skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not quite, I took your logic and simply showed that it leads to the wrong result.

I never said anyone is here to perform a task. That said, I am happier pressing buttons on a machine than I am just lying motionless. It doesn’t matter that the activity is artificial, doing something is by far preferable to doing nothing.
An interesting partial solution to an older, niche Discord community I've found was the creation and sharing of a "lore document" of important insights and parts of the community's history.

I generally agree that knowledge-sharing helps more people if it's easily searchable via Google, but then again, it's also possible that the interactions would be different without the exclusivity. Many events in the community's history may have never happened if it were more public.
I always, always programmed defensively and this happened to me very seldom during my decades as a C programmer.
One regulation mentioned is “ linear no-threshold standard (LNT) for measuring doses of radiation.”

That’s not a regulation per se, but likely the source of many unnecessary regulations.
> Extracting deeply useful information

This right there is the difficult part - what do you mean exactly? I cannot come up with anything better than search, as in like Google search. And they did it for books already, it's seriously good.
That's a stretch considering how many of them are out currently. Things either work or they don't. There are always growing pains, but nuclear has had way over 50 years and it hasn't worked.

I listened to parts of the recent John Carmack interview, and he touched on nuclear and it was the first time I heard somebody pro nuclear say something sensible on the topic. He said, based on everything he knows, it shouldn't be as expensive as it is and there just needs to be someone like Musk with SpaceX to make a business case. I neither agree not disagree because I don't know, but at least the faith in it is based on something, it acknowledges it doesn't work right now, but here is what needs to happen. All the rest are pretty much like this article, nuclear is the only option because it is, and that's it, move along. That doesn't cut it.
I think if you were doing scientific work in this area, you would want political cover.

"I'm just studying why people whose ancestors grew up in one area are more likely to have a certain gene than people whose ancestors grew up in a different area. It has absolutely nothing to do with race".
and gifted ones too.
I _think_ that if you know the real source and real destination of an ICMP message, you can just forge back a message with an arbitrary TTL exceeded message, from any "I'm IP address xxx" address. Those can come from a lot of rando IPs because the intent of them is just "at this hop, the TTL ran out", and the hops the original sender wouldn't know anyway. A lot of fake hops would be essentially impossible if you examined the real BGP routes and stuff, but verifying that in real time sounds hard enough that I bet nobody bothers.

I'd have to do a lot more research and testing to verify though, not something I've played with in practice, and obviously my terminology isn't even right above, so take it for what it's worth.
It took me until the bottom of the iceberg to realize that each is a link you can click.
Is this the "science" rag that just decided to censor any research that paints any "groups" in a bad light[1]? Yeah, nature.com is compromised, we need sources with more integrity.

[1]https://archive.ph/xvuBk
Weird that giving google all your traffic didn't end up boosting your own bottom line /s
> The worst case is they end up more expensive than we'd like. There is no chance they won't work out in the sense of not working at all.

Smart grid tech could easily fail to be able to deal with the complexity of balancing lots of dynamic demand and output. It could simply be too hard to do that with software in real time needing to react to signals over a great distance in real time.

As for batteries, they could be too expensive, clusters large enough for over night power could be dangerously fire prone, or we could have problems with lithium supply/recycling/disposal.

>If one is talking about financial risks, one must look at the chance nuclear construction will be much more expensive than promised

Yes, of course it might be. But it may turn out to be much cheaper if we settle on a few well understood designs and stamp them out largely in factories. I'm not advocating for going all in, just getting the ball rolling as a contingency.

If renewables live up to their promise and batteries deliver in the next 10 years then I'll be celebrating along with everyone else. However I think it makes some sense to build some new nuclear plant designs now just in case renewables and batteries take longer to mature than expected.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
The work they do behind the scenes is very impressive. An "AWS, but for supply chain" would be huge in my (biased) opinion, though I'm curious whether they would be motivated enough to share their progress with the rest of the world since it's been quite a competitive advantage.
I believe those numbers are correct. Perhaps "major" is a subjective position, but an unexpected drop of 20% is quite major, IMHO.

Whereas wind was expected to drop in output, because wind is intermittent, and any primarily renewables based grid will have large overages of generation capacity to account for that. (Just as we currently have large overages in capacity for traditional generators).
> Ontario is also twice the size of France

You certainly mean Metropolitan France*. France is at least 10 times the size of Ontario.
Agree in principle, though taking the human (i.e. teacher) out of the loop is a very dangerous proposition (consider the current wave of book-banning in Texas).

At one level, even the idea of studying computer games as literary texts is quite tricky, as they tend to be expensive, require expensive hardware, require teachers to have played them (would you expect a teacher to teach a book/film without having read/watched it?), and everyone's experience of it diverges.

