skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Really? Are you sure? Give it a go and see what happens.

All you're doing is moving the fraud potential from the customer to the merchant. Without the network and with instant finality, you've left them with no recourse.

Both credit cards and crypto as a payment primitive in isolation are secure. However, that's a very myopic view of a transaction. A transaction extends beyond simply the payment rails. You're leaving customers significantly worse off by forcing them into no-recourse payments with instant finality. Merchants, being businesses, are significantly better able to protect themselves - as they are able to insure against these losses - and the ability to charge back transactions increases the transaction volume at the store because it gives customers confidence in the payment.

[edit] I already have :)

Have what? Committed fraud? Bold statement. How much did you steal and how often?

There's zero basis to believe that crypto reduces the incidence of fraud. Citation needed.
Your own example proves how digital ID can be more private and secure. You go to a nightclub, you look a bit younger, person on the entrance asks proof of your age:

Option 1 - You give him your ID card and you expose a wealth of data, including your full name, address and SSN/OIB to that person

Option 2 - He scans your phone app, gets a big green mark which proves your exact age, or even just that you are 18+ and nothing more
You may mean scrum, which is too bureaucratic for many/most projects.
"The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has granted SpaceX permission to fly 12,000 Starlink satellites" [1]

"As of early January 2022, SpaceX had launched more than 1,900 Starlink satellites overall."[ibid]

They've launched only 15% of the satellites that they are authorized to launch and they are launching more at a pretty rapid pace. I doubt they are too worried about meeting their bandwidth requirements.

[1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Buyers will eventually face a related issue.

To simplify if nuclear/geothermal or whatever was 10c/kWh if sold 24/7 but if wholesale prices are 1c for 8 hours a day then base load generation needs to make up 8x9c = 72c over the other 16 hours. Now prices would hypothetically jump from 10c for those 16 hours to 14.5c for those 16 hours.

It should still be a net savings for the average consumer, but if your business model is based on cheap electricity at 10am to 4am that might flip to 10am to 4pm.
With sanctions against Russia the US is actually doing the opposite. Forcing them not to use the USD.
> If your concern is the lack of transparency, then I agree. This needs to be open technology.

Yes, exactly. My understanding is that openness is not really in Thales' culture.

> I have extremely low expectations of an EU in-house

I agree that modern ergonomics and convenience are not usually the strengths of in-house gov IT in the EU. But sometimes the basics got done right. I'm thinking of some of the smaller countries' digital/electronic IDs. Also, setting aside all ethical questions, the technical side of EU Covid passes was ok, as far as I understood.
And many cases have already gone through this process. This wasn't the only case available for them.
Learn Rust in 10 minutes [video]
My VC funds tried to raise a down round 2 weeks ago, and I got upset because nowhere did they discuss the possibility of imminent bankruptcy.
If there's a great depression again in the 2030s, like there was last time, then the command economy that's established in the 2040s will use this and any tech like this to reduce unemployment by "force".

The world of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead is looking more and more likely. Where every single thing is revealed and the heroic act is simply to do something different to the slaving public.

This system doesn't treat people like an end in themselves, it treats them like they are a means for everyone else to use them.
> Is the Mona Lisa not valuable?

That's such a silly argument. There are thousands of paintings around the world with the same level of scarcity as the Mona Lisa, but have far less value.

Scarcity drives up prices on items that already have some perceived value. It doesn't create any value itself.
Show HN: Find out how old you look
I use Fossil. It has some advantages:

1. Hashes are computed without adding any additional headers, so it will be the same as computing the hash normally.

2. The /raw capability is a good thing to have.

3. The deck format is not bad.

4. The command-line interface is less confusing than git.

5. It is written in C.

It isn't perfect, but it is more than good enough. (If I do have to change it, I would do "Generalized Fossil" (I already wrote the specification, although no implementation exists yet as far as I know), which will have the same five advantages listed above, and is compatible with the same /raw capability and deck format of existing Fossil repository, too (except old technote edits, but fortunately I do not have any).)
I already have :)

P.S. all transactions rely on some basis of trust between the merchant and the customer. Cryptocurrency doesn't prevent fraud altogether, but it does severely limit the extent and direction of fraud.

P.P.S. (response to your edit)

>Both credit cards and crypto as a payment primitive in isolation are secure. However, that's a very myopic view of a transaction. A transaction extends beyond simply the payment rails. You're leaving customers significantly worse off by forcing them into no-recourse payments with instant finality. Merchants, being businesses, are significantly better able to protect themselves - as they are able to insure against these losses

No, the credit card payment system is insecure because the information you need to authorize a payment is the same as the information you need to receive a payment (give or take a 4-digit PIN). In cryptocurrency (or even non-cryptocurrency, cryptographic payment systems like GNU Taler or DigiCash) there is the distinction between the public/private key.

