acohen) but the majority of my projects aren't Twilio related, is there something like that (not just a personal blog) for random fun side projects? I usually make a combination of hardware and software (programmable robot for toddlers, automatic reader bee for baby, etc.)
Would be nice to see the diff vs Scala 2
Is the measurement unit for that metric or otherwise?
Sure, but how long until the sites that require an email to set up a new account add this to their list of blocked providers (or just switch to requiring a sms number like some of the bigger sites already do)?

Or ar least I'm assuming that's a primary use case for something like this.
It’s always interesting to hear this stuff argued out because the effect of too little zoning is much more visceral than the effect of too restrictive zoning.

One (correctly) cringes at the thought of a factory being placed in their residential neighborhood. But the converse, and the reality we find ourselves in, is that millions of families don’t have stable housing at all. It’s a clearly worse outcome. Unpleasant housing is obviously better than no housing. but there’s no cringe factor, it’s all in the abstract.
> This inflation episode coincides with millennials nearing the end of the typical income growth phase of their careers without substantial asset buying power.

Interesting. Do you have any links that quantify this?

> Eventually people will simply drop out of the race, or demand vastly higher wages to compensate

Maybe in some places. But this doesn't line up with what we know about American nature. Their frustration will most likely be expressed via violent outburst, blaming other groups, believing in conspiracies, and who knows what other exciting new antisocial behaviors they'll cook up on the internet.
> Only if you need to update all N other projects every time, which is unusual.

This isn't true in my experience at large companies. For this to be true, you would either need to have absolutely no shared core libraries, or core libraries that are so stable and unchanging that they never receive updates. Updates to those core libraries usually result in a cascade of changes across a ton of repos, tons of tests that need to be rerun, and a slew of now incompatible versions.

All of these problems go away with a monorepo. Monorepos are absolutely the right solution for 98% of companies out there because they will never reach the engineering scale where monorepos start to struggle. For the 2% of companies that do reach that engineering scale, these kinds of blog posts get written.

The mistake is reading blog posts like this and thinking is necessary or even relevant to any more than 2% of the companies out there. The vast majority of shops will never need anything like this.
Start with the London School of Economics podcast series, read works by Oxford economist Kate Raworth, the late economic anthropologist scholar David Graeber, the finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, there's plenty of alternative configurations that don't have slavery, child labor, scamming and the sex trade as the default nodus operandi.
Why isn't UTF-32 used everywhere for everything? Is an extra 3 bytes per character really that much?
Fair point. I knew that, but my previous comment was poorly articulated in that regard. I meant something along the lines of: hooked up to an opioid infusion.
Nobody is going to replace Google, the web that Google crawls will simply be replaced by something better (just as open and interoperable, but better in other ways). Google will have a less relevant, even non-existent role, in this better web. This is how powerful companys with moats eventually lose in the end. A structural change makes the land they are defending less valuable
He got his 15min of fame.
Ever seen a zoning consultation meeting to build multi-family residences in a single family detached neighborhood?

The objections are wholly classist worries about What Kind of People are going to be living there.
Here’s a list of example programs:

https://easylang.online/run/list.html

Also reminds me of this:

https://viz.intelligence.rocks/
Not really. There is not some fixed amount of money in existence and certainly not some fixed amount of wealth. Governments and banks create money as necessary to facilitate the actual economy in producing actual stuff, and as for wealth, well... When the price that some artist's works trade at goes up, such that the value of the ones sitting in some billionaire's vault is now higher, that extra wealth clearly doesn't come from anywhere at all. It simply springs into existence from nowhere, and will spring out of existence just as easily if private ownership of art becomes effectively impossible. What is a limiting factor in the real economy's ability to make people better off is its capacity to produce actual goods and services for them to buy, and that capacity is not used in any way by wealth sitting around doing nothing.
Build a car centric life and then wonder why everyone is so stressed and obese. But the people are happy with it!

Many of those people are conditioned to expect these things because it was considered progress and increasingly it's all that they can get, and I think have some blind spots that probably keep them from living their best life.

Surely pointing this out is elitist.
This way of looking at things assumes that wealth is a finite resource, and that by some people having a lot it is depriving others.

Wealth doesn't work like that, though. It's not a zero sum game.

Wealth is infinite, and can be created from nothing by providing a good or service that people need.

I had a friend who was a multimillionaire, got there by building stone walls.

