skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The whole point of the article is that Canada's system needs safeguards.

If this were truly the point of the article, it would have spent less time trying to make emotional pleas and implying that assisted suicide for non-terminal patients is somehow immoral and/or a direct road to eugenics. Canada’s system does have safeguards, and whether or not they are good enough is not actually answered by a couple anecdotes and some comparisons to other countries.

> Killing someone for having depression and deafness is not the same as for having terminal cancer and constant pain and being bedridden. This is really not a decision for the individual patients to have freedom in.

There are conditions that don’t bother me at all that others would suffer with immensely, and there are many people living happy lives with conditions that I would absolutely want to kill myself over. It is incredibly paternalistic to believe that you (or I) can decide whether or not someone else’s suffering is ‘enough’.

> I know multiple young people who have been suicidal and attempted it. Most survived but more could be dead if they were able to simply ask the doctor for it and it was all easy and painless.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you have had those experiences and I can tell that they have had an impact on you. However, it is not possible for someone to just walk into a doctor’s office in Canada and get wheeled into the morgue an hour later, and as far as I am aware no one is suggesting that it should be so.

I would encourage you to shift perspectives here and start thinking about how creating a safe, legal, and painless way to end one’s life could reduce the sorts of impulsive suicides it sounds like you’ve seen. For some, just knowing that the option is available makes hard times in life feel much more bearable. For others, the guarantee of an easy and painless assisted death makes the idea of trying to kill themselves on their own a risky and unpalatable alternative.

The more that suicidal people believe that going to see a professional is a better idea than taking things into their own hands, the more people will be able to have their quality of life improved by interventions other than death. And for those who are beyond improvement with today’s resources and technology, at least they too will be able to stop needlessly suffering.
A lot of email clients support multiple email accounts, or at least sending addresses. Not just desktop ones like Thunderbird, but web ones like Gmail too.

You can additionally set up email to be forwarded (or retrieved). So, for example, you can easily have your me@example.com account forwarded in to Gmail and Gmail set up to send from that address.

That works fine if the site sends a confirmation email, it'll get to Gmail where the user expects to read it. But the other way around will give the user errors about having the wrong email (even if tj user picks the right outgoing address, because you won't be able to verify it), and ultimately cause the user to give up or you're going to have to spend a lot of time supporting all kinds of weird email configs.
Remote Desktop from Any Device
exactly this.

even better, their own test suites haven't passed yet at all... https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/
Agreed. Usability on mobile is best with the short codes. Even 2 FA is fairly efficient that way as long as the messages are designed to show the code in the preview.
One decent argument not made: this would avoid “spam” reaching people’s inboxes from people trying to sign up with emails they don’t own.

As the owner of a very common [initial][last name]@gmail.com address, I’d take the trade off, but this might be even more niche than neomutt users.
The archaeologists' paper (in Spanish) has pictures: https://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/881/95...
this is not how markes work. while trying to buy 2/3 by of a semi-stable (in that time frame) amount of ETH, you will skyrocket the price and have to pay more for each additional ETH. A huge amount of ETH is already staked aka out of the system since you can not unstake them at the moment. You can not liquidate your staked ETH regardless how much money you throw around. This is not a practical attack vector you would literaly >100x the ETH price.
This aspect also differs from the PoW approach where you take a source from outside of the system (Hardware) to participate. And since there is a 'infinite' number of Hardware/Hashpower you could accumulate over time attacks are easier (still hard for different reasons) to perform.

But lets assume you archive to controll 2/3rds of validators, you can not start staking the very next second. There is a queue (I think of some days) and people will recognize the attack before you will be able to perform it and people will simply blacklist you for their own sake.
Not affiliated, but I've used it as long as it's existed.

I've previously used team viewer, simple help, anydesk and nomachine and this has been the most performant by far. It uses WebRTC with custom agent.
But through all of that the German civil code after WW2 still looked quite similar to the one pre-WW1, e.g, rules on how people transact or private property had huge continuity.

Isn't the question not that laws etc. change but if there is true reduction of the total?
Email verification is more than just verifying the user owns an email, it also improves the chances future emails will be received successfully.
I actually find it refreshing that Wikipedia doesn’t cater to the lowest common denominator in the theory section of technical subjects. For sufficiently popular subjects, they often have more accessible explanations on their “Simple English” version of the page.
Why should millennials adopt the magic of Hasya Yoga for overall well-being?
Veering away from Dolo 650 to the topic of opioids.

The pain of pain relief.

