skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your "strong team" has to include product and engineering management, though, not just engineers. If you don't have management that "gets it", they're going to ruin the team's ability to actually be agile, because they're going to try to be "agile" according to some bureaucratic process.
Is Ookla an official data source for the RDOF evaluation? How does Ookla know what the average speed is? It only knows the average speed of users that do a speed test and most people only do it when they are suspicious of a problem or testing a new setup that is likely not yet fully configured. Typically I use it when I am installing new hardware and I might get 10 bad results and then 1 good result. Once I get the good result I stop. 100 days go by that I don't need to check it at all until I have a slow connection and then I do a speed check and see that it is slow. Seems like it would be highly biased towards testing under the poorest conditions.
This is my opinion, too. The JavaScripts should not be required just to read the documents, files, list of files, etc; even if some of the other features do use it.
This is a nice clean app. Loving the simplicity.
Have you considered adding an edit function? It would help to fix links that no longer work or fix a typo, etc.
> Scrum and Agile is not the same thing.

Agreed. Scrum is only a subset of Agile like Kanban (that has a different approach than Scrum), but they are both Agile.
Github's position doesn't appear to offer any advantage with regards to Copilot's creation.

OpenAI Codex (which copilot grew out of IIRC), Amazon and Salesforce versions of Copilot exist. Huggingface Bloom was trained on a sizeable amount of public code. Tab9, now behind, was one of the earliest to combine public code repositories with Deep learning for smarter autocomplete. The data requirements for Transformer scaling mean any and all public facing repositories will be assimilated, whether Github, Gitlab, Stackoverflow or so on.

Wish more energy was spent on how to fund pretrained models that will also run efficiently on CPUs, fine-tuneable to one's language and local environment. Removing reliance on cloud services.

Curious about people's opinions on Dall-E 2 or Google Image-gen, which parallel pretty much the same thing with Renders, Illustrations and Paintings, or upcoming models doing the same for voice acting and music. Coders seem more excited about the potential of those tools.
> Over 60% of the US population think abortion should be legal. More than half of US states are (or are very likely) to institute abortion bans.

Could it be that a majority of the population in those states are against abortion? Wouldn't
Why should this be regulated at the federal level?

I'm pro-choice but I can understand that some people believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. If a majority of people in a state believe that, isn't it democratic to let them make laws accordingly?
Marginal value itself is unstable compared to real value. Sure, the amount of air you require may change, albeit insignificantly. Marginal value can go +/- total value at any moment due to external factors.

> Breathable air and drinkable water have the greatest real value of anything, but their marginal values are zero and near zero respectively for a number of reasons

Case in point. Sure, abundant now. But when they are not, which we know is actually happening, that “0 marginal value” will quickly become “whatever we can afford so we can survive”.
No incentive - pat on the back in public, shaming in private.

Politicians like big business.
No, I haven't watched Watchmen (heh).

I just found the similarity between the app's name and onomatopoeia of a bomb countdown-timer funny.
you know how to use google right?
> If you want to argue "meant to", you must reference that to a time when the USA was about 17 states, all of roughly equal power, economy and population. 1803, just before the Louisiana Purchase.

This is blatantly false. The 1800 Census has Virginia with a population of 676k persons (~340k free), with Delaware and Rhode Island having only 64k and 69k respectively. Their economies and 'power' (state militias?) were also nowhere near equal.

The senate was setup specifically because of that disparity, and was designed to prevent larger states from imposing their will on smaller states.

Every individual state is _supposed_ to be sovereign. They hold equal legal status to each other. That's why they are explicitly granted equal suffrage in the Senate.

The fundamental disconnect here is that people from your perspective view the federal government as 'the government', when it was never intended or designed to be that. The federal government was supposed to operate in a much smaller capacity than it has for the past hundred years, with the vast majority of its current responsibilities handled by the states.

> "supposed to" is in the same light. The system that worked pretty well for about 5 million people in the pre-industrial age (and assumed that everyone not male, white, and a land-owner was distinctly second-class) does not work so well 200 years later in a world power of 330 million people.

Says who? There is plenty to criticize about the US government at all levels, but, as someone who no doubt regards American Exceptionalism as an outrageous trope, how else do you explain the success and dominance of the US worldwide? It is, without question, the most powerful, wealthy, and successful country to have ever existed in history.

