skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> 1 teacher for 20, 25 or 30 students

1 teacher for many students seems to be a mass education requirement implemented at some time to protect the local elite who has highly educated parents and friends for home teaching or can afford private teachers. I don't have a clean source for this though, mostly personal experience.

> But I'd include some mandatory minimal content.

Most people, particularly young people, seem to have a speicifc curiosity naturally triggered over time with Youtube recommendations (ie. History of their country, a Pysics channel, or anything). What minimal content would you advise or can you think of as a general minimal content requirement?
how convenient. relegating any concern for the modern trans movement to pure malevolence. I guess it makes it easier for you.
The Scottish Highlands, Appalachians, and the Atlas are the same mountain range
> Front end devs save time by.... sharing queries. So component B ends up fetching records it has no use for because its sharing GQL with component A

An unfortunate problem that really only exists with Apollo. Facebook’s graphql client, relay, does not have this issue as it requires each component to explicitly declare its data dependencies.
Ah yes I've seen it in those kind of contexts too. Thanks everyone this has really clicked in to place for me :)
We have a tool that was built by a third party. They did an excellent job but for various reasons we needed to change vendors. I didn’t hire the old or new dev teams, so it wasn’t my role to tell them how to come up to speed. Early on they said they wanted to redo all the test cases, which seemed off to me (it’s too abstract, and why redo test cases for parts of the code that are unlikely to be modified). I said something but didn’t push it.

Someone on my team has been giving the dev team demos of the functionality and thinking behind the product a few days a week. My one request at the beginning was that they should learn enough about the product to be able to give a demo back to us. It took them about 2-3 weeks (maybe 8 45 min overview sessions from my team, which owns the product requirements), but it showed that they know what it is the tool is supposed to do.

They spent another 3 weeks “getting comfortable” (6 weeks from start) they finally felt comfortable to start implementing small features and bug fixes. I’d have preferred that they start fixing bugs right away (it might take 2-3 weeks to fix the first bug because they need to figure out how to get access to systems, documentation, deployment, etc.) because it’s more tangible, but I know I’m impatient and let them do it this way. It seems to work ok so far but will be another month or so before I can decide whether or not they are actually competent. I guess the good news for them is they (team of 10 in Eastern Europe) aren’t being bugged by the client, and if they actually are good, should be enjoying the freedom to do things their way and implement their own processes.
FEMA warns emergency alert systems could be hacked to transmit fake messages
My daughter when maybe 4 or 5 made this knock knock 'joke'. Knock Knock. Who's there? Laughing cow. Laughing cow who? Laughing cow is laughing at you! That's why!
Likely they will say something that happens to make contact with some other thought you picked up somewhere else, and you'll make a new mental connection between concepts and that expands your mental map of the world.

It's always good to understand the world a bit better.
Also available in a cordless Bluetooth version, btw.
> It is actually a pain to use, depending on the backend you are using you'll have to manage two or more type systems if there are no code first generates in your language

This is a shortcoming of the language, not of GraphQL.

> It doesn't support map/tables/dictionaries. This is actually huge. I get that there might be

If you ever tried to cram a JSON like payload in a GraphQL field you'll know why this limitation is in place. It quickly starts getting abused by clients and you end up adding validation, which you might as well have codified in a properly structured type. For blobs you can just send encoded strings (JSON, base64, binary, you choose).

> No clear path for Api versioning you'll end up with MyQueryV1.01 MyQueryV1.02 MyQueryV1.03

The whole point of using something like GraphQL is that you don't need or even want versioning. You can still deprecate fields (and remove them according to your deprecation policy) but in general you can just keep adding fields/types without removing the old ones until you are sure consumers don't need them any more. So there's no breaking change and consumers can transition to the new fields whenever they want. Something else you start appreciating when you have multiple, heterogeneous consumers of your API.

Or you can just add the version to your schema URL, e.g. `/graphql/v1/` and then route your queries based on that, which kind of defeats the purpose.

> Invest your time in a simpler solution then running to GraphQL first

GraphQL is as simple to set up as anything else, assuming the language has good support for it. If it doesn't that's, again, a limitation of the language, not of GraphQL.

GraphQL solves a ton of problems related to typical JSON APIs' conventions, since JSON isn't inherently "schemable" unless you generate something like an OpenAPI spec which is, arguably, more complicated. There might be superior alternatives (I've never tried JSON schema) but I think all the pain points you described can be easily solved one way or another.
Your question fundamentally falls into the area of unanswerable philosophy akin to "do insects feel pain?"

But there's a reasonable intuition suggesting that the answer to your question is "no". What we're looking at is a non-linear regression model reproducing the function (which according to the article isn't really a function, but that's above both my and the model's knowledge) from a gene sequence to a 3d structure. It is heavily meta-optimised, so the "why's" would only be in the model, if reproducing the process of folding the protein was the cheapest way to guess the structure (). Intuitively it introduces at least one extra dimension, so should be way more expensive than finding analogues among known sub-aspects of the function. Hence, I would expect none of the "why's" to be in there.

