skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sounds like you have poor self-control. I've been working from home for 6-years and never once had this problem.

There are many ways to form productive habits at home; for example, remote conference rooms that people can jump in and out of. Slack even has "huddles" now which are very useful for remote work.

Letting your team down has nothing to do with being a seat-warmer in the office.
Nature is not bound by any logic of convenience. Nature is happy to take the long way around, without care for our ease of understanding that path. (May I suggest your God is neither so constrained?)

"Irreducible complexity" is specifically what the arch principle answers. The uncompleted arch along with everything holding it up is of immediate value, as it is, for maximizing reproductive fitness; it is our task to understand how. Later, the completed arch has value as, possibly, something entirely else, where the scaffolding did not and fell away.

Nature doesn't care what the arch or its intermediate forms were "for". Any structure may be used in any way that aids fitness (or, often, not). Insects' extra wings become protective wing covers. Legs that were once fins may walk instead of swimming, or fly, or type. T. rex's arms, and ostrich's, waggle uselessly.

The evolution of eyes has been traced from eye spots through to completed eyes, and each intermediate stage is in fact better for reproductive fitness than the previous one. The form of eyes is dictated by their use, but human eyes' present form is decidedly inferior to squids'. (Ask your God about that?) It has lately turned out that the basis for eyes was already in the last common ancestor of squids and us. It has been a very long time since eyes were a persuasive example. Maybe read up?
Beware of reading the library sources though, they can change any time without warning. Only the docs are guarantees that remain stable as Rust gets updated.
To be fair, it ia not as if HP's iLo, Dell"s iDrac, or SuperMicro's IPMI are rife with documentation.

Granted, there are tools to use them, but the best advice for all IPMI/BMC/OOB things like them is:

A. Separate network interface (SuperMicro ships in "shared" mode by default, and, like most defaults, it is in a dire need of changing.)

B: No Internet access to or from the IPMI HW. Gateway "bastion" host, one with, say, DHCP, DNS, and NTP services on it, and that is it. DNS forwarder should only resolve a very small set of domains.and IP ranges, and its logs monitored for IOCs.

Bonus things:

C: (Bonus): NACL isolating IPMIs from each other. Because there is not a good reason for them to talk to each other.

D: (Bonus 2): Forward IPMI's syslogs to your syslog server (via the bastion host or, not directly).

E: (Bonus 3): Run the https://www.conserver.com/ (iDrac and iLo both support serial-over-SSH), for both accountability and console interaction logging.

F: (Advanced Bonus): (Cryptographically) Signed FW updates.

(Updated: formatting)
Market Rout Sends State and City Pension Funds to Worst Year Since 2009
I read "The Gun" a while ago and I got the feeling Chivers was pro-2A.

https://gerikson.com/blog/books/read/The-Gun.html
The point that I’m making is that you can write multi threaded applications without dropping support for single core systems.
If taken literally, this would mean that the founders could not even do their groceries any more, right?
Like most (all?) phoronix articles this is blogspam.

https://www.freebsd.org/status/report-2022-04-2022-06/
30ns per lookup is ok. I think you could do around 6ns per lookup (maybe less?) without changing the hash algorithm, using huge pages, reordering the lookups, or dropping the requirement that it be a hash table.
Any chance the blocked accounts had forks of the repository? That'd be an unsurprising heuristic.
It's hard to tell, but from what I've seen the people who have trouble setting boundaries when working from home are the same people who would consistently put in extra hours in the office, answer email at 11pm, etc.

I feel really irritated when I see them blaming a flexible work environment for the same problem they had before, and asking for the entire workforce to be subject to restrictive conditions so they can have an ineffective incentive to stand up for themselves.
That is why the IBM PC has used a 14.31818 MHz oscillator, i.e. 4 times the NTSC frequency of 3.579545 MHz, and which divided by 3 provided a clock frequency for the CPU that was close enough to 5 MHz (the maximum clock frequency of the 1st version of Intel 8088).

While the current computers with Intel/AMD CPUs do no longer care about NTSC, all still have a timer equivalent with the Intel 8253, which uses the clock frequency of 14.31818 MHz, to ensure compatibility with the original IBM PC.
It's a great strategy of you're traveling though, because the risk of your food being spat in is dramatically lower since you're not a regular.
This line of thinking is basically 'AI is a wizard that can do anything'. It ignores the practicalities of intelligence: some things just aren't possible no matter how smart you are. The more we learn about reality, the more we find limits to things that we can't surpass.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that sufficient intelligence is different in kind rather than degree from lesser intelligence. A super-human AI would still be bound by the limitations of reality - some things cannot be accomplished at all, others without sufficient tools, others without sufficient access.