Another friend who's an immigrant, worth over ten million, got there by making custom iron and steel windows and doors.

I have a friend who's worth over a million, got there by working hard and saving his whole life.

Another friend who's worth over thirty million, got there by making web sites for auto dealerships.

Another one who's worth a bit over a million, got there by risking his life savings on opening up a winery.

A former neighbor had a multi-million dollar home. Also an immigrant. Got there by cleaning restaurant grease traps.

I could go on.

Wealth can be created from nothing. From something as simple as an idea.

The only qualifying factor is that you have to make something that other people want. It can be anything, a wall, a song, a good bottle of wine, an iron door, a NFT (ugh), ...anything.

There's no limit to wealth.

Our poorest today live like kings compared to those in poverty 100 years ago.

Because we've created massive, overwhelming wealth in this country.

And there's no end in sight. All we need is the willingness to do it.

To spend our time building up rather than tearing down.

Looking at someone's wealth and saying "that's not fair, we should destroy that and give it to others" is a juvenile solution that destroys societies.

I understand the temptation though. It's harder to create than to destroy.

It takes more intellectual rigor. It takes a leap into self ownership and responsibility.

That's hard to do when we've been taught from a young age that our situation is someone else's fault.

Class warfare is a tool that's used by conmen to gain short term power.

It ends up destroying everything.
You're right. Kids today have it easy. They can just go and pick a cheap 64 bit ARM cpu off the shelf and call it a day. We had no such luxuries!
I remedy this by quantity; I say the same thing to multiple users and listen attentively to the feedback. If enough people say the same thing (usually >2) then I know it’s something there that needs fixing.
> Imagine, for example, that you were falsely arrested for murder and then cleared of the crime.

Ok, but let's also imagine the opposite... let's say I am assaulted, but fail to get a conviction for the person who assaults me.

Am I allowed to tell people that I was assaulted by the person? Am I allowed to write down my story of being assaulted, and tell other people about my experience? Can I warn my friends about this person?

If I write up my personal experience of being assaulted and post it on my blog, can my assailant order me to take it down just because I was unable to get a conviction? Can someone else force me to take down my own story about my own life, just because it involves someone else?

I can't imagine telling a rape victim, "sorry, you don't get to tell people your story because you weren't able to get a conviction"
Getting it revoked is likely harder than successfully defending against a suit. Many aggressors will fold at the "here is obvious prior art, go find someone dumber to extort" phase.
The CAT train is a scam. It costs much more than a Railjet that takes the same time and you end up at the central station.
Hi David, Just signed up. Emails are hitting spam/junk folder. Better to move your provider.
Why Paul Graham Is Wrong About Choosing an Esoteric Language (2018)
> Many code points are characters. For instance, everything in the ASCII range.

It is definitely unclear in what sense NUL should be "a character" likewise for most of the ASCII control codes, are DELETE and ESCAPE characters? How about VERTICAL TAB?

> Generic text manipulating routines don't require code points to have semantics, but they require indexing.

While there have been programming languages which posit such routines, it's unclear what they mean. For example it's common to define some sort of sub-string function substr(string, A, B) and say that A and B are indexes into the code points. But, to what end? Typically such functions are dangerous (or even undefined) unless you got the indices A and B by some specialised means, suggesting actually indexing into the string isn't really how it works.

In contrast Rust offers lots of text manipulation routines which are well defined but lack such indexing. Such as split_once and trim_end_matches

We can see that UTF-8 has code units of bytes, and sure enough indexing the code units makes sense, but insisting these should be considered an analogy to code points misses why we have two different terms.
Why is this comment downvoted?

Factual.
Maybe install Android on the tablet?
It's important to realize that if you pay for a chance to win, if you lose you don't get your money back. That makes the risk calculation dependent on how much you can afford to lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox
There been some really good suggestions.
There are two concerns you have to balance. The future prospects of the company for the remaining <50% with the urgent needs of the >50% leaving. If you spend to much that might endanger the other <50%. If >50% are paid to little that might encourage the <50% to leave (partially) too. There maybe some sweet spot however the management which put the company in this situation might not the best people to find that sweet spot. See in how far you can involve all your employees and their expertise in making these decisions.

Given that you have a firm pool of money that you can allocate which seems to be less than you are comfortable with look if you can grow them. C-Suite getting pay reductions is one thing that should happen for sure. There might be other ideas obvious to the people you employ. You as C-Suite are missing.

