skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Formal verifiers don't verify axioms.

You seem to envision formal verification only operating on some pre-agreed set of axioms, as if one can not use formal verification until the whole of humanity has agreed on them.

Unless one makes the overarching single theory a taboo there is in fact a single theory if you don't omit logical entailment operators as in modal accounts. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence#Modal_acco...

Suppose Alice believes all humans are mortal:

Alice ⊢ X ∈ Human => Mortal(X)

And suppose Alice believes she is human herself:

Alice ⊢ Alice ∈ Human

Then she could conclude using a rule of inference (modus ponens) she believes in that she is mortal:

Alice ⊢ Mortal(Alice)

The same formal system can contain your beliefs, my beliefs, those of Newton and those of Einstein etc...

The turnstiles may be nested suppose Bob has expressed his beliefs, and Alice has found a statement resulting from Bob's beliefs, then she can express that he should then also believe that statement:

Alice ⊢ Bob ⊢ SomeStatementPerhapsEvenALogicalContradiction

All these turnstiles may be subscripted with a version or time indicator to model beliefs changing over time, such that when someone derives a contradiction from your believes you either drown in your own rules (principle of explosion) or reject at least one of your axioms that was used in the proof resulting in the contradiction (at the cost of losing the theorems that depended on that belief)...

Consider for example 2 encompassed theories, for simplicity chosen to be a plattitude of Newtonian physics and Special Relativistic physics:

Newton ⊢ SomeInstantaneousActionStatements

Einstein ⊢ ConstantSpeedOfLightInVacuumStatement

One and the same overarching theory can contain express all these theories, and we can exert pressures on one another to drop axioms, convince one another to promote a result to the status of an axiom (like Einstein proposed to bombard the deductions of Lorenz and others on the length contraction, field distortion and mass change in the back then seemingly very specific context of fast electrons in the theory of electromagnetism into fundamental mechanical postulates).

EDIT: the main reason people seem to believe in the strictly monotheistic applicability of formal verification is because they tend to only or mostly be exposed to mathematical statements where the boring repetitive turnstiles on the left are omitted for brevity
Jenkins :troll:
Mozilla PMs seem hell bent on dictating where the market goes, and it's not working.
Broadcasting you have guns is about as smart as broadcasting you have $15K of tools in your garage, or $15K of jewelry, or $15K of bicycles.

The difference, though, is if any of the above is stolen, the gun owner will say "SEE?" and buy more guns for protection.
Interesting article, but I feel like this article is built around assumptions of similarity that I don't feel really hold up. Take this quote for instance:

> "We miscalculate the extent to which our opponents’ viewpoints differ from our own."

A more accurate statement is that we tend to misunderstand the ways in which another person's viewpoints differ from our own.

For example, my mom recently told me, in almost these exact words, that she is confidant in her opinions, but doesn't feel any need to rely on facts or evidence to build or maintain those opinions. That's a pretty radical outlook and puts her at direct odds with quite a number of other folks.

I strongly suspect that there are very large differences in humanity's views on topics like epistemology, authority, institutionalization and other very core concepts. When I read articles like this, it's not really clear to me that the authors themselves understand just how divergent these views can be, or how best to get participants to elucidate their core feelings. For my own part, I've seen that under most situations, people will rely on euphemisms and fuzzy language to soften their most radical viewpoints. For example I had to be very direct with my mom to get her to make the admissions that she did, and she only did it because I backed her into a bit of a corner. In other conversations, she would deflect, change the subject, or use language in ambiguous ways in order to appear more reasonable.

This article hints at the very reason why this article is difficult to take to seriously:

>while it remains unclear exactly why this intervention works, Rodríguez and Halperin speculated that it has to do with the desire to maintain a positive self-view.”

This only holds when the table stakes are low and the stakes are never low when it comes to someone's most core beliefs. It looks like the authors succeeded in coaching people on how to appear reasonable, but it's not clear to me that they succeeded in actually teaching people how to be more reasonable. In short, I wonder if this article is naive because I'm not sure if they ever got to the heart of any particular person, including themselves.
I feel like the only thing worst than Visa or Mastercard regulating this would be the US government.
I think you're reading too much into the omission of historical narrative in this particular article about linguistics. The author, Ariel Sabar, wrote an entire book about his father's forced exile from his native Kurdistan by the Iraqi government.
I actually did one of these in college (like 20 years ago), and got it perfect. Not sure if it was a DRM word list specifically, since it was just a psych major room mate testing me, but it seemed very similar.