Also, on what basis are you supposing that all recipients of a payment are merchants? I don't agree with that assumption.

>the ability to charge back transactions increases the transaction volume at the store because it gives customers confidence in the payment.

Cryptocurrencies are (ideally) designed for payments between low-trust parties, like a drug transaction or a donation to a pseudo-anonymous party. Senders are expected to have the same vigilance that they do with cash payments in an alleyway.

P.P.P.S.

>There's zero basis to believe that crypto reduces the incidence of fraud. Citation needed.

Cryptocurrency makes identity theft attacks impossible by having payments signed by the payee (e.g. rather than requiring proof of open source, personally identifiable information)

Cryptocurrency makes chargeback fraud impossible insofar as the attacker cannot conduct a 51% attack or a finney attack.

As for merchant fraud, users are expected to establish business relationships with trustworthy vendors and hold them accountable themselves. If these trust networks work for the DN and private trackers, then it's secure enough for me. You learn about the trustworthiness of vendors directly through the reviews of your peers, and you limit your risk accordingly.
If you mean can a strong team follow an agile methodology and be successful, then definitely. If you mean can an agile methodology make a weak team successful, then I doubt it. I haven't seen a methodology that creates vision and discipline which are far more important than how you model your workflow.
In the imaginary world where that's what the terms of service says, that's still fine for Ripcord -- Ripcord isn't a derivative work.
Decentralization does not necessarily mean loss of trusted asset recovery, it just means more flexibility around who you trust. Earlier in another comment I linked argent, which at the risk of looking spammy I will post again not because I have anything to gain by promoting them but because I think it's legitimately a well thought out system and a model for the future of how this all works.

https://www.argent.xyz/faq/
I'm rooting for you guys, truly. Congrats on the launch and thanks for offering a free trial.

However... personally I clicked around looking for pricing, found nothing. I understand it's early and you don't have it figured out yet, that's fine. I get it will cost more than if I tried to roll my own solution on bare metal, sure. But how much more? AFAIK it will be somewhere between ten cents and a billion dollars a month, or per player, or cats per donut, who knows.

I'm starting to think that new services silently loose far more users through the uncertainty of opaque or nonexistent pricing ("contact us!") than they will gain with free trials.
Well the answer really depends on who you ask. The cathartic "No" only comes from the Dev side. If you ask the HR/Management, then that's gonna be a resounding orgasmic Yessss!
> The simple truth is that every government is at its core the
biggest, baddest gang in the land.

Were.

I don't know if you subscribe to the political analysis of Adam Curtis
but in the past two decades governments have been passing their power
to private banks, corporations, QANGOs and "non majoritarian"
think-tanks like it's a hot potato. The new breed of politicians are
not statesmen but revolving-door temporary managers who would sell-off
and outsource the whole country for personal convenience.

Other than a monopoly on violent power (which is vanishing fast in the
USA as private cops and prisons take over) it's hard to locate the
power of government sometimes. Even the military is dissolving into a
loose collection of defence contractors. In the UK our intellgence
services were more or less sold to Amazon.

The OP article seems dead set against anarcho-libertarianism but it is
by no means pro-government, or explicitly pro-democracy. With regard
to money and economics, from my moderately pro-government/state stance
I see the great mistake governments are making is giving up on cash.

Physical currency is an absolutely vital component of a stable
economy. Its very lack of instantaneous fluidity (it relative
inconvenience) means it acts like a capacitor to stabilise markets if
you can manage circulation and interest. Moreover, governments have a
strict monopoly on that, and physical currencies can take on many new
guises with modern cash technology. Abandoning that would be suicide.

If governments get into a battle to take the ground of purely digital
currencies against crypto, they will lose. They are making this
mistake in an attempt to gain legibility (surveillance). Ultimately
they will have to choose between surveillance and economic control.
And since the value of surveillance is massively over-rated I am
optimistic we'll pull out of the Orwellian misadventure in time.

Anyone genuinely interested in defending against the "ideology of
crypto" (as this article posits) should be investing in new cash
technologies (some of which I have mentioned in earlier comments
here). They should be promoting a plurality of diverse cash
equivalents (many of which can be implemented using cryptographic
technology - not necessarily block-chain).
I keep seeing this “if you disagree with me you must believe something really bad and I’m going to put those words into your mouth” rhetorical device around. Does it have a name? It’s tedious.

The court’s position that the executive cannot unilaterally govern by bending the rules is a good thing! The problem is that the line they draw is arbitrary - and they just insert their agenda at the boundary.

