skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I honestly do not understand how the mass mobilization of the US economy for war in the 1940s actually happened or operated.

Was it bottom up, with factories competing to make products (trucks, ammo) for lend lease? Basically government used tax payer money to become a big buyer of things, incentivizing companies to reorient towards making those things? And then when the US entered the war, the types of contracts offered changed.

Was it top down, with the government operating more like a command economy telling businesses what to make, and when? It wasn't a choice, it was a demand because the country is at war!

These are two guesses I have. My mental model is based mostly on the movie "War Dogs." I'm sure it's a mix of both bottom up and top down. Maybe with a mix of cocktail parties with important industry business people and important government people chatting about would is feasible sprinkled in.

I do not understand how the war time mobilization of the US economy actually happened. If anyone knows, I would appreciate a summary or a book recommendation. I think I have a topic for my next Wikipedia deep dive.
I'm saying it would be better to buy higher quality ships at a lower price from places like Japan or South Korea (who are very good at shipbuilding) than to have a few struggling ship yards that only exist because a federal law outright bans competition from running them out of business.

I'm also pointing out that the national security argument doesn't hold water because being able to construct a small ship every couple of years is not going to be useful if we encounter a period where we need to build hundreds of vessels per year. We'd have to build that infrastructure from the ground up like we did in WW2. We'd have to do this whether or not the Jones Act is in place.

Therefore, I think it's better to scrap the Jones Act entirely. It's all cost, no benefit.
I keep seeing the argument repeated ad nauseam about how a bank protects from X and Y you and can reverse fraudulent charges and so on.

But as a customer of several national US banks and having gone through the dispute process dozens of times in my life, in reality, I find that to be completely nonsense. I’ve had to deal with numerous incidents where someone stole my card, and the bank blames me (the customer) and then asks me to prove the money was stolen, only to have them make an arbitrary denial months later. It’s the same bogus argument people make for all kinds of insurance, until you go to make a claim, get denied for some obscure legal text in the policy and find out you were just being ripped off the whole time.
Most people would likely find a "job" less enjoyable than a "hobby".

It's the difference between doing as you're told versus doing as you want.
This has been disputed by BlockFi’s CEO: https://twitter.com/blockfizac/status/1542582904110317568
Eh, first mover advantage counts for a lot. It doesn't necessarily mean the software is good.

Burning coal for generating energy was very "successful" and had great adoption. It's still a terrible method for the environment, and we can feel free to regard it as negative.

In this analogy, Microsoft products would be like generating energy by burning garbage, aka a dumpster fire.
Not many people in the US or the EU speak Arabic. If I'm ignorant of it and you're a speaker of Arabic, then why don't you just enlighten me? Since when is removing one's ignorance not the point of asking questions?
And if it's just floats, you can call it like `bois.sort_by(f64::total_cmp)`
You can't have the good parts without the bad. Most people hate banks. Russians dont like not being allowed to withdraw their money from ATMs and being restricted from foreign exchange. Merchants don't like being scammed by fraudulent chargebacks. People don't want the risk that their funds are stolen by the custodian.

Your comment is disingenuous and seems to be willfully misrepresenting the situation by ignoring that there are two sides

These forms of decentralised digital money are very new; nobody understands the potential for it if it were supported by social structures and education. Currently it exists in an incredibly hostile social environment where institutions are actively harming the user experience.
You imagine that there's someone out there pumping oil who isn't doing it for greed? Greed is the one constant in the system. If fuel prices are going up, it's not because humans are suddenly more greedy than before.
So we agree that a vegan diet is just another shitty diet that carries a risk of heart disease (also stroke and pregnancy complications), just like other shitty diets. And just because other diets are also shitty and unhealthy, doesn't change the fact that the vegan diet is a shitty, unhealthy diet and that people should be warned of the health risks inherent in it.

Agreed. 100%. What straw man?
> I am not that excited about that last part, but federating pull requests sounds like a killer feature

Git already has a pull request feature [1] that's as federated as it can get. The 'request-pull' command can be used to request pull on upstream repositories hosted anywhere (or not at all). The only requirement is that the downstream clone must be online. I know that HN isn't particularly found of email-based workflows for git. But requesting a pull is as simple as copying the output and mailing it (or via any text messaging service) to the maintainer. And doing a pull as a maintainer is actually easier than doing local PR merges using Github.

[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
Wow. I actually really liked listening to the BlockFi CEO. I made a cool 18% in the last 12 months using their interest account. Ah, well. I guess it's time to cash out.
there is so much soft-corruption pressure and old fashioned lobbying from Bitcoin kingpins to insinuate BTC into various nations' fiat pools. Why is this, when making bitcoin into fiat undermines the entire point of bitcoin.