Sadly, if any insight for the "why's" was there after all, we don't have a method to extract it anyway.

Disclaimer: I work in Google, far away from DeepMind, have no internal knowledge on this.
> By "computers are not in the world" he means that a computer is based upon an abstract interpretation of the world, not the world itself

First of all, what makes you think that this was not clear.

Secondly - why, the human mind does not work through representations? Kant and the noumenon came here to be ignored? Schopenhauer and the Vorstellung? Is it not evident anyway?

Third: that idea, all those there written ideas, should be there to /entail/ that "something is impossible". That is their task. I would like to see those Key Performance Indicators met.
I think you may be should give a code first GraphQL a try, you can pretty much everything you want that way. You can write high level functions for pagination or whatever that way and have a base object that you can extend for all Types implementing the interface. I really don’t know why schema first seems to be the default, it’s really unflexible.
>This is a fair point, and I suppose something I just have grown used to, similar to how I can type `tar xvzf` without any `-` at all, and it works.

So for a while GNU tar didn't support automatic compression detection, and you had to manually specify 'z' or 'j' every time. Quite annoying when you are used to bsdtar, which does this for you.
The "why" is a bit of an odd question anyway - the structure is as as the structure is. It's like asking why "red hears a galaxy", just words.
you are so unreasonable it's almost funny. why even continue after your first statement? why even make your first statement? go bait somewhere else.
This in nothing new. If you are in the US, do you think salmon is naturally that pink? Do you think cheddar is so yellow? Do you think vacuum cleaners need to make so much noise? Answer to all of these questions is no and the only reason they are done is to trick the consumer.
Good to see security moving to data engineering. Shameless plug: we are building similar stuff but for configurations here - https://github.com/cloudquery/cloudquery

https://docs.cloudquery.io/blog/our-open-source-journey-buil...
It's the narrowest abstraction fitting those use cases. A database by its nature is a generic component. So sure, the piece of your software that's "SQL database" has a SQL interface, pretty quickly you'd want some abstractions on top of that around the different uses of that database.

The problem is when genericity diffuses its way into a large system it becomes impossible to maintain. How do you refactor a code base when everything everywhere is just SQL queries. If you want to change the schema how do you know you're not breaking anything? The short answer is you don't and so the software becomes incredibly brittle. The common workaround is testing but you can never test everything and now your tests also become coupled to everything else making things even more difficult to change.

The database in your example, while being generic is already an abstraction of sorts. Now if you're building lessay gmail the external users should see "create email", "get all emails", vs. issuing SQL queries to the database. That makes it easier to change the two pieces (client and server in this simplified example).
Show HN: A TailwindCSS Playground with Image and PDF Generation
Heterogeneous infrastructure was my main motivator to learn FreeBSD.

Without this diversity, in face of a security issue, you can only shut-down or take the risk.

On the other hand, when there’s a bug or suspicious activity on FreeBSD servers, you can turn off only those servers, while the problem is patched, and viceversa.
Hey thanks for taking the time to find the resource

I have used this before this works to get past the errors but doesn't actually solve the issue GraphQL tries to solve. This just hides it so you have to deal with it months later.

- The consumers don't know what the JSON looks like unless they test the query or get told what the query is explicitly. This means that the schema definitions don't capture the problem that the graphql try's to solve "describe your data that you want"

- also some of the other languages that aren't Javascript don't have GraphqlJsonScalar

I think that supporting dictionaries/maps/tables as apart of the Graphql language spec could of been possible as the key and value types are static. They are also iterable so it should be fairly straight forward for a consumer to deal with the data returned.
So what are some use cases you use zfs for?
When you find this algorithm with or without any comments from where the numbers come from in a point that should be secure, you should be more than suspect. In any way, this is not a secure PRNG.
What mainframes are still alive, apart from z/Architecture?

As for "modern Web development" - not really; it's a bit like running Apache and MySQL on Windows 98 - yes, you technically could, but you probably don't want to. Have you heard of anyone wilfully choosing to use mainframes instead of some Unix over the past two decades?
Some mainstream news outlets estimate roughly 30% of the weapons we ship to Ukraine actually end up in the fight against Russia.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/arming-ukraine-cbs-reports/

I tend to lean towards "there's no way to make a reasonable estimate at all" given the lack of oversight, as reported by other mainstream news organizations.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/19/politics/us-weapons-ukraine-i...