The US is not exceptional or unique in its history of slavery, natural resources, population, or landmass. As one of the few things unique to the US, it's entirely reasonable to attribute at least part of that success to our form of government.

edit: And, by the way: slave-owning states favored proportional representation in Congress. They were growing at a much faster pace than the northern states.
Consumption isn't illegal just possession.
In terms of transistor count, the deck is closer to the latest and greatest iPhone, is it not?
It is easier to build centralized on top of decentralized than the other way around. This is the whole idea.

People trend to centralization but it doesn’t mean: let’s give up on decentralization and just give one company, or a select few, the keys to the entire kingdom.

besides, as uximproves it will be easy to just use the blockchain directly. like using an on-chain long or short position, or staking some value, rather than only doing it on a centralized exchange.
your last point isn't true - EMV cards with a chip (modern credit cards) use public key cryptography and don't reveal more than they need to to the merchant. Typing in the card numbers (or swiping it) will slowly stop in the US, as it has in most other developed countries by now.

I disagree with the rest also - mainly on the grounds that for a normal person, there isn't any benefit and as the OP says, the status quo is preferable
Perhaps because there is a (small) risk of leaking confidential information through its output.

But that's not as damning as it sounds.

First, we know Copilot, if given the right prompt and told to autocomplete repeatedly without any manual input, can regurgitate bits of code seen many times in many different repositories, like the famous Quake fast inverse square root function and the text of licenses. That doesn't mean it does so under normal prompts and normal use. Perhaps it does sometimes, and that would be a real concern. But any regurgitation that isn't under normal use, which only happens if the user is trying to make Copilot regurgitate, is not a problem when it comes to copyright violations of open source code (since anyone trying to violate an open source license can do so much more easily without using Copilot), yet it may still be a problem when it comes to leaking confidential information.

Second, whether something is a copyright violation and whether it risks leaking confidential information are somewhat orthogonal. A copyright violation usually requires at least several lines of code, and more if the copying is not verbatim, or if the code is just a series of function calls which must be written near-verbatim in order to use an API. On the other hand, `const char PRIVATE_KEY[] = ` could hypothetically complete to something dangerous in just one line of code. That said, it almost certainly wouldn't, since even if a private key was stored in source code in the first place (obviously it shouldn't be), it probably wouldn't be repeated enough to be memorized by the model. Yet…

…third, the risk tolerances are different. If, to use completely made-up numbers, 0.1% of Copilot users commit minor copyright violations and 0.001% commit major ones, that's probably not a big deal considering how many copyright violations are committed by hand – sometimes intentionally, mostly unintentionally. (When it comes to unintentional ones, consider: Did you know that if you copy snippets from Stack Overflow, you're supposed to include attribution even in any binary packages you distribute, and also the resulting code is incompatible with several versions of the GPL? Did you know that if you distribute binaries of code written in Rust, you need to include a copy of the standard library's license?) But when it comes to leaking confidential information, even one user getting it would be somewhat bad (though admittedly Microsoft does distribute much of their source code privately to some parties), and taking even a small risk would be a questionable decision when there is a ready alternative.
Oh, indeed, my mistake. A team can of course deploy its bounded context at whatever granularity it prefers. The important thing is just that that deployment schedule is unrelated to the deployment schedule of other teams/contexts.
It mean pretty much nothing. SpaceX has 10 years (2028) to get things up and running. If Starship isn't running in a year or two SpaceX has more trouble than just the RDOF competition. 2.0 Starlink sats are theoretically a 10x capacity improvement and it NEEDS Starship for launch. Falcon can't lift it.
The GP was talking about "moving the branch pointer", which checkout does not do. I am encouraging you (for the second time) to read the thread you are replying into...

git checkout can also nuke changes from both working copy and staging area. `git checkout <path>` will nuke working copy (and auto-completion is likely to give you a path when you were looking for a branch), `git checkout <ref> <path>` will nuke both. No --force required in either case, so let's not pretend that you can't lose changes without a scary-looking flag like --force or --hard.
How did a rental startup I’d never heard of leak my home address?
Bird hork, not a Biblical apocalypse.

Not yet, anyway. We can hope.

In another time airdrops of semi-digested fish would have been seen as a good thing. Miraculous manna. Today we demand it come in tin cans.
How could they have been more explicit? From the dissent (emphasis mine):

JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting.