The perfect thus becomes the enemy of the good, because the court chose a questionable boundary and because the legislature is now responsible for passing the necessary laws - as they should. In reality, they won’t do that, but that’s not the court’s fault.

Now you can certainly make the argument that the court should stick with the precedent of deferring to the executive instead of the legislature (laws after all, cannot anticipate everything and the court can avoid having to create arbitrary boundaries). But that’s a conversation that’s got nothing to do with climate change or any specific outcome.

For comparison, how did you feel about the court deferring to the Trump executive? Was their rule bending something we want to see more of? If a liberal court broke with precedent in the same manner to restrict Trump from doing something crazy, would that be good?
That's impressive. It is very hard to communicate this kind of news without getting tangled up in your own emotions.
Using Notion and Notaku as a GitBook Alternative
Yeah, I’ve actually found WIP commits and a hook to block them from being pushed end up working better than stashes, so I haven’t spent a lot of time figuring out the complexities of stashes.

My workflow here would be something like:

git checkout -b save
git commit # save staged changes
git add .
git commit -m WIP # save unstaged changes
git checkout -
All the AVS knows is that you're asking for an age verification token for something, but it doesn't know what the token will be used for as that information was collapsed in to a hash by you.

I'm sure there could be some sort of more elaborate protocol that would preserve privacy in the case of a log breach, the one I sketched out just shows that (assuming logs remain private and there's no collusion) that the ARS doesn't need to know the user's identity and the AVS doesn't need to know the ARS's identity in order to validate the user's age.
The standards will be weakened until compliance improves.
I'm just not sure what you're saying even still. Under the NFA it's already a law on the books. Moving mountains to pass something that's already law.
IP address?
Show HN: Movably – Protect your health, move more while you work
https://archive.ph/ssKPY
If they had convincing scientific evidence that marijuana both contributes significantly to air pollution and endangers public health, yes I would be.

Edit: Actually I think the particular Clean Air Act section in question only covers buildings or other "stationary sources", so I don't think marijuana would qualify unless a building was emitting marijuana smoke.
well, yes, i trust myself. It's not like anyone else has been using technology expertise to pay these bills for the last 20 years...
This is a blog post of someone converting a conventional bit-banged method of driving a display to pure PIO. Maybe it helps getting an idea?

https://www.zephray.me/post/rpi_pico_driving_el/
I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is correct. Just offering my support and the knowledge that not all programmers are assholes with more money than sense and a smug superiority that comes from assuming the whole world is an algorithm. Just most of them.
It seems superficially reasonable that a model trained on your work would be a derivative work of that work? But I am super far from any kind of domain expert.
Just to be clear, are you saying every regulation created by the EPA, FDA, FTC, FCC, SEC, et. al. should be a law passed by Congress and the Senate, get refereed, updated law passed by Congress and the Senate, and go forward for presidential approval? I just want to make sure I understand your intent.

As it is, or was as the case may be, this lawmaking process could be used to overrule a regulation that was viewed to be errant. The lawmaking apparatus would only be invoked on an exceptional basis. It seems as though you're advocating for the invocation of the lawmaking apparatus on a regular basis? That's what I'm wanting to confirm whether that's what you're actually saying.
There is absolutely a need for moral panic if, like me, you believe that code and industry quality of product is more important than onboarding more people into the profession.

I can't think of a worse idea than subconsciously letting the idea "By default, the way we are supposed store and write code is by putting it in the hands of a deeply centralized third party that will exploit you and owes you nothing" just sort of be the default deal.
The EPA's power to cut emissions has always been limited. That's always been part of the problem. The current Supreme Court didn't suddenly create those limits, they just adjusted the dial a little.

TL:DR; the EPA has never 'protected people from emissions' well. This article seems to ignore all that history and focuses on the hot take of ruling reactions.
Hi HN,

I am one of the founders at https://www.movably.com/. If you work at a desk for extended periods you may have heard the call to “move more” or that "the best posture is your next posture". The problem is we also have to get our work done. That’s what we are solving with our smart interactive chair.

Research shows that moving more often is one of the most effective ways to prevent the health problems caused by sitting. So we set out to create a way to incorporate healthy frequent movement that is easy to adopt without interrupting your work or flow.

Here is a short video to give you an idea https://youtu.be/d0D3-YBj7Zo. Test users have loved it, they usually have the “aha” moment within the first day no longer feeling sore from sitting. We also ran a formal research study with University of Waterloo (who work on chairs/sitting a lot) testing with people who show early signs of discomfort in sitting and standing with really good results- all the participants reported no pain when using Movably when compared to standing or sitting in a high end ergonomic chair. That will be published soon as one of the first times a chair was able to help prevent back pain.

Would love to get your feedback and questions!