Are the deaths form Oxytocin classed as Iatrogenic, that is caused by medical care, since it over comes the “Just say No mindset?”

The damage is huge, to the people set up with it but to the overall reputation of medicine in the USA being so deeply co-opted by the company.
As an example: AWS has no DMARC on its SES domain, and its SES domain is what sends SES emails from by default. Anyone who's not using a custom domain with SES, has no way for anyone to validate where that email came from. All CloudWatch alerts come via the generic SES domain, so there is literally no way to tell if a CloudWatch alert is spoofed or not.

I'm really surprised no hackers have started sending out phishes via spoofed CloudWatch alerts yet. I guess it takes a while for them to capitalize on industrial vulnerabilities.
CAS is pretty much tailored for read-modify-write (RMW) of atomically-sized data. ABA is an issue if it can result in the same bit pattern having a different meaning (thus, CAS is sometimes less intuitive than e.g. LL/SC), but there are plenty of cases where it is enough, even in a straightforward "composable" way.
Duolingo. I’ve learned much more French in the past 60 days than I thought possible. It leverages normally toxic engagement patterns to teach me how to speak with millions of people.

If you find yourself staring at your phone a lot, try to replace whatever you shouldn’t be looking at with a quick language lesson.
But the letter Ǳ is not the same thing as the letter D followed by the letter Z. It's a standalone letter in e.g. Hungarian or Slovak, much like æ isn't "ae".
I'm very skeptical of relying on every random domain on the internet setting up SPF/DKIM properly to the point it's trustworthy in this way. I can't find stats on usage of `~all` (soft fail) but only an abysmal 6.4% of .com domains have `-all` (hardfail) [0].

Another major issue I'd personally run into is usage of catch-all addressing [1] (and same issue with plus-addressing [2]). I use a unique email address for every site I sign up to, but I don't easily have the capability to send "from" those addresses. It's not that it's hard to do, but it's enough effort that I'd not bother signing up at all.

> The user is more active: instead of waiting to receive an email in their inbox, the user is immediately presented with an email to send. They can make progress in the flow themselves [...] Even if the flows take roughly the same amount of wall time, this activity makes the “reverse” flow feel faster and more responsive.

Respectfully disagree with this assertion. Users are used to emails taking some time to arrive. I think delays in this flow will feel like your verification service is broken.

> Completing the flow is equivalent to proving that you control an email address

Not exactly. It proves the IP you send from is authorized to send mail for the domain, according to the SPF record setup by the domain owner. It doesn't prove it's your individual email address, and it doesn't prove you can ever receive mail to it.

> The user has fewer opportunities to make mistakes: Users frequently mis-copy verification links, or use clients that mangle them, &c. These mistakes can’t happen in the “reverse” flow, because there’s no verification link to click. The user only has to remember how to send an email, which is a reasonable expectation in any scheme where the user is expected to have an email address.

Except the mailto: link contains a verification code, and thus is subject to exactly the same problems?

IMHO this is better solved by just not doing bad verification URLs.

Bad: https://auth1.web04.example.org/app/1042/verify.php?action=e...

Good: https://example.org/verify/BC44-5204

> The user’s mistakes are easier to detect

If you send the verification email at the beginning of account creation you can avoid them going too far.

If that's a barrier to your sign-up flow, provide some useful options. Eg: after they still haven't verified, ask "Still haven't got the verification email? It was sent to xxxx@example.org, but you can click here to modify it".

[0] https://spf-all.com/by-tld.html

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19333901

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Subaddressing
Scapple: https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple/overview
Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. As a very large ETH miner, I'm not that concerned about that part of things. Why? The business model for my company was built around a larger idea than just mining. Mining was just a great way for us to bootstrap the business.

Let's also not forget that there are other coins out there to mine. There is a huge potential for something to take ETH's place... whether that happens or not is up in the air and really depends on someone to step up and take it. Easier said than done, but the possibility is there.
Show HN: Their Name Here – A place card maker to create printables in minutes
Hi everyone!

My wife (a designer) and I (a developer) have been working on Their Name Here for the last few months after she struggled to find a cheap place card maker that had modern designs for our wedding.

The website is still under active development and she's got some more themed designs (tv shows/films/public holidays) planned for the next few months.

Would love your feedback and hope you use it for your next event :)
Well said. Particularly the point around people not having email set up on an “OS” level. There are a lot of people who already struggle to effectively use modern computers and smartphones, and you’ll run into all kinds of weird edge cases. For example, I previously helped a friend who had just been using the gmail website on their smartphone for years because they had forgot their password but Safaris keychain had saved it so they could auto fill the password.