At the other end, the idea of a massive game (like the "Young Lady's Illustrated Primer" from "The Diamond Age" where you learn everything as you explore the game world sounds very appealing, but is a massive undertaking even for a game company (you're talking about codify most of the curriculum), so would need massive state funding. Parents tend to want things done at school as they had to do them at school (even if those were crap), so you'd struggle to find schools actually willing to take this on board (and that's before the resistance you'd get from teachers).
Telegram is pretty good
stop it you tease
> Microsoft Team is almost too professional

The problem with Teams is not that it's "too professional". The problem is that there is more spacing in the interface than there is actual text. You know, the conversations - the thing it's meant to do best. Threads are a mess to follow, channels are awkward... If professional == terrible UX, then you may be right.

And let's not even talk about how unstable and unreliable it is.
Perhaps in theory, although transmission losses would be large. But I wouldn't want to be on the mercy of distant countries, perhaps on different continent, for getting energy, especially during winter. And as there are other possibilities than solar energy, I don't see why to go for solar energy instead of the other alternatives.
Yet?
The West "explored" but also in a fairly aggressive way and only after a history of violent conflict post-Rome. I read Metropolis by Ben Wilson, which focused on histories of cities, and the Middle East was experience a trade-driven era of prosperity before being "discovered" by religious explorers/conquerors from Portugal. The Portuguese didn't initially have much valuable to those societies to trade - but they did have much better weapons to use against them from that history of conflict instead of a history of trade, and an aggressive religious mindset.

I think it's a very open question if the warring, violent nature of those Western cultures actually led to overall faster/better technological advancement than if they'd interacted with the other cultures they came across in a peaceful, trade-oriented way.
Working for an insurance company, I feel really uncomfortable with that.

Insurance prefers short policy durations: a year long, preferably.

Anything longer and the level of uncertainty becomes massive.

For an oil well, a year long policy is fine. Nuclear requires decades.
Does the name have any special meaning?
Thanks for listing these. It's very useful.

(1) is a function of what SQL you might transpile to. Any SQL w/ rich types (like PG) or w/ JSON support (most others) will be able to meet (1) with varying levels of hackiness.

(2) even if some SQL RDBMS allows you to have tables w/o primary keys, the thing transpiling to SQL wouldn't be obligated to have tables w/o primary keys. Some SQL RDBMSes do not allow tables to lack PKs (e.g., SQLite3 doesn't), but even this wouldn't be a problem -if one wanted tables-with-dups- because one could use hidden row IDs to make up for that.

(3) just as with (2), the new thing transpiling to SQL wouldn't have to allow NULLs, and could generate SQL that uses `IS [NOT] NULL` / `IS [NOT] DISTINCT FROM NULL` to obtain the desired semantics if the new thing kept any notion of NULL.

(4) is not a semantics issue, and anyways, some SQL RDBMSes let you implement tables yourself, and for the others there's CTEs and TEMP tables.

Of these only (1) is a problem if you want to target pure standard SQL, though it depends on which SQL standard you target.

We're definitely not talking about transpiling to 1980s SQL!

So, while there might some semantic impedance mismatches for a transpiling approach, and the choice of RDBMS to transpile to matters, on the whole I'm unconvinced that there are such problems that are very serious. My own imagination is failing me in my attempts to come with such semantic impedance mismatches.
Writing maintainable code is basically what defines the role of software developer. Pretty a lot of technical roles --engineers, scientists, hell, even economists-- pick up enough programming experience to hack stuff together. And those hacked together solutions are universally a nightmare to work on afterwards.
RISC-V does not in any way depend on instruction fusion. I don't why this meme persists, especially as no RISC-V cores in the market do instruction fusion.

High end OoO cores in other ISAs are BREAKING DOWN complex instructions into µops. RISC-V is pre-broken down. The one exception to that is current x86 and ARM cores DO do instruction fusion, to combine a compare with a following conditional branch. Which is a singe instruction in RISC-V in the first place. SO it is actually the other way around.

Low end cores shouldn't be doing either fusion or breaking down into µops. They are supposed to be as simple as possible, and doing either of those is a complication using significant silicon area and energy.

There might be a place for instruction fusion in mid-range cores. Things in the ARM Cortex A53 / A55 / A510 range. The most popular RISC-V core in that segment, the SiFive U74 (used in the HiFive Unmatched, BeagleV Starlight, VisionFive v1, VisionFive 2, Pine64 Star64 .. and probably more yet to be announced) doesn't fuse multiple instructions into one instruction, but it does pair a forward conditional branch past a single instruction with that following instruction. Both instructions still exist, they each go down one of the two execution pipelines side by side, the same as if the branch was predicted not-taken. At the final pipe stage if the branch turns out to be taken, instead of taking a mis-predicted branch penalty and flushing the pipeline, the U74 simply does not write the result of that following instruction back to the destination register.