Far smarter people than me are imprisoned currently throughout the world. They don't constantly escape because lesser minds are perfectly capable of solving the 'don't let them out' problem with a high degree of accuracy.

Any argument that leans on 'AI has countered your move in ways we can't predict' is just substituting 'AI' for 'God' - omnipotent, outside reality, impossible to understand; that's fine - believe in whatever religion you want - but it's not a rational viewpoint.
I'm still not sure whether adapting it as the main browser tool was a good choice. It would've been interesting to see various extensions working with e.g. a deep-internal API. Probably with none installed by default, making the browsers a bit more modular.
Jardinería urbana: Cómo cultivar lechugas en espacios reducidos
That is an interesting view, team people and non team people are very different it seems. I'm non team and can easily manage my own work day, it's less common it seems, at least thats what I'm told. People are so very different in what they are comfortable with and I really like the variability that is becoming common.
There's a much better and more ethical form of nullification if citizens refuse to enforce a law. Just say so at voir dire. It's virtually guaranteed it will be asked when a jury is being selected "If the evidence shows guilt, will you vote to convict?" If you say "yes" then nullify, you've lied under oath even if you're never caught. And your opinion is secret forever. Just say "no". If they can't get 12 people willing to convict, the law is nullified and public opinion is clear and no law has been broken or bent.
London and Budapest had subways before Boston did. So did some other cities depending on which list you look at.

So what made Boston’s later entry the first “practical” one?

[Edit] Or do you mean self-driving subways? Does Boston have one already? A quick Googling suggests the opposite:

https://whdh.com/news/mbta-officials-considering-self-drivin...
>Google Voice

Anecdotally, my bank (Wells Fargo) will not accept VOIP numbers for 2FA.
Maybe I'm just being contrarian to your comment, but I've always thought the US and other countries are silly for not automating basic traffic enforcement.

Red light cameras should effectively catch 95%+ of people who blow through them. Speeding cameras (that are actually on, looking at you NYC) that are super visible are a known deterrent to speeding in Europe. Even parking - in some modern garages they have sensors to tell you when spots are full/empty. Why can't they use similar tech for parking tickets, street cleaning, etc?

I feel like I wouldn't be upset about rule enforcement if I knew everyone was more or less following them. What makes me ignore rules is when I see people taking advantage of them over and over without repercussions. Then, introducing human elements where the cop gets to decide who to ticket adds a bunch of bias that we haven't been able to correct. It's one of the countless examples of humans over-complicating things to the point of dysfunction.
I'm back in the office 4-5 days a week. We had an intern this Summer as well, and we spent lots of time one on one, spent time in the team together, went out for lunch & drinks. Compare this to the guy last year who was at home and basically was too easy to ignore. In office intern learned 100x as much as the guy last year, he's just lucky to be at a company where everyone is back in the office.
Your “laws of physics” are just a verbal representation of what has been observable to you. It’s not a fundamental property in the deepest sense and there’s no guarantee that they may not change.
The issue is that some services insist on using their own app as a second factor. You can't choose to use a superior U2F YubiKey, for example. You are also not allowed to have their shitty app installed on multiple phones at the same time. If you lose your phone, you need to call them up to reset this.

To name and shame: BNP Paribas, one of the biggest banks in France.
I'm sure the smart contact language is powerful enough to specify that tokens from Tornado Cash will not be handled. You talk about it in terms of self-modifying code but that should not be necessary.

That tokens from "something like" Tornado should not be handled, though, seems like it would be harder to specify.
I come from the Java world, so I'm very used to every semantically separate bit of code sitting in its own file. I think it's superior to having multi-KLOC source files (as is common in C/C++ world, because it minimizes the header writing and maintenance busywork), because then you can browse code via a file browser, which is typically a panel in your IDE. The C alternative to that would be having the same file opened in multiple tabs, and heavy usage of (IDE) bookmarks? I don't find that as convenient.

