skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unfortunately, the Y is probably the only option for an indoor pool in most places, but I wouldn't recommend them in general if you're worried about scummy practices. They wanted me to come in-person to sign a form in order to unsubscribe, after I'd moved. I finally got them to relent, but still had to send a digitally-signed pdf to the manager. Of course, signing up was a simple web form.

Climbing gyms kind of run the gamut. I was actually pretty delighted to find that the one I had been a member of, when I moved during Covid, actually never reactivated by subscription when they reopened, so when I nervously called to cancel, expecting them to have some ridiculous requirement, I didn't even have to cancel at all. They hadn't been billing me in the first place.

If you want to run, go outside. Even in fairly unpleasant weather, I think that's generally a better experience than a treadmill. And if you want strict measurements and not to worry about being hit by cars, go find a local high school or college and they almost certainly have a track that is sitting unused often enough for community members to run at. That's how I used to do it when I still ran.
> it is also not mentioning that "academic excellence" in high school has moved from straight As to 6-8 AP exams in a single year, i shit you not.

That is because even when I attended high school 15 to 20 years ago, letter grades/points were extremely inflated. AP exam scores (and SAT/ACT) are the only objective academic measures.

As an example, I am pretty sure a C was the lowest grade possible to get (translated to a 2 on the point scale). Then a B was a 3, and A was 4. For a class, there was a final numerical score (arbitrarily determined), and an A was something like 93 to 100, B was 85 to 92, and so on.

But that was for the “regular classes”. If you were in an honors class, you got +5 added to your final number grade for the course. And AP class added +10. So if you ended up with 93, you actually got 103 in the class. And so you had an A, but the grade point average was calculated from 103/100*4 = 4.12. And then this grade point average was used to rank you relative to others in the grade for purposes of determining valedictorian.

In any case, as you can see, the whole thing was a joke and anyone who attended class got a C, and anyone who put in half an ounce of effort got an A, and the higher achievers had GPAs higher than 4 on a 4 point scale.

Obviously, colleges are not dumb, so they know the whole grade inflation ruse, and it also continues in many classes. After all, at many colleges, their customers are paying them $30k to $70k per year for that grade.
CNCF [Cloud Native Computing Foundation] Intro to Fluvio
They should do the same for patent. I see companies and now universities freely take tax payer money to develop their own products. It just becomes an additional source of funding with little string attached.

It's fine to use tax dollar if there's potential for public good, but the tech developed should be released to the public domain right away. I have seen a selfless act from an academic group making decision not to patent a technology because they felt its an important one that many other things can be built on. Now tens of companies were started based on that tech and counting. I hope our gov understand how much value can be unlocked by public domain technology.
It's literally entertainment; you're being entertained by it. That doesn't mean it isn't teaching you or otherwise improving the world, but it's broadly in the class of entertainment.

I suppose I'd still classify it as entertainment even if you paid for YouTube premium.
The challenge here is that many startups will ultimately fail to produce anything at the early stages. A big company/startup can spend months or even years debating the feature in question with minimal consequence.

The startups advantage is to simply be faster. A slow startup is worse off than a division in a big company.
It's probably pretty common within a certain cluster. A bunch of other people probably see the barriers and just pass. Or my experience is that others just find grass is distinctly not greener and move on.
That "theoretically" is carrying significantly more water in this example than is smart to assume.
Why would you need data to be in a specific brand of database before you can send legal process for it?
> They are savy enough to know what a password manager is, but not savy enough to deal with an offline one.

Not the person you responded to, but: I think that most people are savvy enough to know what a password manager is, and most people are not savvy enough to be interested in the work necessary to setup, personalize, and maintaining an offline password manager that functions well across multiple devices. That doesn't sound like a niche subset to me, but I could be way off.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the theoretical minimum energy required for desalination? Is it the energy released when salt is dissolved in water?