I’ve encountered countless other scenarios where a user is using software in “non-ideal” way because it works for them or they don’t know any better.
I find it fascinating that it seems like there's this emerging field of expertise around how to best interact with these gigantic LMs. I have no idea if this is like a passing fad during a gawky adolescent phase of the models, or if this is just a new thing that some people will always be at the cutting edge of.

I gather that there's loose some precedent for the latter with the chess computer stuff: I've read that serious chess players heavily incorporate computers into their training and even that hybrid human/computer teams often outperform either/or teams. I'd love if someone who actually knows chess commented.

Generating code via model sampling seems to have different, or at least exaggerated imperatives around "few-shot" tuning. One might wish to generate natural language for any number of purposes, but there is a probably a stronger "better"/"worse" gradient for code, and much like human language, excellent code is rare as a fraction of all code not only overall, but even by the same company or even by the same author. So you probably want the overall contours of like "this code compiles" from a big corpus, but to tune up the "this vectorizes well" eigen-tensor from Lemire's repo.

Crazy times.
Presumably OCR on the Google Books scans then compare to some known text from a different source (Gutenberg or something)
Yes. It seems only monopolies or near-monopolies engage in substantial amounts of greenfield research. Everyone else is too busy competing to spend a dime on anything that won’t help next quarter or next year if we’re lucky.
I'm not sure. A lot end up sending an email that you need to click on to verify.
I find it really hard to believe the Dutch authorities would arrest/hold someone unless they had a good reason (more than indicatedin this article).

> This would be like saying that the fact that it's only a bunch of hippies protesting useless wars doesn't really help.

Indeed. If it’s only the fanatics protesting the general public (and probably the government) must see a good reason to proceed anyway.
How about a control function on human population? (For nature as a system, it might as well count as a benefit)
There should be some mechanism that measures the existing inequality and automatically adjusts tax progressiveness so to keep inequality at some constant level.
China’s Semiconductor Breakthrough
All data goes in _a_ database, we’re just providing an extension in case you put sensitive data in your own. Developers often store sensitive data, this extension ensures that it’s encrypted at rest so that it doesn’t leak to logs and backups.

Specifically for Supabase customers, we have another extension called pg_net, which can send database changes to external systems asynchronously (called “database webhooks”). One of these systems could be, for example, AWS Lambda, but to do that we will need a Lambda execution key. Vault allows users to safely store this key inside their database, and because it’s co-located with the data the payload can be sent immediately via a trigger (and end-to-end encrypted).

Vault will expose a lot of libsodium functions that are useful to developers - encrypting columns, end-to-end encryption, multi-party encryption for things like chat apps, etc
google has been putting significant work into a neural fields extension of their very popular Jax machine-learning toolkit too, https://github.com/google-research/jax3d
What? You didn't entitle your post JBUG? What a wasted opportunity for a good pun.
They were designing the games for people with normal CRTs. So no, that's not how it was "intended to be seen".
Exactly. I saw this story posted at the Archeology subreddit and that was also the first question there too. Mostly buried but obvious patterns to the trained eye.
The difference is that you still paid for the class. The university wants the money.
That whole article could have have been two sentences. Also the problem with it is obvious: not all users have a email client configured. Back in 98 I used to get confused when I clicked an email link and windows would spend ages trying to open up some program called Outlook up!
> I doubt a Russian nationalist would be for Fascism, considering how many millions of Russians lost their lives to it.

Why is this so weird? Facism isn’t a state, or an actor by itself. It’s an ideology. If his ideology has all the markings of facism, it’s facism, even if he calls it differently.
It's not unfair to point out a design as needlessly insecure. Regardless of the method, this design adds a new attack vector (email spoofing) that did not exist before. Even if it was very hard to do, it's an unnecessary added risk.
> "Computing as an intelligence augmenter" seemed to be a really popular viewpoint through the 70s and 80s (even in corporate advertisements for computing devices). Then it somehow got co-opted by "computing as a medium for passive entertainment and video games", and then eventually as "a medium for social networking".

This is probably a demonstration that intelligence only gets you so far and isn't really that useful in life. Nerds don't like this because intelligence is what they value in themselves; that's why so many of them think that if "artificial general intelligence" was invented that is "superintelligent" it would somehow also have superpowers and be able to invent viruses, convince anyone of anything, etc.

But how's it going to do that? Just imagine them really hard? What part about being able to think really fast says any of those thoughts are accurate?