As to improving modularization, in order to fix compilation speed issues I was trying out the "program as a single compilation unit" approach advocated by handmade people, and I found that I had to spent a good amount of time in moving code between modules, and their subsequent headers. So annoying... Perhaps it wouldn't be so infuriating if I didn't spend the past 15 years coding in languages where this is a problem solved automatically and invisibly by the compiler.
I think in most things you need an extremist or fanatical element, so I'm not totally against doing some sums to demonstrate that something unintuitive might be more moral and/or cost-effective.

But I might look up the EA take on some other vaguely parallel things, like Quaker businesses, worker co-operatives, fair-trade, progressive taxation, banning billionaires, revolutionary communism, bringing democracy to the middle East, nuking Russia, installing a benevolent world dictator etc.

Would help me understand them to see how they position themselves against these things as I think you could make a half-assed attempt to prove that any of them was better with their own maths if you wanted to.

e.g. if there's any billionaires then the chance of a billionaire buying elections and installing their own benevolent world dictator that believes in the wrong type of EA is a small but still existential risk (since only the true EA can save the future galactic empire). Tweak numbers as necessary until you arrive at your pre-ordained conclusion.

edit:

EA take on fair trade:

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/how-effective-fair-trad...

EA take on renewables, climate change, developing nations:

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/johannes-ackva-an...

An attempt to reconcile EA and anti-capitalism by a fan of both:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81665058.pdf

EA take on Socialism (tl;dr central planning is bad, which seems slightly counter to the whole EA thing):

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ktEfsoGfBFGsaiY46/...
I think this thread has a lot of today's 10,000 finding out what it's like to interact with the US gov't as non-citizens by way of this tiny tiny little taste.
>However, echo chambers are minimal, and the most avid readers of false news content regularly expose themselves to mainstream news sources.

Very curious how they seem to make the assumption that mainstream media isn't fake. This invalidates the entire study.

>Based on a structural model of household decisions whether to diversify their online news sources, we prescribe how platforms should moderate false news content.

They prescribe eh? They made a biased assumption the mainstream isn't the problem and they they prescribe a fix? lol...

Here's the thing. It takes virtually no effort to see the echo chambers over at twitter, reddit, etc. It takes virtually no effort to see literal lies from CNN. Which is why they have a new boss who has publicly made it clear his people need to pull themselves out of their echo chambers. Which is why CNN ratings are so low you have to go back to the early 90s to find similar numbers. 30 year lows...
Happy to see this! I’ve been disturbed by GitHub hosting financial infrastructure optimized for criminal activity.
"Wisdom generates insights which can lead to breakthroughs that creates immense productivity."

It is important to emphasize that while this may be a consequence of wisdom, it is not what leisure is for the sake of. To reduce leisure and wisdom to instruments of productivity is to miss the whole point. We do not make leisure so that we may work, so that we may be more productive; we work so that we may make leisure. Wisdom is an end in itself. Work is not. "Productivity" is not. Work exists for the sake of leisure, not the other way around. (We must also not confuse recreation with leisure.)

Josef Pieper's book "Leisure: the Basis of Culture" makes exactly this point. Something Pieper covers in the first chapter and worth noting here is that the word "school" comes from the Latin schola which in turn is derived from the Greek σχολή (skhole) which is the Greek word for "leisure" (indeed, the absence of leisure characteristic of work was defined negatively, askholia in Greek and negotium in Latin). Modern education may make this difficult to comprehend, but this is more discernible in classical education. Similarly, the "liberal" in "liberal arts" refers to the freedom to pursue leisure, and these are opposed to the so-called servile arts. And lastly, Pieper draws attention to the prevalence of religious feasts during the Middle Ages whose essential function wasn't to stuff your face with food and drink yourself under the table, but leisure. What could be more "leisurely" than religion, that which is, after all, concerned with the ultimate end and the highest good?

We moderns live in what Pieper called the world of total work (he was writing this book in the postwar period, so this affliction is nothing new). To be sure, we must toil and till the field in which wisdom will grow, but we do not live to till the field; we till the field so that we may live. What is it that we live for, that we ought to live for? Perhaps it is our modern nihilism that frightens us enough to invert the relation between work and leisure, leading us to lose ourselves in work to avoid the realization.
It's noone's responsibility not to make things that are helpful to criminals.
I think anything you do here is going to require some kind of effort.

Personally, I think it would be better to stop thinking about 'unwrap()' as its own special thing. 'unwrap()' is just a common manifestation of something much more fundamental: runtime invariants. Think about those.
Sounds like you’re just a young(er) person who’s looking for social life at work.
I don't think this is a problem with utilitarianism itself; the problem is utilitarianism as practiced by people who are unable to estimate risk practically.

This is not unusual - it's a core symptom of various mental health problems. There's even a fairy tale about this - a family of foolish people who catastrophise so much that they are unable to accomplish anything [1]. People assigning bizarre weights to unlikely probabilities is very human, and problematic regardless of ethics.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Elsie
"When bill Clinton lied, no one died"

I don't care if he was guilty of Perjury - his "crime" only hurt Hillary...
I would expect they all did. Typically I have my fork and PR from the fork in anything I contribute to.

Edit: Unless it was members of the organization who had direct write access to the repos? Which I saw mentions of in other comments.
Did we use the same firebug? Why all this vitriol towards it?
Nope.

WFH is literally the greatest thing that ever happened to me. I would take a 50% pay cut with zero second thoughts if it were the only way to stay remote.
I guess I have to quote from it, then:

---

C lets you do most of what C++ can if you rely on always_inline. This didn't used to be the case, but modern C compilers will meat-grind the code with repeated application of the following things:

- Inlining any always_inline call except if it's recursive or the function uses some very weird features that libpas doesn't use (like goto pointer).

- Copy-propagating the values from the callsite into the function that uses the value.

Consequently, passing a function pointer (or struct of function pointers), where the pointer points to an always_inline function and the callee is always_inline results in specialization akin to template monomorphization.

This works to any depth; the compiler won't be satisfied until there are no more always_inline function calls. This fortuitous development in compilers allowed me to write very nice template code in C. Libpas achieves templates in C using config structs that contain function pointers -- sometimes to always_inline functions (when we want specialization and inlining) and sometimes to out-of-line functions (when we want specialization but not inlining). Additionally, the C template style allows us to have true polymorphic functions. Lots of libpas slow paths are huge and not at all hot. We don't want that code specialized for every config. Luckily, this works just fine in C templates -- those polymorphic functions just pass around a pointer to the config they are using, and dynamically load and call things in that config, almost exactly the same way that the specialized code would do. This saves a lot of code size versus C++ templates.
As someone who recently moved to a part of the US with native palms, a few discoveries that surprised me...

1) Large palms are tough. As in, serious-work-to-pole-saw-through tough. They may looks wispy in the wind, but all of those components (leaves, fruit pods, fruit stalks, leaf shealths) are beyond the strength of an average human to simply pull (tension) apart.

2) Once dried, palm parts are effectively made out of steel.

3) Palms produce a lot of debris. All summer long.

4) Fully developed Queen palm seed stalks are heavy. Maybe 50 lbs?

5) The Sears Tower is actually a 3x3 grid of individual towers, connected in a way that allows for lateral motion. This mimics a palm's trunk structure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Tower#Planning_and_co...
Property transfers are not a private matter. Not if you want the world to respect your property.
Maybe people should focus on working the way they work best rather than explaining how other people are wrong for working the way they work best.
A bank in Finland: they try to push their authenticator which doesn't work on my phone (de-googleized android and too old),but they have retained the option of using an OTP code list + sms, previously it was just OTP code list, but due to some silly directives they added sms.

Authenticating with bank OTP also work for government and other stuff.
(Common here as there is no state authentication system other than some failed
id cards afaik.)
Genuine question - do you enjoy what you do? Because the only difference there is social judgement in the office if you were to be slacking - if you need to be pressured into doing your work, are you in the right field?
Once you show people a taste of freedom, there is no going back voluntarily. I went back to work in the office for a couple of weeks and it was dreadful, while i enjoyed the interactions with my coworkers, the commute and lack of personal freedom while in office was dreadful. I want to sit on my couch and watch tv for an hour or exercise in the middle of the day if i feel unproductive without being judged or trying to keep up appearances. I work for an extremely forward thinking company but it is instinctive that you feel the need to somewhat keep up appearances.
Maybe, but you will need to prove to the courts that labs actually use that algorithm that way. I don't think any are doing that, though I'll admit to not knowing much about how double blind studies are run in the real world.

Even then, the algorithm and Tornado are not the same thing. It seems unlikely you can use Tornado itself for this purpose, even if the algorithm itself is useful.