skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's your opinion that reading a book and watching grandchildren is enough to make your life enjoyable, which is fine. That doesn't mean it is enough to make my life enjoyable, especially considering whatever difficulties I may be wrestling with, whether medical, emotional, financial, etc.

And no, more government resources may not always be able to mitigate my suffering. IMO it is horrible that we require a person to take their own life by violence (which is always allowed and cannot be prevented) rather than helping them take it in an easier way.

A personal story: my mother was 74 and developed a respiratory infection overnight. I was with her Friday night watching TV, but Saturday morning she didn't answer the phone. We went to her house and she was too weak to get out of bed and couldn't go to the bathroom. She said she just wanted to stay in bed but my sister talked her into letting us call 911. When they came, they said her oxygen level was 55, and that it would not be unusual for a person to die with that level.

She was put on oxygen at the hospital and they took an X-ray to confirm pneumonia. They wanted to do a bunch of tests but she refused. They said without the tests, she would probably die. She was okay with that.

Why would a 74-y/o who watched TV with her son the night before want to die? I'll tell you why: she had been in the medical system for the last 40 years with rheumatoid arthritis. She was on a walker because her last hip surgery didn't go well: they told her she would be driving within 2 weeks after the surgery, but instead, she was on a walker the rest of her life because her bones were unable to heal. The hospital said she'd have to drag an oxygen tank around the rest of her life. She could barely get around on a walker, so dragging around a tank would have been impossible. This is just the tip of the iceberg of her daily challenges.

I'm sure someone has "solutions" to all of her problems. But just because that would be acceptable to you and make your life worth living doesn't mean it is acceptable to others. Whether a life is worth living is a personal decision: the state or a bunch of "do gooders" cannot make this decision for a person.

I'm a firm believer that people should have the right to outline the circumstances ahead of time where they would prefer to die so that in the event they become unable to make this decision, they can die a dignified death. And if they are not incapacitated, people should have the right to make this decision for any reason, just like they can take their life by violence for any reason. I am not opposed to requiring a few counseling sessions to make sure they have considered all their options, but the outcome of counseling should not be used to decide for that person whether they should be allowed to commit suicide in a humane way. A person should always have that right, whether others agree with their decision or not.
Straight up assembly language, preferably Motorola MC680x0 or some other contemporary that was meant to be coded by hand; it's the only way, man! Plus students will gain some appreciation for how microprocessors actually work.

In the same vein, just have them write code out on paper during exams and coding competitions like the way we did it back in my day. It's not as if they're not going to need that skill anyway when they get whiteboarded during interview loops when even the most lenient employers get exasperated at "CoPilot-only" graduates.

</tongue-in-cheek>
U-2 spy planes photographed ancient buried ruins
You can certainly tell the age of the article. Shame is talked about every single day, many of these recent movements are based around shame. Hell, I'd say they've perfected it to a point of weaponization, When nobody does anything particularly illegal, they're just socially shamed into obscurity, and if you still like these people, you are shamed as well.
For many engineers who don't "get" art, I'll try to give an explanation that parallels something many programmers will be familiar with.

Of course, there is a lot of pretentiousness in the art world, but often when you see a painting or artist who is revered in some way, and you wonder "Wut? This is incredibly simple and boring." it's often because the artist was the first person to really look at the world in that way. Probably my favorite example of that is Agnes Martin, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin. I look at her work and think "She's famous for drawing graph paper??" but I think the Wikipedia article does a good job explaining how her work was such a departure from what came before. Similarly, Heizer is famous for the scale and site-specific nature of his works, where sculpture and landscape blend.

This may not be a perfect analogy, but PagerDuty has a market cap of about 2.25 billion dollars (and it was recently twice that). I've used PagerDuty extensively, and I've thought "The is basically a calendar system with alerting policies. How can this be worth so much money?" But the fact is that PagerDuty was one of the first applications of its type that solved an important (if mundane) business problem it a straightforward way. It may not be "genius" in the way Einstein is genius, but it was one of the first to address this problem it a way that users really liked.

I think Wordle is similar - it's not some genius accomplishment, but it does so many things in just the right way (the once-a-day nature, the way sharing works, the jiggling of the letters, the fact that most games just take a couple minutes but every now and then one will leave me stumped for a long time, etc.) is why it became a phenomenon when there have been "word jumble" games for ages.

So my point is that if you see some piece of art that you don't "get", at least first try to understand the context and history of what went into making a piece. Even if you still don't get it after that, it can leave you with some appreciation of why that particular work is more renowned than others.
Stripe has laid off employees behind TaxJar
I think it would be easy to paint these guys as idiots or their community as a cult. But I have a feeling it’s all much more ephemeral than that. Probably 95% of the money came from individuals who got plenty of entertainment bang for their buck of out of this. The folks who started it probably had no idea what they were doing - and that’s… probably fine!