That's the closest any currently shipping RISC-V core I know of comes to instruction fusion.

"crazy difficult to implement levels of instruction fusion" does not exist anywhere, and is not needed. It's just an idea from an academic which doesn't actually exist in the real world, at least at present.
Yes, and realistically, you're just as likely to benefit from investigating lock and I/O contention. I wish my work was mostly optimizing single threaded CPU bottlenecks. Would make things a lot easier.

If you're dealing with disk access, sequential access is often so much faster than random I/O even in SSDs (especially in writes) that Big-O can be very misleading to look at.
MyFitnessPal barcode scan made counting calories easy, now it’s being paywalled
Chrome allows websites to write to the clipboard without the user’s permission
Steps to reproduce:

1. Visit https://webplatform.news/ in a Chromium-based browser

2. Inspect your clipboard (paste it somewhere)
> I challenge your contention that "a way to uniquely identify themselves" is a right of biological women or other groups. Never heard of any such right; it sounds totally made up.

See, for example, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders. Both entirely meaningless if men can self-identify as women.
>> I assume people are still building those things

> If you mean older reactor designs without the passive safety features I mentioned, I don't think the US is building much of anything.

No, I mean the new ones you mention, people will make mistakes building the new ones, including the failsafes, regardless of the physics.

> Nuclear reactors of course require regular maintenance, like any large industrial plant, but those costs alone are not a significant impact.

It's not the cost I'm responding to, but more the idea that human error will be entirely removed. People will be responsible for that maintenance, they will screw it up.
The Trait That ‘Super Friends’ Have in Common
It looks like the article may have updated this sentence. It now reads as:

> Mostly because people didn't believe that it was possible to exploit the retpoline limitations, it was somehow logical -but risky- to refuse to implement a mitigation that would slow you down.

In the version you quoted, I'd call it "clumsy" due to a lack of logical comparison from the left- and right-operands of "versus". I could understand what the author was getting at, however.
Damn guess I should do it…

Won’t anyone rid me of this priest^H idea?
Military reactors are different from civilian reactors in at least two ways: 1) military fuel would not be allowed in civilian hands, and 2) military reactors have essentially an infinite budget, and have few economic constraints.

The challenges of using military reactors in other settings go far beyond questions of "political will"
I have like 7 Slacks. 2 of them are paid, 5 of them are hobby that I may use once a month. What are you suggesting? That I pay an extra $40/month just so that maybe I need an old message in one of those? I'd agree with you if Slack were indie devs but does Slack need my $40?

The unhappiness comes from the fact that people want to rely on a service, even if it's free. It would make sense if this was a change for the sake of resources or paid user experience. This is for neither, just a tiny push for people to pay or leave. Ironically, It may make me want to stop paying because having all the conversations in one place is nice if I take the hobby slacks elsewhere
afaict, they're a "senior lecturer" not a tenure track faculty member.
An implanted chip made by a company called "Dangerous Things" who's address is a box at a UPS Store disguised as a "suite" and whose website has no privacy policy or even TOS. Dangerous things, indeed.
I think people are reading the title of the submission and assuming it's a link to the actual talk (which has been around for awhile and people like it), instead of a gist written by someone else entirely, and upvoting accordingly
Maybe our needs aren't terribly great, but Teams works pretty well in our enterprise. ~3000 users.
And it disables the browser's find functionality. It's such a core piece of functionality, I'm really surprised it's been broken for this long.
My point is neither has private messages. Discord has direct user-to-user messages. Those things are not the same.
This felt like a mean spirited and cynical money play to me, especially coming years after launching free instances. For smaller groups (families, houses, etc) this effectively forces them to pay or lose months or years of history.

To me, this says that I can't trust that slack cares about supporting what people are currently using their product for. They'll be looking for opportunities to reduce costs or increase revenue and they don't much care if that means losing a lot of users who aren't making them much money. For all the users but the biggest users, this is a sign that you should start looking around for other options.
Google fucked it because they wanted the control.

They could have easily made the spec just "here's the subset of crap you can use, and here's the extra rules" and left it at that, but they just had to add all of the other nonsense to give themselves control. Without that it would have been fine.