By analogy, Vaclav Smil says the best iron smelting and ammonia synthesis plants are within 100% of the theoretical minimum energy required for the chemical reactions to take place - within 50% in the case of the very best iron smelters. Aluminum smelting is slightly worse than these two IIRC.
> wildly unenforceable at a practical level

I suspect it will be enforced the way open source codes of conduct are enforced. Very, very selectively, by very, very suspiciously agenda-ed people.
More accurately, the source code is exposed all the time...

https://github.com/bitwarden
It probably would not be all that surprising to learn just how many companies are like this. Especially tech companies. It goes a lot deeper due to regulatory capture. Then companies that exist for long periods of time, like the many ones started during and after WW2 have largely merged with the Government just naturally over time. Then consider all the companies that are either too big to fail or exist just because of quanitative easing free money. Many companies are just wholly controlled front companies by the FBI, CIA and other agencies.

Then all of the rest are at the mercy of all these other agencies to even operate independently.

Capitalism indeed.
It's trivially enforceable. Academic institutions have been absolutely ideologically and politically captured. The long march through not only the institutions, but especially the HR departments has achieved total victory.
I'm having difficulty reconciling these two opinions:

1. This ethics guidance is bad because it limits, or even censors, scientific investigation related to socially sensitive topics.

2. Social science has a reproducibility crisis and is mostly useless (a viewpoint commonly expressed in response to other articles).

Does anyone hold both of these opinions, or is it just different people talking at different times?
Here's the issue: you've come to a conclusion, and then you're using that conclusion as an assumption to dismiss evidence against it.

For example: you say that it seems unlikely that Franklin considered Irish people inferior, because in 1755, Americans didn't have anti-Irish sentiment.

But the fact we're trying to determine is "was there anti-Irish sentiment in colonial era America", using Franklin's words as evidence. If you simply assume your conclusion and use it to invalidate evidence, then there isn't really a point to me providing evidence.

Something else worth noting is that Ben excludes Swedes from whiteness, despite their Protestantism.

Anyways, this isn't really a hill I care to die on, so I'll be bowing out of this discussion.
You're more charitable than I am. I think these things are written with a mindset of "how far can we push this/what can we realistically get away with?"
You don't want to ask questions?
> In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.

Does it matter? Neither fetuses nor abstract population groups are moral agents, only individual people are. Therefore, selective abortion of any kind (that does not cause potential offspring to be worse of) is morally neutral act.
That's plenty of time for selection pressures to modify a culture. Culture—shared knowledge—is communicated much more quickly than genetic changes.
at least they put the safety on before throwing you the gun
Ideology can remain inconsistent longer than you can remain fed and housed while opposing it.
The Cat Returns would be a great Ghibli film for children. I also would never show children most Disney movies as a lot of them have terrible take-aways.
:) :) :)

I literally have this posted on my office door at the university where I teach.
>In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information.

Are you sure about that? We have a pretty good way of predicting the sex of the fetus and somehow our misogynistic and sexist society doesn't have a mass problem of aborting females.

>So, in this case, where we have an oppressed group that can be oppressed further, is knowledge better than ignorance?

Abortion is oppression?

Today, in most regions, you can abort a fetus for any reason ... even terrible reasons. Are you advocating for abortion controls so that abortion is only done for the 'right' reasons?

>I want to make one thing clear, this is not a silly thought experiment. This is very possible right now with the advent of biobanks, GWAS tooling, and machine learning.

If it is possible today, where are those mass abortions?

>I presume that most of you would agree that releasing this information for anyone to know would have negative consequences, and should maybe be controlled.

You assume you can hide this information. Why do you assume that?

And no, I don't agree that it should be controlled.
I guarantee you that if the guideline documents in TFA came to the attention of Twitter, they'd already be dated, and somebody would start righteous-indignation-tweeting to get their personal army to boycott Nature until they change it to say what the mob wants it to say. And I'm not being flip. For once.
You’re not going to mow anyone at these speeds. Even hitting someone at 55mph means the road is designed poorly.
> US startups seem to have it so easy compared to companies in other parts of the world. It seems they may have been getting a little extra help from government agencies.