But even if I didn't, that's not really the kind of thing I would ever call upon my memory for. Usually it is something like (real, recent examples from my life): "Who said what, when, how, and to whom", "who was here and who left first", "did this scene happen before or after this other scene in the movie", "who threw the first punch", etc.
In case of DevSpace (and likely other tools like that), it actually can create the deployment config (Helm chart) for you if needed.
> I've suspected that the next place cryptocurrencies will see usage for actual consumer payments will be porn.

It's been done, to various levels of success; it has it's humble beginnings with cam girls via BTC (look up Girls gone Bitcoin), and then as alts got traction post 2017 things like CUM (Cryptographic Ultra Money) [0] try to make headway but failed miserably as most alts usually do.

After Onlyfans threatened to take down all the adult content it had a real chance of making itself a MVP in this ecosystem, unfortunately these projects live and die based on short-term price swings and as you can see the value has made it essentially unfavorable for anyone but pump and dumpers.

I'd argue that BTC can and has shown more promise for sex workers, I've gone into detail about my first hand experience when in the early stage of my startup I interacted with the 'ladies of backpage' when Visa and MC shutoff access to purchasing ads on Backpage on here before. I just think that sex workers have enough on their plates that it shouldn't be this hard to just to solve something so trivial which many pay for, espcially if either Visa or MC want to be puritanical it.

0: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/cumrocket/
I slightly disagree - I don't think Visa et al should be forced to do anything.

I think the problem is external to Visa, where a once capitalist money accumulating machine, is having internal debates on what Furry depictions are allowed.

I feel the unnoticed casualty of the "Culture Wars", that neither side seems to care about, is that harmless stuff should just be left alone.

We don't have to have a view on everything.
I think recurring payments are a pretty good use case for smart contracts, you load up a wallet defined in the contract with some cash, similar to a prepaid debit card, then authorize scheduled payments specifying a recipient, a frequency, and an amount.

It’s not ideal for that type of derelict subscription business model (e.g. the gym), but neither are prepaid debit cards or virtual cards with predetermined spending limits, and they probably already contend with those.
On top of that, Monkey Island 2 was never a real pixel-art game to begin with, all the backgrounds were hand painted[1] and scanned. Only the character sprites and objects were still pixel-art.

[1] https://mixnmojo.com/media/galleries/Monkey-Island-2-LeChuck...
There are a lot of languages at risk of totally going extinct. UNESCO keeps a list of them, but the link has ironically also gone dead.

https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2...
I don’t understand the point of takes like this. The sites are all on different hardware in different data centers in different locations performing different tasks. Even the frameworks compared aren’t comparable. Angular should be compared to React. Not a client+server hybrid framework that utilizes React for UI and mainly exists to simplify tooling and code-splitting. Even if this comparison were relevant, the idea that you should choose a technology based on the minor variations in perception of performance of one person in one location is absurd. This is coming from someone who has had performance issues in Next.js and Angular. Both of which had little to do with Next.js and Angular.
Your hustle is bonkers Lee. Content, engagement, etc. Much respect
> You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

I explicitly did the exact opposite of that.

You are clearly confused but at this point I don’t think I can help you.
> Servers can also be liability. You need to document, implement and maintaing hardening, have a process for regularly patching os and apps, monitor logs, have backup and disaster recovery procedures, regularly test the procedures, figure how to implement data encryption at rest, implement high-availability and so on.

That is true.

> Good platform-as-service can solve many things for you and let you focus on the core thing you are providing.

I don't see how with platform-as-a-service solutions you can skip documentation, maintenance, log monitoring, disaster recovery, backups, test procedures, or encryption at rest.
You assume the person has a clear picture of their childhood home. At least for me I only have very fuzzy mental pictures of my childhood homes, I'd have to try to piece them together to draw anything so I know I'd get many tings wrong. I don't think that everyone adds a lot of fake information to their memory unconsciously, I know some does based on those studies but no study found that everyone did that. Instead I do know that my memory is very rarely wrong, when I answer test questions and I remember something from long ago I am almost always correct when answering for example so I got good grades without studying much at all.
Ham radio ops have had their information public for years, lot's of expensive radio equipment to be had. I don't understand the issue here.
>It's only supported by the majority of Americans until you ask them about specific situations and policy implications.

It also seems you're trying to stack the deck in your favor. If you're going to ask questions designed to pull support away with cherry picked circumstances, then you should also ask cherry picked questions leading the other way, like pointing out how many mass shootings are done with guns that bypassed background checks.

So cite your poll please. I'd like to see the questions.

Or you can ask a fairly neutral question, like [1], a poll with the question "How much do you support or oppose each of the following? Requiring background checks on all gun sales"

73% strongly support, 15% somewhat support, 4% somewhat oppose, 4% strongly oppose, 5% don't know/no opinion.