For half a century, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.

...

Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a woman confronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonable limits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, with all the life-transforming consequences that act involves. And in thus safeguarding each woman’s reproductive freedom, the Constitution also protected “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in [this Nation’s] economic and social life.”. But no longer. As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare. Some women, especially women of means, will find ways around the State’s assertion of power. Others—those without money or childcare or the ability to take time off from work—will not be so fortunate. Maybe they will try an un- safe method of abortion, and come to physical harm, or even die. Maybe they will undergo pregnancy and have a child, but at significant personal or familial cost. At the least, they will incur the cost of losing control of their lives. The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all.

...

The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.
0: / 22:57 How Positioning Changes Helped 3-4x Leads in Less Than 1 Year
You might be interested to try generating an audio stream from the eBook you're reading. Instead of bying a specialized "audiobook" format, you can just use the built-in text to speech too for your OS:

See info and sample here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30053340
Placing rulings on hold pending appeal is a normal thing. Not corruption.
Edited my post to reflect this.
They're in a pretty tough position if they're negotiating a merger/purchase. Don't those talks usually include an agreement not to disclose them? Something about not wanting it to be used to solicit competing offers?

If they're in the middle of talks and someone blabs and an employee asks about it, they effectively either have to blow up the deal, lie, or say "I can't talk about it" (which would be seen as a yes anyways).
Computers are great, I'm sitting at a cafe working on my computer right now! If "looking at the comments on HN stories" counts as working. And every time my attention wanders from the applications where things that unambiguously count as working happen, it's got the entire Internet to get lost in. I've never been more productive!
I generally try to avoid HN discussions about politics, geopolitics or anything related to human society, because there are some ass-backwards, heartless, libertarian people here who don't care about how outcomes affect people as long as it happens to fit with their ideology. Seeing the responses here makes me feel justified.

The only reason why I come back is because the technical discussions are incredibly good.
> This is just the MIT press department embarrassing themselves again.

Is the MIT press department capable of being embarrassed? Maybe they embarrass MIT, or at least people associated with MIT, but I don't think they embarrass themselves or they'd have changed their behavior.
Great stuff! Reactive programming is seriously undervalued as a paradigm. I suspect we'll see a lot more work with it in the future.
This is awesome! Thank you! I am so frequently visiting https://tmuxcheatsheet.com/, and it's not even that great of a cheat sheet.
Nice! I had the same thought :)
No questions but I love the illustrations on this post. Nice work!
Simple and Effective Multi-Sentence TTS with Expressive and Coherent Prosody
Yes the EPA, created by congress and given a mandate by congress, must go to congress if it wasn't new powers or authorities....
Open source exisystem is an interesting counter answer, where we dont tey to build sandcastles, big complete things, but often just try to build libraries, protocols, standards that others can expand upon & grow.

This post talks about failing to find the right target. But ratger than sales first, building things & getting to assess their value, getting direct peer feedback, allows an unconjoined exploration of utility/value.
I answered this question above but to answer you directly Congress can use the lawmaking process to overturn any regulation they find egregious. They can also pass laws updating the regulatory powers of an agency. Don't believe the congresspeople claiming "there's nothing they can do" about regulatory agencies. They're lying. Shocking, I know! :)
> The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power.

As someone that supports far harsher emissions regulations than were in effect even before this ruling, is it too much to ask that laws should be clear? As others have pointed out, there's no limit to the danger posed by letting the executive branch creatively interpret legislation.
In my mind all this means that things are working as intended. The Constitution was set up to limit what the federal government can do, and the Congress (particularly the senate) was set up to make it hard to do things that did not have significant support over and above a simple majority.

FDR set up a bureaucratic state to try to get around this, but it’s not what the constitution envisioned.

I for one am happy that unelected bureaucrats (who the voters have no way to get rid of) now have less power, and that politicians who can be held accountable now have to act explicitly to make big changes. Again, working as designed.
> I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority

Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to the principle that Congress can make broad grants of authority.

Delegation of authority is key to every effective organization. Imagine corporations were governed like this, and any time a new service or feature was rolled out, the Board of Directors would have to explicitly sign off on it. Work would grind to a halt.