Unfortunately many are blinded to reality by their zealotry on the issue. Others understand the truth, but believe statements of objective reality that don't "support the effort" should never be uttered because it hurts the cause or "echoes Russian propaganda". The truth is that the "fog of war" is a very real thing in every conflict and it is foolish to make definitive statements one way or the other.
While the article is correct that knowing the protein structures in itself is not that interesting, it's a prerequisite step to predicting interactions between proteins, which is super interesting for drug discovery.

What's encouraging is the rate of progress, not what has already been done.
am i missing any disney+ shows for the metal gear cinematic universe?
I suppose it depends on the domain, but in all the APIs I've created bulk operations are fairly rare. I guess if you know upfront that your API would involve heavy bulk operations then seeking a tool that makes that more performant would be beneficial.
But, someone has to care enough to do so, and it has to catch on.

FreeBSD lacks the network effect.
> The reported acute effects were significantly more intense for the active dose compared to the placebo, but only for participants who correctly identified their experimental condition

I find attempts to study psychedelics with placebo control kind of comical. The positive effects are not due to a chemical change, they are due to a direct subjective experience [1][2]. It's like trying to placebo control the effects of reading a good novel or seeing a sunset.

But I guess this does help to dispel the similarly comical idea that a completely non-psychoactive dose of psychedelics can be beneficial.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033615/#:~:tex...

[2] https://superbowl.substack.com/i/65186479/the-psychedelic-ex...
wouldn't the "damages" be the difference between today's price and the price it would be today had there been no actions by Musk?

I'm having trouble finding a shareable link but it's clear he had an effect on the price when he made the offer and when he pulled out but, to me, TWTR appears to have gained in value compared to AMZN, GOOG and AAPL YTD.
The questions he asks here are exactly the questions that quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) seeks to answer (and as a result, it's booming as a field). Just because you can build a drug to inactivate said protein doesn't mean you should. 85% of clinical trials fail as he states, and one of the main reasons why is because the target ends up being incorrect. Targeting some protein because a lot of it seems to exist when a given disease is occurring might end up targeting the symptom instead of the cause. Understanding how the complex systems interact, their feedbacks and their nonlinearities, is essential to knowing what needs to be targeted. We had already been able to quickly create new drug candidates, and with protein folding predictions we can now do that even faster. Those drugs can be tested in a lab to see if they bind to the proteins they're supposed to, and they keep getting quicker at hitting exactly the function they expected. But without making the billion dollar clinical trial more likely to be solving the actual problem, we're still going to be limited by "okay, so what in this pool of possible drugs should we risk trying next"? We can accurately knock out protein function, but we're still fishing in the dark when it comes to how to actually fix and regulate bodies.
Meth labs of democracy FTW
You properly saw that as asymmetric. Most Poles are not aware of (some) Lithuanians holding a grudge. The way we're taught history is pretty one-sided.
TIL the ‘Tech emails’ exist in other form than unreadable-on-phone images in Twitter posts.
I haven’t played it but probably no and definitely yes
> The more I look at the world the more I see how the establishment, in virtually every field of endeavor, has spent decades insulating itself from any real meritocratic consequences.

In just about any field or area, if someone is trying to tell you it's meritocracy, they're just pulling the wool over your (or their own) eyes.

The estabilishment/incumbent does not like competetion in any area. And the default mantra is claiming it's actually a meritocracy. Which usually translates to "we like the existing structure because it keeps us and our friends in power".
I sometimes use git stash as a safer alternative to git reset --hard HEAD. git stash -> check that the state you've reverted to is actually what you want -> git stash drop. And since internally stash is just creating a commit, it's even possible to recover the changes if they haven't been garbage collected.
Git's command names, and UX in generaly, is its worst area. It's definitely not just you.

Many professional software devs I work with still really have no idea how git works, they've just memorized the 3 or so commands they absolutely need and maybe how to recover when something out of the ordinary happens.
And then we have startx, which starts both an X server and the X client specified:

startx /path/to/client --with --client-options and arguments -- --server-options -go --here

Here, the double dash is used to separate the client options from the server options (the path to the server binary is compiled-in, IIRC).
From GitHub it looks like implementation of Random Buzzword Lake APIs in Javascript.

I am so excited, couldn't wait to see more!
I find it best to think of music theory as a language musicians can use to describe what they just did, not what they are about to do.

That's likely to be true even if/when we improve "music theory" to cover much more than 18th century European harmonic forms.
Enjoy Your Stupid Life
‘Incredibly promising’: the bubble barrier extracting plastic from a Dutch river
As an activity art implements ideas that have been formulated conceptually previously ("conceptual" here could be a drunk artist taking a pic of their butt and isn't philosophical + more related to surprisal). The immediately exciting thing about art is the experience of the product but that experience gives way to a more conceptual excitement (its interesting because they are exploring this idea!). When an idea is repeated x amount of times as an artistic expression it gets boring. Generative art is boring on these terms, to me, right now, even if many technical advancements relating to the speed or complexity of the generative system are made.