That's a pretty neutral question, has massive support.

Let's see your data on your split questions.

[1] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-ff725...
I don't think that the town squares and forums of the internet should be controlled and paid for by advertising companies. Nazis are not banned on any moral or political basis: It's purely a buisness decision. It sounds fine but when you begin spouting some unprofitable ideas they're not going to hesitate to ban you too.
MANAGER: "okay, now we need to make sure we never hire a deepfake. all technical interviews are now proctored with identity verification and random shocks of pain. failing to react to a shock appropriately will immediately disqualify someone from the 8th round interview"
> This paragraph is exceedingly unclear

That's putting it mildly.

Based on the writing, my best career advice to this person would be to take a community college English composition class and/or join the local Toastmasters.

Extra time spent working on communication skills almost always pays off more than extra time spent on technical skills.
> can request services in French even in a completely anglo region of say, ontario and I'd be legally entitled to do so. At a federal and provincial level.

Ontario and the feds could just vote similar laws.

My understanding is that anyone among the feds trying that would just lose their next elections but at the province level it seems doable.
January 6th Committee Surprise Hearing – New Evidence [video]
A series of bits can be enormously complex, so you aren't saying much with that statement. You act as if checking the right bits off is some trivial thing for a sufficiently long chain of bits. Even guessing something as small as 16 bits in a row correctly is non-trivial, but scale it up to 256 bits and you've got yourself state of the art security. I don't care how much AI you have. No AI or assembled team of scammers short of having an outright social engineer who is also a real software engineer is going to pull that off against a technical interviewer with critical thinking and interpersonal skills.
> If you want to gain an academic understanding, then mises.org is a good resource(though some ppl are against it)

mises.org shills mostly discredited, heterodox economics. It's basically a bunch of conspiracy theories. Mises and Hayek are important philosophers and did some good work in a subset of economics but their subsequent 'followers' have used that to try give credence to their terrible conspiracy theories.
Wish I could submit entries as I love using Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) for yard projects like garden boxes and swingsets. Great option for folks in the Pacific Northwest. It's effectively an invasive species in its natural habitat though because of forest mismanagement!
https://www.snwwood.com/channels/website/documents/restorati...

Update: found it! Submitting: https://www.wood-database.com/donating-wood-samples/
In this specific case, banks already have definitions and obligations regarding who they can refuse to deal with. I’d argue credit cards should at least be as permissive as these.
I think proposed UUID v7 is sortable, FWIW.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peabody-dispatch-new-u...
Monopolies/oligopolies should. Imagine if your power company decided they don't want to serve you.
> When the Euro came out, trillions in wealth were automatically converted to it.

This is true, but also misleading: the physical Euro switch took place over months, and involved a coordinated public campaign to encourage millions of Europeans to exchange their physical bills. Digitalization helped with banking, but a significant human and policy effort occurred in parallel.

And there's another problem: it's really not clear what it would mean for "all USD to be converted to BTC." BTC has already been issued, and will continue to be algorithmically issued. The Euro switch could not be economically triaged per se, because it was an in-kind transition. No such transition is possible for cryptocurrencies, unless we allow a central authority into the mix.
Software Supply Chain Compliance with Aqua’s Chain-Bench
> They've no obligation to platform anyone at all

That's just objectively false we have a long history of forcing companies to take customers from Utilities, Americans with Disabilities Act, anti trust laws, forcing companies to license technology, and a whole bunch of other ones when needed; This is no different.

We are talking about it because we find the current state with Visa and MasterCard as unacceptable.
> Teams at the San Mateo office were tasked with evaluating customer vehicle data related to the Autopilot driver-assistance features and performing so-called data labeling.

My sympathies with the folks laid off, but do American firms still do data labeling in-house? I assume most of it is out-sourced via Scale or other vendors to eventually India, Vietnam etc.
Do you ever sometimes have mistaken beliefs?

Could you have a mistaken belief about your memory and it's veracity?
> Think of prostitution what you will but over there it's legal work and they pay their taxes.

Prostitution may be a line of work where less tax is paid.

This does not make the act of prostitution less legitimate.

Hair dressers and tattoo artists also, on average, declare less of their total income, and we don't consider hair dressers and tattoo artists illegitimate businesses. We just expect them to pay taxes and tolerate, to some degree, if they don't. Going to the hair dresser or getting a tattoo isn't seen as morally objectional because of what they pay in taxes.

Less tax is paid because of cash.

This is also true for prostitution. In part because the anonymity of cash is preferable among the customers, because the sex worker avoids scrutiny by the bank, and because sex workers don't necessarily have work permits in the countries in which they operate.

Conversely, we can think of morally objectional jobs where taxes are paid.
Yes, and we don't apply them to some companies for a reason.