Thank you,
Mark
You've lost the plot. My central claim is not so much that Urbit is a cult as that it is a waste of time (in part because it's a cult, but that is really neither here nor there). Part of my initial argument turned out to be based on the mistaken assumption that the reference to "teraforming Mars" was literally a reference to teraforming Mars when in fact it was part of Urbit's secret lexicon. But this mistake doesn't weaken my argument because the argument never turned on this either way.
That's why Williams won all those races right?
>Even with that boost, the service still only delivered downstream rates of 90.55 Mbps, leaving it well short of the 144.2 Mbps median posted by the industry as a whole.

>All of this data begs the question: What happens if Starlink can’t meet the 100/20 Mbps speed obligations attached to its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) projects?

Am I the only one who raise my eyebrows? What's the median for wireless internet delivery? What does that has to do with RDOF's completion requirement (by 2028)? How is StarLink doing at this point comparing to the other RDOF winners in terms of deployment?

From the actual Ookla article-

>while Starlink download speeds were slower than fixed broadband for all providers combined in the U.S. (144.22 Mbps) and Canada (106.86 Mbps).

Oh 144.22 Mbps is the industry median of _wired_ broadband. Well no shi* wireless is slower. Starlink can always deploy more satellites to service the demand. Is this a hit piece on Starlink?
"decentralized"
The NY Post got their Twitter account suspended for daring to cover Hunter Biden’s laptop. That story in particular was heavily suppressed.

What the media, both the social and traditional varieties, did to Trump is disgusting and goes way beyond bias. It was a targeted campaign with the goal of undermining and removing him from office from the moment he won the election. Propping up and protecting Biden was a means to an end.
Well done - we need more of testing how big companies handle your data in practice.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on the Executive and Legislative Branch? In modern times, the Executive Branch assumes much power not explicitly granted to it and it is the job of the Legislative and Judicial branches to keep it in check.

If congress, doesn't like the ruling, it can reverse it in legislation.
The number one reason for using a credit-card is that your losses are contractually limited. Not only that, they perform automated fraud
detection for you.

And now you want me to give that up, and take on the responsibility myself?

That's not a strong argument in your favor.
Almost certainly the is the OTHER half of ICE: ICE is two organizations, Enforcement and Removal Operations (what is widely thought of as ICE, they focus on civil deportations) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). HSI is targeting actual crimes that occur across borders, not deportations. So international money laundering, plus smuggling goods, drugs, people, etc. As a quirk, they are the agency that brings the most possession and distribution of underage sexual materials charges against US citizens (because so much of that involves bouncing to foreign servers etc.). They are a legitimate law enforcement agency that focuses on crime that goes across borders, and their interest in the blockchain should be obvious and clear- pretty much every crime I listed above is currently being done on the blockchain.

HSI has wanted to separate from ERO for years, because they feel that no one outside of ICE understands the difference, but it has not happened. I only understand the difference because I spent a few months supporting HSI (and only HSI) as a government contractor, and everyone I interacted with from HSI went to great pains to differentiate themselves from ERO, and clearly considered themselves better than ERO.
you find a political argument unconvincing so apply a software engineering analogy
For the record, I passionately voted against trump because of things that I watched him do, not because of media spin.

I and a lot of other people strongly disagreed with both his policies and his character, which were on plain display constantly and unfiltered on Twitter.
Thank you for the clarification. What are your opinions on Scrum?
Because our system is, by default, not one of assuming the government is all powerful and we restrict it here and there, but one where we must proactively add a power.
It's very cool that mutexes on Linux don't require an allocation anymore! A very common pattern is to use an Arc<Mutex<T>> for sharing ownership across threads and as far as I can tell this will now only require one allocation instead of two.
> choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family

Unity, along with most of the tech industry, loses incredible amounts of money, and salaries are typically their biggest expense. Those losses (salaries) are paid out of investor bank accounts, which the company cannot control. Thus those employees are highly exposed to liquidity pullbacks like now, since employing them was never profitable.

Unity plans to cut 100 million in expenses this year, and hopes to stop losing money next year.
As I said, the house gives people equal representation. A bill will not become law without passing the with through representation of the house. The only limit is that some things the house wants won't pass because the states don't agree.

If you truly want equal representation, then we have to go the direct democracy route since you will not have equal numbers of people under each representative. You also need to get rid of appointments by the executive (including rule making agencies), closed primaries, and provide universal voting including for felons and non-citizens.

So what is this argument for equal representation across the board? I don't see any benefit other than if you want populist movements to succeed based on the whims of the day and potentially at the expense of the minority rights (even more so than today).

The main point here is that state representation was necessary in order to create the country, and is likely necessary for the country to continue. I don't see any argument that supercedes this so far.
Because that's literally in their job description:

> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ... --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii