skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What's more, this idea that the blockchain lies in a magical place outside the reach of the law is a persistent error that blockchain promoters make. Treasury could overnight decide to step up sanctions enforcement against DPRK and declare that anybody who recognizes a block that includes a transfer to one of DPRK's known wallets is not complying with sanctions. This would force Coinbase, Binance, and any exchange accepting Americans' money to hard fork the chain, removing noncompliant blocks. Whoever last accepted a DPRK coin or any other coins that were in those blocks or downstream whose transactions aren't replayed would end up a bag-holder, or transactions would grind to a halt to wait for allowed old transactions to be replayed into the fork. Whether Treasury would do this is another question, but that they have the technical ability to do so is not in question, and Treasury's counterparts in other countries have the same power.
Why do you come to that conclusion? The users want to open links in their browser - no matter if the link is in an email, chat message, or in an app.
Yes, of course it can still be a personal attack. There are infinitely many facts. Which ones you choose to mention, how you put them together, and how you express them are at least as important as their factiness.
Will Unity merger offer change licencing prices?
Unity offered $17.5bn to merge with AppLovin the mobile monetisation company that also owns all or large parts of major mobile gaming studios.
And how would we avoid this reputation blockchain from being populated by maliciously deceptive information, be it positive reputation promoted by the business through bribed or fake customers, or negative reputation promoted by unethical competitors?
I get frustrated with games that scale things with me. I want to be able to feel myself getting better, having my enemies scale with me on any axis really takes away from that feeling that I'm progressing.

I say this not because I think it's an especially noteworthy or important objection, but to echo GP's point, that it's very hard to find AI that suits everyone, and it's not just a matter of difficulty.
HN has stayed irrational longer than crypto that's for sure
There are scenarios where a multi-party ledger can be useful in business...
Think about a logistics chain where everybody needs to know that a record wasn't modified in retrospect.

But then you only need a mini-blockchain along the lines of what IBM calls blockchain, you may have a few industry players and say a customs agency agree to sign the entries and then there will be no dispute about whether an entry was signed on a particular day. Energy cost of that is negligible. (and you don't need to put the actual transaction info into the ledger... just the signature is enough so everyone on the chain can confirm later that it wasn't modified).

All of this is also pretty ancient tech by now... IBM just basically jumped on the blockchain branding bandwagon I'd say...
The website is amazing. Maybe we should start a discussion on some of the errors so they can improve the website. So far I know of Diego Maradona, Jean-Paul Sartre, George Washington, and Jake Gyllenhaal. Btw who are the people who ended up in the poles lmaooooo? Have no clue about any of them.
Thanks! That's quite the dire warning about PVC cement. Maybe I'll stick with silicone tubing for my first setup.
If you have good network, JuiceFS is the thing you are looking for. Multiple hosts can mount the same volume and it just works without conflicts.

If the network is slow and unreliable, the experience will be bad, all fs operations will be blocked if meta server is not available, since JuiceFS is a CP system.

Comparing JuiceFS to S3QL [1] https://juicefs.com/docs/community/comparison/juicefs_vs_s3q...

Comparing to ObjectiveFS, the big difference is that JuiceFS has faster metadata engine (comparing to S3), so it can provide low latency access AND strong consistency.
sounds really, very cool
You can use podman with buildkit, it's just kind of a pain because you have to do it manually. It is missing some nice to have feature integrations with buildkit. The instructions are fairly clear: https://github.com/moby/buildkit
raspberryPi3
They would be more persuasive if they were seen to be working on the observations it is manifestly incompatible with.
Uh huh, keep drinking the coolaid. They had no issues publicizing Osama Bin Ladens assassination, and the most recent ones. Or the various drone assassinations.

Plenty of ways to take credit without revealing sensitive info.
No, but if you only prosecute poor people for it and not politicians, you create an unjust, class-based system where the law is different for different people. Politicians need to be held accountable perhaps more so than average people.
It’s a useless act to tell people to stop complaining about a free product just because they didn’t pay for it.

First, free users still have the right to complain. Freedom of speech. I have grievances about Windows and MS, and I don’t even use it.

Second, complaining is just words. It’s not like users of Gitlab are demanding financial compensations. They are just talking. It’s Gitlab’s right to choose to listen or not listen.

“You didn’t pay for it so shut up you entitled free user” is one of those ideas that just don’t work in practice.
>"So a BF player could use COD skins?"

Something more realistic is can a player trade BF skins for COD skins. There doesn't need to be compatibility built into the game. Just having them as NFTs on the same chain unlocks new possibilities. For example instead of trading a BF player could lock up an expensive skin and borrow some cheaper COD skins to use for a weekend to show off at an esports tournament. After the weekend is over he returns the COD skins and gets his BF skin back.
Societies (and their evolutions) don't run by truly immutable rules - so having truly immutable things is placing things outside of them in a way. Would mean either the use cases for immutable rules are highly regulated and limited or there has to be a way to change them.
William Happer & Richard Lindzen: “No climate related risk caused by CO2” [pdf]
Some of the "better" arguments i've seen are obsoleting/maintaining anything that is quasi public record. Think all sorts of land/legal transactions where it's basically "once x and y and z have said yes, process transaction from x to z"

Codifying ANY logic is doable, but especially simple logic like that has it's upsides in how many middle men it can help eliminate, and the TONS of human error that comes with it.

In the examples you're giving, you could have codified "here's what happens if the supplier cannot complete the transaction" or "here's what happens if parties cannot agree on the quality of the work" or a zillion other things that already exist.

You did, however, hit on the big one, that when something goes wrong or something is misunderstood or somehow someone needs to talk to a human...well good fucking luck.

The obvious downside of all the decentralization mantra is that of course it means you're liable for your own mistakes, which is just NOT a business model that ever works. That said, the crypto space has gotten massively more centralized (because it turns out market forces still don't give a fuck about your philosophy), and I think the future of the tech lies somewhere else entirely, where end users functionally never interact with it.
it seems that the situation in the chip market is stabilizing
I think that you are right, and my answer had been too hasty.

What can be obtained experimentally is only the difference function D(x,y).

If it cannot be decomposed into a distance function and a space transformation function, i.e. as D(x,y) = d(f(x),f(y)), then that means that the quest for an uniform color space, which has seen a very large number of attempts during a century (the quoted Schroedinger paper is from 1920), will never produce a completely satisfactory result and that the best results for color interpolation or for color matching within tolerances can be obtained only by using a linear RGB or XYZ space together with a complicated non-linear color difference function.
You can store things that aren’t money on a blockchain.

If you think a distributed mutually-distrustful ledger is useful but shouldn’t be used for money, the statement “we like blockchain but not Bitcoin” makes sense.
I was looking at this just last night and the story with Ubuntu is horrible. That's essentially going to be stuck on v3.4 for ten years because it's "a lot of work" to get into that distribution.

You'd think an entity the size of RedHat trying to take the reins from Docker would understand that this is an investment they have to make to make it a first-class replacement.

I also installed it on Windows to see how the WSL engine works but now it conflicts with my existing v3 Podman installation on Ubuntu 20.04 in WSLv2 so I guess I'm out of luck.

Also may be of interest to people here but Podman desktop had a release yesterday. It's pretty primitive and I couldn't get it to work to use my existing auth.json but it's there.

It was a pretty frustrating experience when all I wanted was to be able to "podman login" to a local repository so Jib would pull down base layers correctly.
I don't see them as bragging. The first part of the paragraph is their previous "hard-working" perspective, and later comes understanding of the people they were looking down on.
You can go to the New Orleans subreddit and find people who are complaining about their electric bills there. I never mentioned inflation because it's not really big on their list of complaints, and there's nothing about that group which would make me believe that they're lying.
> as long as users can still withdraw into a non custodial address

Uh, that’s a pretty big “if”, right? It’s completely up to the custodian whether you can withdraw or not, and we’ve seen several large platforms freeze withdrawals recently (and then fold). To an average individual, the hypothetical possibility of withdrawing to the “base layer” is at best a marginal improvement over the existing financial system; hardly a revolution.
> I personally have encountered a situation where a tech lead repeatedly doubled down on idea that was objectively deeply flawed, but they had a lot of political capital, so management told me I just needed to "give in". Other engineers agreed with my assessment in private, but weren't willing to say so publicly.

That that point you need to choose, which you value more highly: correctness and finding the best technical solution, or maintaining as much team cohesion and not "stirring the water" too much.

So, if it's not your head on the chopping block, but a public decision about how to do things (ideally documented in an ADR - architecture decision record, with an author attached), just roll with it and indeed "give in". Ideally with some of your concerns documented, as well as a few prepared suggestions for how to deal with the eventual fallout and how to fix some of the things that might go wrong.
"Don't think of it as dying, think of it as beating the rush."

I suspect you may well be right but for different reasons: Societies have a life-cycle and there are quite a few of them that feel like they've passed their Zenith and are on the way down. I don't see how that can be reversed once it gains momentum and given the upside-down cost structure that we'll end up with collapse may be rather faster than how long it took to go up.

Immigration is just a shell game in this respect, though it may postpone the inevitable for a bit. Outsourcing manufacturing, food production and quite a few other critical components for a functioning society may yield short term gains but long term it isn't sustainable and the current perfect storm of war, climate change, covid and politics may well set off the avalanche.
The elders still sometimes say things like "shush, not over the phone". This didn't use to make sense for like 30-40 years, and, hey, it's a great comeback now.
I won't lie, I was excited to see the technical solution here - but this appears to be a stack of horrific shell scripts fixing everything via curl. Is it dependable, in your experience?
- OFAC just sanctioned Tornado Cash which enabled truly private digital cash equivalent

- HN: "There aren't that many uses for blockchain"

- Is privacy considered not a use case anymore? Who here is still following PG advice? Has anyone talked to *their users* recently? Because privacy is a pretty good use case!
I make a point of donating to open source if I create an issue or speak to maintainers, just a token amount of a few Euros - or more if I've used their code consistently.
Well, there were bombs placed and hostages were attempted to be taken - capital police redirected the mob and shot one of them to stop them.

Otherwise it would have been a different story indeed.
I doubt the backhaul capacity is the problem (since that's basically a solved problem), but instead the satellite-to-ground links become saturated.
Sound more like an argument against tax system in US
And to you with the college degree, that he mentioned. Be aware that, by now, several years beyond typical college age, OP now reads more textbook material in a year than many graduates read in their entire college experience.

The wizard has worked much harder than you for many many years. He just doesn't frame it and hang it on his office wall.
A lot of the complaints I have heard about CentOS also wasn't that CentOS was changing, or going away. Most people kind of expected something to happen sooner or later with IBM on board.

It's much rather about how clumsy the change was: Bring out Centos8 first for a year or two as usual, and then slash the EOL and change how the distribution works massively post-fact.
I don´t really agree with the Red Hat part of the examples.

Red Hat has Fedora, CentOS and RHEL. The new approach makes sense to me, Fedora is the upstream to RHEL, RHEL is the upstream to CentOS. Additionally, users can use (up to a limit) RHEL for free now.

Also, the nature of projects is very different. RHEL is available to be repackaged (e.g. Rocky) by the community with Red Hat´s blessing.

A better analogy would be GitLab ending the freemium, but adding free enterprise GitLab for x accounts and giving the source of GitLab enterprise to the community to distribute as they want (but without official support)
it's rather the opposite, it comes from the observation that humans operate in a natural environment, which has limits
You could already do this without blockchain, the problem is adoption.

If I create a leger that requires basic crypto-signing, I would need everyone to agree to use the system, perhaps try and make it the only system so there is an incentive to use it - and that is the difficult part.

Have some blockchain doesn't solve the problem of how you try and get people to adopt it.
I got yelled at at a conference for using my mum as an example of a user who wouldn’t use some complex software solution. I was told off for being sexist, or ageist or something.

They didn’t get it. My mum is super smart and prolific. She has a PhD in international development and has helped tens of thousands of disadvantaged kids go to school.

It’s not that she’s not smart enough. She just doesn’t care about the technology. She’s not going to spontaneously get comfortable with the terminal and learn rsync. But she can install Dropbox no problem. If a kindle just works and has all the books in easy reach, that’s what I’ll recommend to her. She’s too busy to bother with software that’s not user friendly.

That’s not ageism. I think about her a lot when I build software because I respect her. She deserves to spend her day thinking about her job, not thinking about stupid tech problems.
Why everyone is losing their minds over this new browser
> What if the "dark matter" is actually ions not observable from our telescopes?

We have radio telescopes that can see all the way down to a few tens of MHz. This is far colder than the CMB, and certainly much too cold for the intergalactic medium.

> Plasma Physics hold ions permeating the Universe as a premise & has physical experiments reproducable in the lab to back up their claims

Yes, plasmas exist. There are lots of them in space. This is completely uncontroversial.

> And can use classical EM equations explain how the stars & galaxies work

Absolutely not. Galaxies are firmly in the nonclassical regime.
You don't have to do so. You could make them just show up as a png in some menu. Or just not show up in the game at all. There is value in having cross game resources. Take for example a collection of racing simulators which you can import a car to drive around against AI. You could have a standard for staring a model for the car and stats about it that games should use to customize the experience of using it.
Celcius, The DAO, …

q.e.d.
Turning Fish Waste into Quality Carbon-Based Nanomaterial
Given a set of parties that I trust and I am willing to do business with, why should I spend money and technical resources, and give up privacy, for the privilege of using a blockchain to state to the world that I trust them? Why should I embrace a dependency on a crypto provider, or trust someone because the crypto provider's blockchain says that I should?

EDIT: replaced "cryptoscammer" with "crypto provider" for generality.
This is more or less exactly why Google/Meta need to be regulated and cut down to size. The fact that super-expensive engineers do not have to create value for these companies, but they are still 'affordable' while every other tech company is struggling to hire, means that they are capturing way too much value, i.e. rent.
Quite a few countries have solved this problem.
I am happy that a good few people spotted that reference. :-)
I (and by association, the company I work for) have been a CentOS user and was very unhappy when that was taken away, of course!

But It's not necessarily about the money.
We're no big enterprise, we're a bunch of small onlineshops and a few other operations.
I'd be very happy for my employer to toss RedHat some coins.
We're not stupid, I know that for RedHat to stay around they need money.
I'm also a big open source advocate, so I'd be more than happy.

But how do you even do that without involving a lot of overhead?
DigitalOcean, our infrastructure provider, doesn't even offer any paid Linux.
You pay for the VM and that's it.
As far as I know, it's the same for AWS, Azure and what-have-you.

RedHat needs to rethink their business model, maybe partner with these providers so they get a cut of the price from DigitalOcean.
I'd be more than happy about that, heck, you could even include a small contingent of support tickets with the VM.
Maybe a cheap CentOS VM w/o support and a slightly more expensive RedHat VM.
I could definitely have used that at some points!

So, RedHat, please - take our money!
This version contains the answer to everything.
Because health is quite literally priceless.
MOND is unsuccessful in the broadest sense because the jury is still out. It hasn't failed, and does have support, but hasn't managed to convince the experts that its individual successes translate into overall success as a model.

Narrowing the meaning of "success" can lead (me, at least) into a philosophical morass about what really are predictions, what is parsimonious, how do we science, why even is anything. Sorry, maybe it's not fair, but I don't really want to go there.
> the problem is that most such alternatives raise more complicated questions like breaking the consistency our theory of gravity, or introducing bizarre quantum behavior of certain cosmological fields, etc. Maybe all those problems can also be solved — but nobody knows how! That’s why it appears like they “ignore” it.

To me as a lay-man, this seems like you are indeed ignoring non-dark matter solutions, as dark matter allows you to add various magical elements to explain up whatever is missing in other models. This seems very un-scientific.
I am biased against Slavoj Žižek because I'm not very fond of him.

I disagree with happiness not being important. It is important, but it is not something that you can have all of the time, because human mood, emotional state and the experience itself is always a wave, going up and down, constant fluctuation. A person needs to learn to identify where in the curve they are and not allow the curve to rule their life. Once your able to be aware of the curve you can start taking steps to decrease the down trend of the curve so that you can spend more time in the up trend.

Humans notice change - diff, if you will. Meaning if you were to be in absolute happiness for extended period of time, your frame of reference would slowly fade and you would no longer know what is happiness for you.

That's why, it is my personal opinion, that you should just sit down, drink a hot beverage of choice, acknowledge the Yin-Yang nature of reality and choose happiness.

No curve goes up or down for ever. I'm not a financial adviser.
Grandmas are 70-90, not 50. At that point we're still close to the second world war, which is a very different path. Those folks simply cannot be expected to have any competence.

As an aside, I work with many folks around 50 and most of them are functionally technologically illiterate. It doesn't seem like such a strange assumption to make from where I'm sitting.
Yes, it never was shouted about much. I was surprised when I found out.

There were lots of CP/M clones. Many computer makers had their own. I've never been able to find a comprehensive list. It would be a great cooperative project for a Wikipedia page or something.

But some of them, like MSX-DOS, effectively were but didn't advertise the fact.
Yep. But as soon as a few real users find your place and rank it highly, then the bot army will only impact scores for users who haven't yet come across such bot scores.

Obviously any such scheme is helped by there being not-too-many bot accounts. It's hard to limit bot account creation in a decentralized opensource design.

One potentially workable approach is to have users leave a trail of data in some immutable form (eg. a series of reviews left, with scores, timestamps, and text comments), which you later apply some heuristic over (eg. 'all comments containing a web link to a url shortener are probably spam'). All data that is older than the publication of the heuristic is then fairly trustworthy, since bot account owners can't retrospectively edit their spam to make it not match the heuristic.
GraphQL and REST are safer for the backend. You can trivially hog up a server with a single SQL query, even without any permissions.

Or, more innocently, you can write some hilariously wasteful queries in SQL (join on string replacements? create absurdly unnecessary temp tables? seen both). GraphQL queries have a much more limited ability to fuck up the server.
But the Kobo does have a built-in store. And it does support WiFi sync. I don't see any way how a Kobo is harder to use for a non technical user than Kindle. No trade-off there x)