We call these businesses natural monopolies and regulate them. Like forcing them to serve everyone or cap their profits.
Risk for a bank is having the government crawl up their various orifices, not losing money.
At the pace of mutation, the vaccines to be made available this fall based on this will already be obsolete.

They need to put a lot more emphasis on theraputics.
Actually, a citation is hardly needed here.

1. People want more money.

2. Remote jobs are becoming much more common as of late.

3. It is (much) easier to double up on remote jobs than non-remote jobs.

4. Doubling up on remote jobs results in more money.

5. Therefore, there is a growing movement of people who are doubling up on remote jobs. QED.

I mean, it's pretty unlikely that this argument doesn't hold. I feel like you'd need a citation to counter it.
And the laws still apply to them. They are not allowed to sell to anyone not allowed to legally own a firearm, e.g. under 18, felon, out of state. If they do they are committing a crime.

And they will need an FFL if they make a business of selling privately.
Oops, I mistook the casualty figure for the total deaths. In any case, even if "only" 3500 people died in 1 day, that is still a rate approximately 4000x higher than the average rate over the past 20 years.
> Money is literally older than history.

Standardized weights of specie are older than history; you can find different perspectives on how much they count as "money".

But history begins at a time when the role of money in society is still very much up for debate; Hammurabi's code (~1000 years after the beginning of history, give or take) includes a provision specifying that, if you run a bar, you can't require customers to pay in silver but must also accept grain.

Grain as currency continues across the world for a few thousand years after that, but grain is a terrible currency because it spoils very quickly. (Counting things like "rats got into the grain" as a form of spoilage.)
For fun, try creating a new Facebook account.

You'd be surprised at how much info it asks for and how hard it tries to get you to give up your government ID -- if it even lets you.

Now think how valuable that info is to their advertisers - the dark web doesn't even have that data.

Facebook is the perfect ad engine - it just so happens your friends use it too.
Break up the oligopolies and I agree completely.

If Mastercard and Visa refuse to do business with you, you will soon find yourself out of business.
> but I can't imagine any US state passing a law saying immigrants aren't allowed to access government services in Spanish.

That would run afoul of a lot of state and federal laws that stipulates the government has an obligation to render services in an "accessible" way (including language-wise), and potentially the constitution itself.

I'm not sure Canada has precedents like that.
these people would be happy to be tyranically opressed so long as the opressor is registered as a private corporation.
Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked.

For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system.

Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.
> Pornhub had a large blogpost claiming that thye are better at filtering illegal content than facebook, and that the latter has many times greater problems with illegal content

Facebook is also orders of magnitude larger and has to deal with content that blurs the line between legal and illegal. It's a significantly more difficult task.
Current Events - Open Source News
> However, I think the point about pixel art making a game a "throwback" is a little unfair.

I agree, but that’s also not what Gilbert is saying. The problem is not whether it “is” a throwback, but whether it is perceived as a throwback by the general public. That kind of perception drives conversations about Thimbleweed Park and shapes people’s perceptions about it.

Pixel art is, unfortunately, perceived to be low effort. All I really mean by this is that there’s a discrepancy between how hard people think pixel art is to make, and how hard it actually is to make. This makes it more challenging to actually sell games that have pixel art.
It really puzzles me why existing gun laws that everyone agrees on aren't enforced.

How are there so many repeat offenders that are violent with guns?

It seems to be some kind of trend to make guns a white-collar crime or something. Like, if you don't file the right paperwork before loaning someone a pistol at the range, then it's a crime; but if you mug someone its the gun's fault.
The issue is not MC or Visa protecting sex trafficking victims or kids. It's purely a moral code.

> Out of curiosity, about five years ago Stoya contacted CCBill, one of the biggest payment companies specialising in porn. Rather than the “acceptable use” policy on its website, she asked if she could see their full guidance. The detailed list. The one that precisely laid out the limits of what CCBill believed Visa and ­Mastercard would tolerate.

> The four pages of rules shared with her are written in a lawyerly tone and are, in parts, totally bizarre. A section on furries, an online subculture interested in anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities, reads “content that depicts furries and humans engaged in sexual acts are not permitted across the board. Content that depicts furry engaged in sexual acts with another furry is acceptable across the board.” Lest that leave any room for misinterpretation: “Please note, per Visa ­regulations a furry that contains human-like characteristics is not permitted.” So, no half-man, half-furry.
I have not read it, but have often seen this one recommended:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Prove-Structured-Daniel-Velleman-...

How to Prove It: A Structured Approach by Velleman. New edition came out in 2019. It appears to be aimed at your level, and pricewise isn't too bad.