They could have still added in the part where they give pagerank bonuses to sites that comply, so there'd be an enforcement mechanism too.
From my experience, people who score extremely well on standardized tests do amazingly well in professional/knowledge-based fields. Of the top scorers in my high school class, many are not just doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business-people… but they are _top_ doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business-people. When I hear about those students through the vine, it is like “of course they’re successful - I would be surprised if they weren’t” sort of feeling.
nahhh, none of the gross stuff. More like fit people eating 50K calories a day - all delicious food.
What? For sure a lot of engineering happened as a result of scientists and practioners discussing possible advancements. I have completely different understanding of history. Was not Archimedes a scientist that was presented with a task that required a lot of scientific reasoning.
We're here to help: https://qoddi.com
No, discord is not a good alternative. We just have to wait until they pull the rug from under their free users in order to aggressively monetize. And I think that will hurt much more than Slack.
https://github.com/MoonbaseOtago/vroom

One-man project. It works, right now, at A76 levels. The aim is M1 level, and the bottlenecks to that are known and being addressed.

There is NO WAY one person could do with with a complex ISA such as x86, ARM, or POWER.
From the size and performance of their website, I’d guess they’ve probably found a way to make their costs much greater.
now now, the examiners often say no a couple times before saying yes.
No one said that. Obviously software that can bring down the entire machine is still being written, but by highly skilled specialists. Meanwhile we've grown an army of coding bootcamp programmers churning out all the software that is eating the world (™ Marc Andreessen)
I tried searching for the programming language 'perl' expecting https://old.reddit.com/r/perl/

The results only showed 'LaTeX' and 'me_irl' (a meme subreddit).

Good results for 'php', 'ruby', 'node', 'pascal', 'haskell'
I wonder if drinking excessive alcohol Which leads to an excess of bacteria like Clostridioides difficile thus raising risk of colon cancer as well..

per other HN submission

https://www.gutnews.com/alcohol-microbiome-liver-disease/
most of what you said is fair, but as a Taoist, I do not see a semi euphoric state as being a normal condition, or even a condition that can be a sustained for a long period of time. There’s a saying, that a strong wind does not blow all day.

With these rushes of neurotransmitters, the receptor density on our neurons changes to adapt to them. This is a truth that we all need to understand. This is how the strong wind ends.

I’m afraid that people will be obsessed with trying to sustain this type of bliss when a more healthy approach would be to look for a neutral state. Absent of the constant highs and lows.
These are fair questions.

> Why?

Because releasing energy is invariably accompanied by change of some sort. If that energy is released as part of an intentional effort by a technological civilization, then that change is also going to be intentional. The entities releasing the energy are doing it in order to produce change. That's the whole point.

Note that the situation we are facing here on earth is actually not what you would expect from that dynamic. Our current climate change is not directly related to the changes we've unleashed with the industrial revolution. It's an ancillary side-effect, and a particularly annoying one. But even if we didn't have CO2 to worry about, sooner or later we would cause some other change that would disrupt the previously prevailing equilibrium. In fact, we've already done that in numerous smaller ways. Lots of species and non-technological civilizations have already gone extinct here on earth.

The fundamental problem is that industrial revolutions produce exponential growth, which is not sustainable. Sooner or later that growth has to stop. (Even an arbitrarily advanced civilization is constrained by the speed of light to grow at a maximum rate of N^2 in the long run.) So either we have to decide to stop it or the laws of physics will do it for us, and the former seems unlikely.

> why a change in equilibrium universally results in catastrophe?

It doesn't necessarily, though it is very likely to be a catastrophe for someone. In any major upheaval there will be winners and losers.

The reason I think it's likely is that there will always be a period where new technologies cause living standards to improve dramatically, and that induces techno-optimism, a belief that technology will always be able to solve any problem that happens to come down the pike. Techno-optimism will cause civilizations to go closer and closer to the edge of the existential precipice because the Malthusians warning about existential threats will always be empirically wrong until it's too late.

> We actually found alternatives to fossil fuel long before we reached a crisis point.

Yes, that's true. And it's quite possible that on a different trajectory it would have taken 1000 years or 10,000 years to reach the crisis point instead of just a few hundred. But what is killing us now is not CO2 per se, but rather techno-optimism and the prisoner's dilemma. No one wants to sacrifice their standard of living for the greater good of future generations. And that seems to me to be a universal dynamic.
Ted's Notes on Pawpaws
This is a puzzle to me, even late in my career. I think one thing is that as a company grows and matures, it gets more organized, and more formal about hiring. This makes it harder to hire misfits such as myself. HR has a hard time passing a misfit's resume along to a hiring manager. But also harder to get rid of us. ;-)

If bigger, more successful companies hire with an eye towards specialization, then the flip side is that there's a reward for workers who specialize. Also, many people like what they're doing, want to get good at it, and do more of it.

This is why, much as I love physics and don't regret studying it, I also won't tell anybody that it's a surefire career path.
...Zulip, the author of this blog post?