Money is like energy. It’s never really wasted. It’s a liquid that teaches human beings valuable lessons. Does whoever sold this book for 3M deserves a article praising them? No - just like lambasting these guys seems somewhat undeserved too. Que bono?

DAOs are interesting and I have no problem with capital being spent in silly ways - because the money goes somewhere. Should we want money only spent by the top authorities and experts? Not me - let the kids have fun.
Bitcoin is not controlled by the nodes.

It is controlled by the miners, and a 51% attack is a serious concern. It always has been, and it always will be.

It was designed assuming at least half of the network would not be malicious.

The blocksize war absolutely didn't prove the superiority of the nodes. These are tall tales told by people who really wanted that to be true.
Star Trek Project
Using Snapchat to Rob Influencers
At no point did I say "I do not care about FBI corruption". I said that regardless of my feelings about specific FBI actions, I do not see a reason based on those actions to automatically make them (or those investigated) the good or bad guys in general. If you have a hard time believing that's what I said and meant, I can't help you.
This looks like spyware tech. In particular, for micro-scale active-RFID tags. The basic idea is to take an RFID tag, attach a small battery, and to that, attach a tiny solar pv chip and microcontroller to keep the battery charged indefinitely. In contrast to passive RFID, which has only a few cm range IIRC, the active RFID tag can be read hundreds of meters away. There are some non-dystopian applications, i.e. it makes tracking expensive inventory much easier.

Add a tiny microphone and some memory, and you have hard-to-detect surveillance spyware that can basically be placed anywhere. The STASI would have loved it, of course.

Looks like these active RFID applications are getting rather common, for example, this DoD supplier:

https://hi-techrfid.com/
"I think 18 year olds should be able to end their lives because they got a bad grade in a class and who knows their life better than them" — I rewrote what you were saying. This strawmanning stuff sure is easy!

Patients aren't always rational actors. In the US at least, doctors have < 25 minutes per person. There are well documented biases in medicine (try getting your tubes tied as a single woman) and my concern is that it very easily veers into eugenics territory. If we can't treat something why not screen for it in utero and terminate pregnancies with appreciable odds of developing terminal or chronic diseases with no known cures?
That's just nitpicking, but ok: backpropagation is the application of the chain rule for total derivatives.

Look into forward- vs reverse-mode automatic differentiation, and you'll understand what I'm referring to.
And disposing of medical waste at home… Amazon didn’t want to build a central hub.
Welcome to Ridleyville: How Hong Kong Inspired Blade Runner – Discovery
I live in Kansas City, full of rail lines in many directions. Lived near rail lines most my time here. I think horns are sometimes used to warn homeless around corners.
For Lambda, AWS EC2, and ETL job using TabularData framework.

Highly performant, It runs within docker container. Documentation is highly available.

Challenges: Getting more people to use it and collaborate with it.

SwiftUI has become more trendy, that other frameworks don't get wide relevance.

another library which brings more interesting projects is: CoreML On-Device ML training and inference
As I read, I begin to share your blame.

That what looked so promising in the 19th century really should have been immediately quashed in the 20th when computing theory reared its head.

The types of assertions Rota chides -- must have a closed form solution, composed strictly of non-infinite, occasionally wonderfully simple solutions, and asserting that they must exist through deductive route -- all hallmarks.

I thought pure mathematics was over?
Andrew did a nice talk on the kinds of modifications that were necessary to get those improvements https://vimeo.com/649009599
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, I appreciate the explanation.
Depression absolutely makes people irrational. It changes your risk calculus. Are we going to act like other disorders such as bipolar are rational and should be listened to whenever at face value?
I guess CS programs are going to need to grow up and teach real topics like ethics, technical communications, effective testing, and large-scale systems design instead of how to write simple loops, which is something I learned at the age of 4 from “Gortek and the Microchips”.
Steam's Unfair Visual Novel Bans and Their Inconsistency
Few people take ETH seriously - lol sources ?
I feel the missing part is the "consciousness" computations we do. Your consciousness doesn't do database queries or image recognition, all of that happens in subconscious parts as otherwise you would be aware of all the computations happening before the image reaches your consciousness. But to me it seems like the consciousness is where we maintain coherence over longer timespans and ensure that all the subconscious computations don't go off track, and that is exactly where even the largest modern deep models fails.

Human thinking without consciousness just becomes dreams, incoherent nonsense stringed together via some loose logic.