Basically, computing technology is good at creating virtual worlds of logic, but it's much harder to affect the real world with it.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox.
Human absolutely bring negative value to a chess match for at least 10 years now (when pairing with a computer).

Even for Go AI, where it is only ~6 years old now, I'd still believe that human bring 0 value to a computer. 2-3 years ago, there was still some precise sequence where human might conceivable be dealing with (due to the nature of MCTS, human was better at reading deep narrow move sequences -- in go player term, human was sometimes better at life & death + some ladder sequences). Nowadays, the network are just way stronger than any human that we can't really follow what is going on in serious hour-long matches of the machine.
I get my name mispronounced, misspelled, in wrong order, and/or incomplete constantly. I do bot think it is so bad. After all, as immigrant, I can choose to go back to my natal country anytime, if that is so bad. It is no discrimination.
I don't mean to be pedantic here but 6% improvement in productivity is a rounding error. You can achieve a higher level of productivity by just removing the ping pong table from the break room. This would indicate to me there is a non-significant improvement in productivity. That seems consistent with my having talked to several senior+ engineers who tried copilot and found it simply wrong or unnecessary.

There might be AI written code in the future and surely the "no code" shills will latch onto it with religious fervor. But, much like "no code will eat the world", this too will fail. Until general intelligence is capable of producing large scale systems that need to be coddled and orchestrated, bespoke perhaps even brand new approaches to business problems, etc, there will always be many highly paid humans there.

The conspiracy theorist in me makes me think that all of this push to shill this product constantly is yet another way the FAANGS are attempting to dilute the pool enough to lower wages. Engineering is highly skilled, highly technical work. The actual work of someone higher than junior level typically evolved way beyond simple CRUD coding exercises. When you spend more time making sure copilot meets standards, the code is correct, etc it's simply not that useful. It feels much more like the fancy test case generators for some IDEs. For very trivial, borderline rudimentary cases, it works wonderfully and saves time. Once things become complicated and messy it just gets in the way.
I like it, but it's hit or miss. When it works it works well, when something doesn't work you just won't get the VM to run with Boxes. But I don't do much serious stuff with VMs so it's often just what I need, click on the iso file and it boots.
PR and development was led by them and it was designed so that they could basically turn the AMP frame into a first class spec so they could capture your activity past the search page.
I agree it's a good rule of thumb, and better than nothing for the most part. I tend to side conservative: there should be a protocol like Bitcoin which makes running full nodes as cheap as possible in the current environment, but could it increase its block size 50% every 4 years? Probably.

> What is a reasonable blocksize? I couldn't give you an exact answer. I am not a researcher.

We both agree that 'the right size' should be a sophisticated determination. In my view, that suggests a market based, variable approach is the way forward.

> In any case, it's possible to design a cryptocurrency that does not need to store transactions forever

> the more important metric is network consensus bandwidth

You're the only person who I have heard point out these facts that is not doing so in the context of Saito. I invite you to check it out, or while it's small and crypto is relatively inactive, just drop into the Telegram and have a chat with David, an outspoken founder. That project was built on understandings you are repeating here.
The letter à can be represented in two different ways in Unicode:

* As the single code point U+00E0, which encodes 'à'.

* Or as the sequence of two code points U+0061 U+0300, which respectively encode the Latin letter 'a' and the combining acute accent (it's hard to display as a standalone character, so go e.g. here: https://www.compart.com/fr/unicode/U+0300). These two code points get combined into a single grapheme cluster, the technical name for what most people consider to be a character, that displays as 'à'.

As you can see, there is no difference in the visual representation of à and à. But if you inspect the string (in python or whatever) then you'll see that one of them has one code point (one "char"), while the second has two. If you're on Windows, an easy way is to type it into pwsh:

PS> 'à'.EnumerateRunes() | % { "U+{0:X4}" -f $_.Value }
U+0061
U+0300
PS> 'à'.EnumerateRunes() | % { "U+{0:X4}" -f $_.Value }
U+00E0
In which case slapping ITAR regs in EUV machine sales from Europe is shutting the stable door after the horse race has ended.
Because fuck those people who want to use non-English names, amirite?

Seriously, it's 2022, we have better solutions than ASCII by now. And for what it's worthful, even in ASCII some chars like l, I and 1 are quite confusable.
If you do block it, your access to the account you’ve created might be in jeopardy. At least it depends on how you “block” it. If the service receives an error on future emails, the user’s account can be disabled, as usually described in the TOS.