Well obviously, on the superficial level there's plain old greed.

But on a more existential level, bitcoiners are acknowledging that proof of work will lose to proof of lead, in any kind of direct confrontation.

So backing its security with math isn't enough, coiners want it backed with armed force. like fiat.
> especially when phones have secure enclaves for private key storage

Can you convince the powers that be to allow rooted phones to store card credentials?
Two things.

First, Coinbase has a no-politics rule. I wonder where this falls. Since it's something business-related, I imagine it's fine to discuss internally, but this is an example where (if I was at Coinbase) I'd feel the no-politics-rule does the company a disservice. I'd be pretty mad if my company was selling to ICE and I wasn't allowed to say anything about it.

Second, it always amazes me how little these ICE contracts are, and how quick big companies (like Github) are willing to burn their credibility over such a relatively small amount of money.
This is one of the most reasonable comments I’ve read today, and yet it’s grayed out.
That’s not acceptable.
HN is being taken over by bullies and I’m tired of not even have my basic comment voting rights.
> I doubt the author's thirst for knowledge genuinely borders on 'compulsion or even addiction'. That's ridiculous self-aggrandizement

I think there might be more to this than it seems at first glance. For many people, work is their addiction. Others, the acquisition of knowledge. Others still, Tik-Tok and social media. Less ideally, heroin and hard drugs.

I recently listened to an episode of Andrew Huberman's podcast focused on addiction [0]. He interviews Dr. Anna Lembke, an addiction expert, and they explore aspects of addiction that aren't necessarily well understood by outsiders.

The thing that stood out to me was their acknowledgement that most of us are addicted to something, even if we don't look at that thing as an "addiction". Some of us are addicted to things that are accepted by society, and some of us have addictions that are maladaptive. The mechanisms behind those addictions are often similar, even if the outcomes are quite different.

I'm not making any comments about the TikTok format itself here, or his claims that one must be addicted to have the drive to follow through on learning. But the idea that the author himself is addicted, and that some people do experience information/learning in this way does not seem very far fetched.

The concern I have is with embracing the format. As we learn more and more about the addictiveness of social media and as our attention spans continue to shrink, I don't think embracing the format is a wise choice. But I totally believe someone can be addicted to it.

- [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3JLaF_4Tz8
One of the things I've found really interesting is how little development ecosystem there is around Atlassian's tools. They have a pretty rich API for most of their products, but nobody really uses them. There's some very cool CLI tools just starting to evolve for Jira and Confluence, which can completely transform the complaints people have (automating common concerns, eliminating UI slowness). I think Atlassian should have done more to build a community for people to ramp up on their technology.
If your question was intended to claim that the Article you quoted gives The Supreme Court ‘the final say on legal interpretation,’ I’m interested to know which words in that Article you believe gives that say.
This question is more about computer scientists changing how students think about something that they love to do in their spare time. I don't think it's right especially given how enjoyable (but difficult!) a solo indie dev career can be.
I mean the answer to that question is obvious: they're not under any obligation to include their own code in the training data. Why would they?

A better question would be whether they would take legal action against a competitor that creates a copilot equivalent and publicly states that they trained it on leaked, proprietary M$ source code. That would actually be an example of hypocrisy.
This is really cool. It takes a hard domain — multiplayer — and makes it much more accessible.

I think the docs link is a great intro: https://docs.hathora.dev
Also the low interest environment was unusual. We could have very easily have a booming market with much higher rates. Just look at the 90s.
Because we adopted a centrally planned economy, not unlike the communist states we villified after the war ended and we resumed freemarket capitalism in this country. I don't see the U.S. successfully doing that again today with the way the political landscape is fractured and the overall view of government in the eyes of many.
If you have to ban competition and send them taxpayer money, maybe that's a sign from god.
Speculators and manipulators like Wata/Heritage. An auction house that allows anonymous bids and sales? Hello wash trading.
> for most people, decentralization is an anti-feature.

Before general literacy, written documentation was an anti-feature.

As people gain technical literacy, decentralisation will become more broadly relevant.
I think some would argue that the interpretation that the EPA was arguing for was itself an agency carrying out a Democratic/liberal doctrine that would (currently) be legislatively toxic.

(And possibly both these statements are true? And what should be done about it, if anything?)
> you're often going to be better off eliminating the Arc/Mutex anyway

Not always. Mutexes can be really fast (10-20ns), especially since they often optimistically spin, and Arc in Rust is (often) relatively low cost since you can hand out "free" refs without touching the atomic.

If removing the Arc/Mutex would require allocations the Arc/Mutex could easily be faster.
The street artist Banksy put real works for sale in NYC at a booth outside the met. He sold very few, for almost nothing. This after people going through extraordinary lengths to preserve anything he created.

https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/video-banksy-set-up...
You're last statement should be:

"who cares, america won't manufacture low end stuff like computer chips but we'll manufacture high end stuff like Intellectual Property."

As this is the reality.
> 2. Contention is resolved by adding the blocked thread into a wait queue. The queue is allocated/discovered via a global hash table, keyed by the address of the mutex. The mutex keeps a stable address while locked, as the lock holds shared ownership and so the mutex cannot be moved for the duration.

Wouldn't this break any platform-specific priority/importance donation mechanisms, or does Linux have a way to work around this?
Ssshhh. You’ll expose the incompetence of our leaders at managing infrastructure.
I would certainly prefer to live like that once that is within my means and skills.

But until then, is there no middle ground between surveilance state and free society?
> Well-staffed tech companies building web3 applications often build their own implicit L2 solutions because it’s just how you connect things in a distributed system with modern L1 blockchain constraints.

Sure. The banks do the exact same thing, which is what makes them so goddamn profitable to run. The problem is that the entire cryptocurrency space now has to choose between two destinies:

a. Default on the trustless model in order to continue scaling, passing the actual verification process to private validators who may or may not be scamming you.

b. Let every token lose it's value, allow the system to suffocate and continue pushing for airtight security until the bitter end.

Now, neither of those are attractive choices. I'll tell you what, though: I'd rather have a $20 bill than $20,000 of Monopoly money.
The first few times I read my ebook while on a treadmill I had serious sea legs when I dismounted. Finally I adjusted, but man that was something else.
> But what if that system is now affecting many other people, or the entire planet in a significant way? Should they have some voice over that?

This is an important point you are making. What you must recognize is that they absolutely can have some voice over that.

Just as we can write software (or smart contracts) that allow no one to update and fix such issues. We can write software that allows one person to do it. Or we can lock the ability behind a multisig, requiring a majority of the software's developers to do so. Still not good enough for the use case due to far-reaching trust ramifications? Then we write code that delegates the ability to trigger such an update to the entire userbase of the application.

In the world of contract platforms, you have to keep in mind that contracts and the tools that you can build with them are primitives. They are composable. There is no problem in building a DAO to control the ability to update a contract (or trigger arbitrary functions to remedy critical situations caused by unexpected and undesired state changes). This is already done in practice in various applications--and sometimes with undesirable outcomes! Of course, these are still experimental times and lessons are still being learned.
Why not? They're a far more reputable business than many online stores, for example.
Data structures being badly designed is a perfectly valid and common blocker. That is why we try to design things correctly, after all - to avoid blocking future engineers when they try to change the system. Badly designed data structures can make a system impossible to extend. Regardless of who is to blame, we need to call such things out so that people actually pay attention to data design in the future, and avoid things that are extremely costly but necessary to fix. So I'd say it is productive to point it out.
Kudos for your response, sir.
Once std::thread::scope[1] is stabilised, in a lot of cases you're not going to need to wrap your Mutexes in Arcs anymore:

#![feature(scoped_threads)]
use std::thread;
use std::sync::Mutex;

fn main() {
let a = Mutex::new(0u32);

thread::scope(|s| {
s.spawn(|| {
*a.lock().unwrap() += 1;
});
s.spawn(|| {
*a.lock().unwrap() += 1;
});
});
assert_eq!(*a.lock().unwrap(), 2);
}

A nice glimpse of structured concurrency.

[1]: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/thread/fn.scope.html>

Edit: removed unnecessary "mut" from declaration of "a".
Yes. It makes everything in Hawaii painfully expensive.
Other negative side effects that I'm aware of:

* disaster recovery efforts to Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria
* cost of goods in Hawaii
I genuinely think there is like "Curse of the New Office".

Nearly every place I've been ends up either having layoffs or collapsing entirely 6 - 12 months after moving into a bigger office.
None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant.

Even if you personally dispute it, Congress explicitly granted the EPA the authority to determine what's an air pollutant and what's not:

> For the purpose of establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Administrator shall within 30 days after December 31, 1970, publish, and shall from time to time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant—emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
Templates will be manual, so in reality we are just gluing together various parts to make a whole, with an understanding of how big the topology can get so we can do nice layout.
An good example is the former shipyard at Sausalito, CA.

We needed ships.

The government went in and built a huge shipyard.
They hired private contractors, and built 24/7.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinship)

They needed workers. They hired Frank Loyd Wright to build huge buildings to house workers arriving mainly from the south.

The huge apartments went up very quickly.

There were few regulations. I imagine it was like the way China puts up huge projects.

After the war, a lot of the workforce moved on to greener pastures. America used to have a lot of good blue collar jobs.

The apartments are now used as Section 8 housing.

Jump ahead to today. The town of Sausalito didn't like looking at low income Anchor-Outs. They didn't mind when Paul Allen moored in then same spot for months though on his mega-yacht. The town basically hired some dig bat who was related to a town council member to spit out a study on the dangers these Anchor-outs are doing to the Ell grass in Richardson bay. The town used that "cooked" study to confiscate boats, and crush them. The low income people basically went from boat dwellers to living in tents in Dunphy Park. I'm sorry about my tone, but I don't like it when authorities abuse their power, especially when it comes to the low income.
It's more than that. Computer scientists have a way of elevating computer science at the cost of computer programming.
My understanding is that refinery capacity is a significant problem.
I think I'd be happier to see total_cmp anywhere that it's clear we want some consistent order and it's not important what the order actually is.

The hand-rolled solution risks inconsistency. Given the opportunity to pick the order, people are going to pick different orders, sometimes by mistake, and providing total_cmp fixes that.

I can see that in things which decided they should be Ord but internally have a f32 and so they need to implement the comparison themselves, total_cmp seems like it's almost always going to be the right choice for that unless partial_cmp with unwrap() is definitely correct and they're sure of it.
Your comment seems like a disingenuous attack rooted in sour grapes rather than principles.

Stock options are regulated and less new, but they are also sophisticated, poorly understood by the average people, and manipulated easily.

The idea that traditional financial markets are 'fair' to the common man is pretty naive: many brokerages intentionally front run their customers or charge unconscionable fees, and the market is rife with non-fiduciary investment advisors who sell products based on what provides the largest kickback rather than what's in the best interest of their customer.
I've been in quite a few situations over the last three years where you want scream that shit is about to hit the fan because you have access to privileged info, but you can't. I did have to avoid a lot of conversation or point blank say I don't know. Not trying to excuse the CEO,but often it's a bit more complicated than yes or no.
You joke, but that's pretty much how it is in Russian lol.

Unlike in English-centered naming conventions (and probably others, but I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on that), in Russian you dont really choose a child's middle name. It is always just father's name with slight suffix changes based on whether the person is a male (resulting in a -vich ending) or female (-vna ending).

For example, if your first name is Alexey, and you have a son and a daughter, their middle names will be Alexeyevich and Alexeyevna respectively.
Wikipedia has a good graph that illustrates your point - most justices become more liberal over time and very rarely become more conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...
It's literally being used as a place where people embark on their trip. It is a major source port for people boarding Alaskan cruises. The "loophole" is that you started somewhere else -- clearly the cruise should have started in Vancouver.
My Bayesian priors want to know more about the author.
> The way I read the article was that by being on GitHub, you are implicitly agreeing to no longer be a FOSS project as regards licensing.

In this case, they have violated our license. The license states how it cannot be changed, and implicit changes by the hosting company is not one of them. Isn't there a legal case here? If no, then the license is not violated. This makes me wonder why not take Github to court vs a tamper tantrum (we're taking our marbles and going home!)

> the other stuff you said is...kind of irrelevant.

It goes to show that Github is providing really, an excellent service to FOSS. We could migrate to GitLab, though, why?

I know that sounds like 'fan-boy', but the list is large, useful, and all highly available and free to FOSS. By those measure, it's a good service.

> Sure, you get a lot of convenience from GitHub.

The items are more than convenience, they are core to our application and project. Uprooting them is not a small task.

The automatic integration with issues is excellent for example, before we did that - we had no idea how many users were seeing errors. We run a thick client that is downloaded and added an integration to upload error reports to github issues. That has been pretty invaluable. So, we have to move all that, to another host: who is to say that other host will always be a better FOSS steward? who is to say that other host has anyone near the level of features? An integrated CI/CD and hosting of release artifacts is huge.

So, on the premise that our license has been violated, instead of sue'ing, we should take our FOSS somewhere else? Again, the list is large, we need to migrate all of that. It took a long time to get out of sourceforge, it's not even more work to get out of github because we automated so much (to allow our team to scale better). It's not just a matter of 'convenience' to go somewhere that is feature-sub-par and spend the better part of a year to do that and nothing else.

[edits] Clarity, conciseness
My point is simply that anyone expecting Starlink will treat you better than AT&T does, and to act on behalf of the US, is very unfamiliar with both history and Elon Musk.

A hell of a lot of Tesla customers paid $thousands for self-driving, since, what, 2016? Tesla just laid off its whole self-driving department. What are the odds they will now issue refunds? Care to bet?
re-aridification