There ought to be some programming technique to get that behavior, but deep learning doesn't seem to be it.
It’s my opinion, having worked in IT in various roles, that there are 3 kinds of systems. First, the informal systems, which are just everyone doing whatever works for them. Those systems are flexible, simple, and inefficient. Second, the rigid systems, which tend to crop up when the org grows big enough that the informal systems start getting in their own way. Those are simple, inflexible, and efficient. Third are the complicated systems, which happen when the simplifying assumptions in rigid systems become problems. These are complicated, a bit less efficient than rigid systems, and a bit less flexible than informal systems.

Now, the problem with the complicated systems- which tend to become more and more complicated over time- is that they require a dedicated staff to maintain, which tends to grow over time, and so the organization has to be big, and needs to have access to a big profit margin/energy surplus. If that goes away, then yes you have to collapse down to rigid or informal systems.

The same process no doubt plays out on a civilizational level too.
Unfortunately it seems this way with a lot of higher level math and it's not really unique to differential equations. The difference is, unlike calculus in general, in diffeq you have actual rote formulas to solve most of the known solvable cases.

I found the classes to be rote. The derivations are truly non-trivial. The book Ordinary Differential Equations by Arnold goes into more detail. Basically if we taught the reasons we'd require everyone to take analysis and differential geometry to truly understand how they work. Given the MAJORITY of students in diffeq are engineers and not math majors 99.9% don't want to know and/or don't care about this detail. You see a similar occurrence in calculus where you're basically told "dont think about it too hard" for your own safety. If you start wondering a little too hard about calculus you end up switching majors to math and taking two semesters of real analysis. It's also EXTREMELY common for engineering professors to teach differential equations rather than math professors. This further waters down the rigor because (obviously) an engineer will not know/care about the rigor. Part of the reason I've pursued a math degree is because there was so much handwaving in engineering/computer science it became just an extremely annoying grab bag of math tricks and I wasn't satisfied.

To me we have too many inter-dependent classes to teach each class with full rigor. As a result you end up with a collection of half-understandings for most of your undergraduate career and only if you take a math major itself (or a minor in math) will you actually unlock the other half. A better path through math might be basic algebra I, II-> geometry -> trig -> abstract algebra I+II -> analytic geometry -> calculus I, II, III -> real analysis I+II -> differential equations I+II, but this would basically make every degree a math degree. What you experienced is the compromise.
People do understand. Please stop telling us how hypothetically, possibly, sometime in the future things may one day be somehow better and more amazing than it is today for some yet to be understood reason. You must not be paying attention to say something like "The blockchain development environment is fundamentally less terrible than the centralised database world" given the perpetual controversy in the developer communities of every major cryptocurrency.
The JavaScript bridge is still quite slow, though.
This is one of the places where I disagree with the article. As an (experimental) physicist, I've always found the dx notation better to understand. When I asked the professor about how it works, he called it a calculus (as in German Kalkül, set of rules to almost mechanically manipulate a mathematical expression, not to be confused with "Calculus"). Of course there exist proofs in terms of limits, or differential forms. But it is something one has to learn, just like div and curl and so on.

We had very mathematically rigorous math lectures. I was able to do most of the proofs, but failed to calculate even a simple derivative when thinking in differential forms. (Maybe because I failed to see what is a function and what is a variable in the "mathematical" notation and misapplied the chain rule.)

The other thing where I disagree is the part about avoiding word problems. I think the word problems were the only interesing part - how to translate a given physical situation into a differential equation and variables. Solving them is not really interesting - everything interesting for me has been solved before, so I can just ask around the hallway or punch it into a computer algebra system.
Pre-pandemic I was building a new EV charging kiosk experience on Raspberry Pi industrial hardware using Swift in Docker (actually, Balena). Build times were a little long at the time, due to the RPi CPU speed and Swift’s compiler. But there were a surprising amount of hardware drivers available for things.

Also key were these Docker images: https://github.com/wlisac/swift-on-balena
It looks super neat! But if I'm honest with myself I don't actually "see" the numbers being equal after summing these tetrahedra (or even the triangles). I believe it, but I'd find a regular induction proof more believable. Visually, the trick in dimension 1 is a lot more convincing.
Well sure but it's just compositing pixmaps from somewhere else. It's just a bad compositor at this point
> It would have been far better to risk naysayers’ ridicule and dive in earlier and stronger.

It wasn't ridicule, it was propaganda intended to get people to vote against their own best interests (and therefore stop politicians from acting, by threatening them with consequences)

And it worked, really well. Still does.

If you're treating these issues as if it was a bunch of misled but ultimately well meaning individuals then you are in trouble before you start.

For example, "we need new tech to solve this", which is both true and dangerous. True in the sense that a million little fixes have made things better, dangerous in that climate change deniers will use it to divert time, energy and money from known fixes:

> Green energy cannot meet Germany’s need for reliable electricity. That is why Germany still needs copious amounts of fossil fuels; German CO2-emissions have risen since the nuclear power phase-out of 2011, despite the incredible subsidies for renewables.

> Germany is an example of how not to do green energy. Instead the solution is to research and develop better green energy technology.

That was Bjorn Lomborg during the previous Ukraine gas crisis in 2014. Better technology than Wind and Solar, which are the two winners of a global, 4 decade race to produce cheap, clean energy. That's what he thinks we need. While at that time Wind energy was the cheapest source of energy available, and Solar was rapidly catching it up.

And here he is on twitter a few months ago doubling down on that:

> The idea that the Ukraine war could be fixed by choosing Western dependence on Chinese solar panels and batteries over Western dependence on Russian oil and gas reveals just how unserious the environmental movement really is

So, it's a real problem, and we really need to do something about it, but what the consensus solution is, isn't a solution after all, we just need to invest in future tech that will solve the problem. We can't rely on the the Chinese manufactured solar panels that he himself claimed did not work. Now they work, they're just too Chinese.

That's the depressing lesson of Climate Change and COVID, if right-wing politicians can buy a few votes and stall some regulations via attacking science, reason, fact etc., then they will.
Feel free to do a point by point rebuttal.
And*
I don't know who uses it, but there is a site that has been tracking Rust's maturity for web servers for years.

https://www.arewewebyet.org

The answer wasn't "yes" until the last year or two.
We will probably just get comfort androids for men at this rate and then we're really in trouble.
Fraser's book is pretty detailed and worth reading for those who've only gotten the version from the books or the tv show. It's clear that the economy was much more complex than we were told. It was probably impossible for any of the homesteaders like the Ingalls to ever make enough to live upon given the amount of land they were given.
Just add a requirement where the student has to explain how the code works.

To be honest there should be a class called language model querying because for simple tasks it does well but eventually you will have to debug the output (not just copilot but GPT3 and dall-e).
Unfortunately, there's a few things that currently hinder compatibility with DVC caches. First, Dud uses the Blake3 checksum algorithm, and DVC uses md5. This means the content-addressed caches will have completely different file names. Second, directories are committed to DVC differently than they are in Dud. For directories, not only will the committed file names not match (due to point 1), but the contents will not match either. Both of these things could be addressed, but it would take a lot of effort and would likely cost Dud in terms of its two main goals, speed and simplicity. I'm not opposed to this if we can make it work, though.

Dud currently does not support reflinks, but I think adding reflink support would be fairly straight-forward. Just curious: What filesystem and OS are you using for reflinks?

I'd be happy to chat more about this. Feel free to open GitHub issues for these items. I welcome contributions as well. ;)
> It's like putting salt on food for the first time of your life, it's another level of deliciousness.

Baby humans dislike salt. Most young children dislike salt. The "deliciousness" is mostly an acquired taste, though there may be some physiological-need-driven component to it under unusual circumstances.
> I thjnk there is a sort of societal sickness where we’ve stopped making things that are beautiful

... when artists had to compete with the perfection of camera and escaped in an orthogonal direction.
> Man-made diamonds look exactly the same as naturally occurring ones -- the only difference is the price tag.

The appeal of diamonds (and gold, etc.) is they are unique and they are relatively rare. At the cultural level these properties manifest as a signal for "Look at me. Look at what I can afford" and "I've got something you can't have."

When that signal becomes noisy and/or deluted eventually the appeal of diamonds - real or lab - will fall. That is, the appeal is the ability to make a statement. If the number of statements increases, price and appeal will fall.

It might take a while but diamonds as social currency will eventually implode.

Long to short I hope these diamond merchants have a Plan B, and these couples a good marriage counselor.
Having seen Voice of Fire in person, I thought, “this is dumb,” only bigger.
"Could" is another word for "they don't."

The typical user could use something other than Infura - but they don't.

The typical user could use some future system that doesn't exist yet - but they don't.

The typical user could cash out somewhere other than Coinbase - but they don't.

The typical user could use stablecoins other than USDC - but they don't.

This is covered in the article already. Default behaviour matters, a lot. Almost no Ethereum users are going to telnet 30303.
The scrolljacking on this site is awful. Why do people keep doing this?
NFTs work and they allow artists to

- make money off digital art in a global permissionless market (didn’t exist before)
- easily charge royalties in perpetuity for resale of their art

Some aspects of DeFi - the ones that were properly audited and whose function is not a ponzi derivative - work absolutely fine. Compound, AAVE, Uniswap, Curve Finance.
My company switched to Slack pretty early (mid 2014). IMHO the secret sauce was the volume and quality of integrations so you could pretty quickly turn it into a real-time feed/joint timeline of, well, everything.