Which is exactly the point of this ruling, to make the federal government even more ineffectual than it already is as part of an ideological crusade.
If recent SCOTUS decisions are a dead generation reaching out of the grave to get their way in the end against the united consensus of the living, then the living should have no trouble sorting Congress out and getting the right laws and amendments passed the proper way.

Of course, the truth is that living generations are not nearly so united against this as you seem to be suggesting. There certainly isn't enough consensus to pass any amendments. It's not really the dead hand of a bygone generation doing this, it's people who are still very much alive and relevant who disagree with you.
The copilot saga hasn’t even played out yet. If it turns out when the legal fog clears that anyone using copilot is always personally responsible for making sure the code was theirs to use (which I see as the likely outcome)- then what difference does copilot make? It basically lets people copy paste FOSS code automatically. We could always do that and they we were always responsible for the consequences.

The idea that copilot can somehow “AI-wash” the copyright of large/nontrivial pieces of code seems completely crazy.
"Because there's currently no high-level programming language for writing stateful software that I'm aware of. That's the short answer."

Huh?
Reddit is beyond toxic at the moment.
Both parties engage in gerrymandering whenever they get the chance.
Numbers matter.

The more subscribers they add, the less bandwidth is available for each. Adding more birds does not increase overall bandwidth, it just decreases the number of subscribers using each bird. But only a tiny fraction of birds are in range of any subscribers, at any time, so all the subscribers are piled onto those few, and most of them on even fewer.

To be a viable business, able to pay for and launch new birds at the rate they age out and burn up, they need to grow the number of subscribers way, way faster than they can add birds, until bandwidth available per subscriber gets very low.

Money available to pay for buying and launching birds is only a fraction of income, because they also need to pay for trunk bandwidth, add hub stations, and subsidize terminals, which cost way more than the entry price. Trunk bandwidth cost increases with subscriber count.

Most potential subscribers who could afford the service have better terrestrial service already. So it is far from clear, even if they could supply the bandwidth for as many subscribers as they will need, that they can get that many. They could get more by cutting prices, but then take in too little to keep their constellation filled out.

Government subsidies could paper over the difference, but most subscribers will be in countries other than the few writing checks.
>To learn you’ve got to become excited by knowledge, obsessed with it, sometimes dangerously so, sometimes in ways that might border on compulsion, or even addiction. How else could someone, like me, make it through 7 years of graduate studies—3 of those with children—making, on average, just about $20,000 per year before taxes?

To learn ... in the author's specific environment.
There are lot of imaginable ways or possible worlds where to learn doesn't mean to be obsessed with it and sometimes dangerously so, sometimes in ways that might border on compulsion, or even addiction.

This sounds very tik-tok-like in itself where extreme human behaviours bordering on pathological get frighteningly "normalized" and even encouraged, an impression from my occasional uses/observations and talks with young people who use tik-tok frequently.

I get it that often times lamenting about the hostile environment isn't productive either but taking "academic philosophy" into Tik-Tok imhv seems more like a desperate move in the context of how the OP's professional career went so far.

Some people tolerate and even flourish under stresses under which others would break down and be left utterly debilitated. If someone makes it "through" it is often times hard or impossible to distinguish (survival bias) whether it is because of exceptional prowess and some resistance to the outside stresses or just some base level of skill but highly adaptive to the stresses of the outside environment.

For example: the common thread in the Soviet-system in sports was that it physically and psychologically burned through vast majorities of pools of "talented" people and the ones who endured where not only gifted in regards to the respective disciplines but additionally above all else exceptionally good at coping with enormous stress factors not directly related to the sport itself.
Likely, yes. A decent data engineer is probably six figures minimum, whereas data is cheap.
You seem to be suggesting "systems requiring regulation don't work without regulation" which is true. What you are maybe missing is that cryptocurrencies today, regardless of how much people want it not to require regulation, still do require it to function effectively instead of the pain and suffering we see now. The sooner the zealots admit this to themselves, the sooner we can have productive conversations about moving forward.

Moving forward could also mean "designing better decentralized systems that don't require regulation" but that would mean that they would have to acknowledge that the thing they've been throwing their money and voice behind is a faulty prototype not destined for mass scale.
But as others highlighted, sometimes it is not just similar code, it is the exact same code. And if you as a human use code from another repo, you should respect that repo's license. This is the point: as it works now, Copilot isn't taking licenses into account.