H/w this is just a fun argument about art which is basically impossible to concretely describe anyway and i'm prob wrong (e.g. some kid is going to make something incredible with a new idea about generative art x AI).
Until this year I had never been exposed to the discipline musicology, so that world is very new for me (and hence a bit exciting).

Your comment made me think that musicology is what me and my friends and many people I’ve met naturally began doing as teenagers. Nerding out on the stories of how music is made and believing those details are vitally important.

Forty years later a YouTube musician (Heinbach) mentions it’s his academic background in musicology just in passing and legitimates an ancient interest I dismissed long ago as immature.

Stumbling on Hein was revelatory for me too.
Because we have to be honest with ourselves. Don't tell the crystallographers they're no longer necessary for structure determination. If people flee the field and ML doesn't pan out, then we're worse off.

Treat this as it is. An exciting approach that may help some now and yield fantastic results in the future. Don't count the chickens before they hatch.

Even if the structures were entirely correct - and they're definitely not - there's a massive complex metabolome to figure out.

Google is certainly milking the PR as much as they can, and that can be dangerous to the laymen approving research budgets.
0.5 grams of p. cubensis is a noticeable dose. Its not a microdose by any means, and usually will result in some impairment.

Its about what I'd take if I wanted to enhance a visit to a museum or art gallery, or music production.

Its not what I'd take and try do a day of work.
Yep true
Based on the standard tuning of a guitar E, A, D, G, B, E and assuming you use E as your tonic, the scale I, 2, 3-flat, 4, 5, 6, 7-flat which translates to E, F#, G, A, B, C#, D should be a base scale. If you strum a guitar open, all the strings fall within this scale. It does have a flat seventh and a corresponding flat third.

If you take out the 2 and the 6, this becomes the Minor Pentatonic Scale.
FWIW: https://storycorps.org/participate/great-questions/, and specifically look at the relevant anchor on the sidebar (parents, grandparents, etc.).

Also: https://storycorps.org/participate/ for suggestions about recording such an interview, etc.
What's a "stateful language"? Can you give an example here? gRPC is orthogonal to whether an API relies on state or not.
> Scaling it to 100 million is just a matter of running a few thousand instances.

Please post the link to any GitLab/GitHub you own where you showcase running "a few thousand instances" of anything at all.
Slovenian. But yes it’s a common slavic trait
I'm truly sorry for your loss, OP.
Near real time (max 100 times slower then real time) differentiable, stochastic multi organ simulations with chemically accurate time and environment depending dynamic structure changes at all possible binding targets or interactions with body own components and third party drugs.

Without machine learning at every atom is dynamic precision we are at 10^-18 L (liters) at 20 micro seconds a week with a specialised super computer https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3458817.3487397 .

A solution does not need that precision everywhere. However a machine learning proxy of such precision in every relevant environment including 2d surface along non mixing fluid etc for every likely type of interaction is required so we can be certain of the possible outcomes.

That would allow humanity to pre-screen a bunch of edge conditions and check for unintended or previously explained side effects. The derived surrogates for environment dependent reaction rates could be used in a spatially distributed event based simulations with level of precision ranging from atoms with position and electrons in orbits subject to electro-magnetic force interaction, molecules as things with position and rotation and folding state, concentration gradients of those as stochastic 3d PDEs, 2d PDEs, 1d PDEs and ODEs of the number of moles with relevant boundary conditions. If we had those reaction rates down and knew of all the proteins and other structures i am positive that a proxy model of relevant parts of the human body could achieve enough accuracy to be practical at pre-screening drugs with todays super computers.
Kinda interesting in consideration of Plato's Myth of Atlantis. Atlas mountains, Atlantic Ocean... mud and all that. Maybe Atlantis was America or Cuba :P.
>[...] but you were talking about accessing data in a human brain.

No, I wasn't. I used bytes as a unit of measurement of data. I guess if I said "characters" instead of "bytes" people would stop trying to explain this to me. Although I sort of doubt that, because I said "yes, I know" and then get another paragraph explaining the same thing to me.
> It would be better to have some hard data on what we all collectively think makes for valid music.

"Valid"? As opposed to "invalid music"?

> As you’d expect, the tonic I is the most commonly-used chord in the Rolling Stone corpus.

If it wouldn't be the most used, would it be used as point of reference and called the tonic?

> Rock uses plenty of V-I, but it uses even more IV-I. And the third most common pre-tonic chord in rock is not ii, like you’d expect if you went to music school; it’s bVII, reflecting rock musicians’ love of Mixolydian mode.

I-V and IV-V seems to be the same with the point of reference moved to IV. And IV-bVII-V is I-IV-V.

Is a fixed point of reference really needed? Doesn't it just add unnecessary complexity?