If possible create projections (like a month by month spread sheet) for the future of the company based on the success of projects (or however you make money), costs and so on. Show to your employees that that company has a future after the cut. Show what the managements plan leave for compensating the people you have to let go. Play that out. Show of the "no intervention" world projections. Show what it means to close the entire company, whether that leads to better or worse compensation. Then talk about the limits of the plan. What it didn't include and model. That it didn't account for people cutting their hours or reduce their own wage. People will know whether they will be let go in x days. That management will talk with everyone over the week and give an indication whether it is likely that they will be let go to collect pledges what pay cut they could accept. Whether they have any ideas to help the companies situation (cost cuttings, release monthly from last months). Whether they intended to leave the company anyway. Then management crunches the numbers using options for savings and makes a few proposals including one of closing the entire company. And have the people decide. Everyone is given a print out how each option will affect them one what the options mean company wide. Then people vote via the Condorcet method. In case there are ties. Management will have to indentify key grievances and create some variants to fix those in the tied plans and have a second vote that day. Another round of Condorcet to eliminate all untied ones. Then instant run off in case of more ties. Those options should come with a profit share in case surplus profit emerges where people who took cuts or left the company against their will get some payout.

I am sure it is to late to fully set that up now but if i had to do such a large cut that is what i would want done.
Matrix multiplications are linear. Modern neural network methods usually make heavy use of nonlinearities. You could also say that quantum mechanics is just matrix multiplications, but look where it got us.
Don't forget Toyota's "unintended acceleration" fiasco. One way out of that situation is to shift to neutral and old-school shifters usually let you do that without engaging the button by just pushing the shifter up.

I recently drove a car with a shifting "dial", and if I had to shift to neutral in an emergency there would be a lot of fumbling.
The good health/good energy/good looking period of life is like 30 years maximum. I would consider that pretty short.
If that's the case, it means that GPT-3 doesn't just raise ethical questions, but legal ones as well: several jurisdictions around the world currently require that search engines allow for the erasure of private information upon request.
I remember Julia being pitched as a competitor especially for Matlab, but also R,... much more so do than for C or Lisp. So it seems like a fair comparison, and those are definitely to some extent seen as identical with their package ecosystem (in Matlab, most packages actually come from the same vendor, and base R utility is a tiny fraction of the utility of its packages).
> Koyfin has had to shut itself down during market hours because they don't have the money to maintain uptime.

That was an April Fools joke. I've never seen them go down.
Interesting. I'm using mailgun and I've always had pretty good luck with them. I'll have to look into it.

Thank you for the report.
Matrix multiplication, followed by a nonlinear function. Rinse and repeat many times, and it can approximate arbitrarily complex functions. So the only way out of it is declaring that sentience cannot be described by a function.
I could see it being the case if the person believes that at its core, our own human sentience IS really just advanced matrix multiplication (or other purely material processes, i.e. we're all just fleshy mainframes).

So, such a person might conclude that with sufficiently advanced matrix multiplication and other similar functions, any entity could achieve the same sort of sentience as us.
Google sucks, what do they even offer? Why replace it?
Go and vote - if the majority want it to happen it will
As someone who has lived in Las Vegas, this person seems to not give credit where credit is due. First, I don't know how they weren't able to find the cycling path from the store. You can actually see the store and its solar panels from the entrance [1]. Second, the exact thing they are a proponent for is actually the root cause of the water crisis in the southwest. Growing things in a desert. It takes water, a lot of water. The reason why you don't see much green in Las Vegas is because it is a huge water use. So, while the slightly cooler ground directly beneath the tree is nice, it really is the exact opposite of sustainable. Through initiatives like paying to rip up grass lawns, Las Vegas has actually been able to reduce water use by 30% while growing probably something close to 10% in the last 3 years. Point to anywhere else in the US that has actually reduced usage of anything in the last 3 years. This is all with the huge waste of water that is Lake Las Vegas and the golf courses. Which goes back to the main point, the water crisis in the southwest is purely a function of agricultural use in California and to a smaller extent Arizona. Of course Las Vegas relies on outside agriculture but there is going to have to be a shift in the coming decade for more sustainable farming practices in the southwest.

[1] - https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1210033,-115.3267191,3a,75y,...