That's called industrial policy, and the US does less of it than other countries. A model example for industrial policy is South Korea.
TikTok owner quietly launches search app Wukong in China, where Google is banned
I did something like this here https://github.com/mingodad/lalr-parser-test where I expanded byacc/bison/lemon to generate a naked grammar, ebnf grammar (understood by https://www.bottlecaps.de/rr/ui to generate railroad diagrams) and interchange the grammar between then (byacc/bison to lemon and the other way around too, taking in account the difference in how they interpret rules precedence).
No, their red flag is an up front technical screen before you talk to anyone to find out if you want the job.
Just rebrand yourself as a data scientist and tell them to read it on your medium page and then immediately blocking them on social media. Do an occasional freebie piece about how you're the victim of an ugly new trend and watch your follower count soar.
That's why there are quite a few people who don't consider some of such fields sciences. I have half a heart to agree with that stance. That's not to say those fields don't have value, but science is the process of building reproduceable, falsifiable evidence. If you can't do that, then you aren't practicing science.
I’ve done something similar in Germany, ended up getting a bill after 6 months of missed payments and a nice letter from a lawyer.
One day this might be very useful in product design. It seems very close to creating a finished design… or Atleast a great starting point and a mental unblocker…
These are orthogonal issues.
Open source and replicable studies means going back to the fundamentals of the scientific method so this is a good step. I would love to see more peer-to-peer peer review technologies and websites developed though. There really is no reason to have publishing intermediaries in most cases. For example, many conferences and proceedings are essentially run by associations and societies etc.
I have used it myself and it's fine. Better than most roads I used to bike along when I lived in Belgium. Most people do use the bike lane. There is just this one subset, usually in full racing gear, who ride slowly in the middle of the road.
You wouldn't. It just simplifies 'things', from a technical and operational POV.
This reminds me of the short story in “I, Robot” (Asimov) about the robot who could read people’s minds.

The robots in that world were hard-coded to be incapable of injury humans, and the mind-reading robot considered emotional damage “injury”. Of course the robot got into a paradox where it had to hurt someone’s feelings, so it just…died.
I was barely able to maintain a professional response to this request. If you've worked at one before, it should come as no surprise that it was a financial firm.
Have you investigated Funkwhale (https://funkwhale.audio/)? Might not give you the bunch of files that are presented with webby player things experience that you're looking for, though.
Oracle doesn't care if you're nice about them or not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170246
Are all of these people having a collective hallucination?

Or is it possible that people actually feel less safe due to a steep rise in homelessness?
Insert the passion(energy) in yourself. You have no choice if you have to grind through things you don't want to. Every human experiences some type of "grind" , although to different degrees. I acknowledge the difficulty but you do have to make it work or then life sucks lol
Yeah the things you mention definitely enter into the equation.
TL;DR: this article is likely “spin” trying desperately to blunt the tsunami of workers moving to better their own conditions at the expense of arrogant and entitled employers who traditionally have had all the power in the employment relationship.

sad trombone noises
Yup, at first it seems wasteful to order delivery, but if you go shopping yourself you still end up driving.
Both middle/upper-middle class spouses "have" to work because both middle/upper-middle class spouses started working - poor (especially minority and recent immigrant) women, even those with young children, have always worked for money in the US; who did the cooking and cleaning for institutions and the well-off? Who did the sewing that used to happen in US factories?
I don’t think you need to worry about that, those are completely different use-cases and markets. ARM CPUs will be available and widespread in other applications soon enough, and Linux support is already strong in that regard.
Aside: In the Links text-only browser, the HTML on www.treehugger.com breaks the a tags so that the href URLs do not work.
This, plus the day one capabilities are already useful and are actively being used. For each weird bizarre output there's also one you can barely tell wasn't made by a relatively talented human artist.
Tell me how your believe is better than someone else's 'blind faith'?

Science is falsifiable - anything pushed forward by science has a way to be disproved built in (other wise it is not science). That's important because then you can update your worldview based on new evidence.

For the same to be true of religion - it must be falsifiable: it MUST have a way to disprove itself via experimentation... oh wait... the (Christian version) does...

Go do this test: "Kings 18:20-40": When you've soaked your bull in water and it doesn't magical catch fire by praying... I'll be waiting. (Or I'll be waiting video proof of the Christian god - that should be repeatable by many people... right?)

MAKE THE BULL CATCH FIRE WITH YOUR PRAYERS OR GTFO WITH YOUR NONSENSE
Python Match Case is more powerful than you think
https://cybersecureyourself.net
I helped make this one. Simple by design.

A longer one that I recommend (as well as EFF’s SSD): https://hackblossom.org/cybersecurity/
Definitely not. Although manners are a way for elites to stifle speech they don't want to hear, civility is different than manners.

You can be just as forceful with civil language as you can with uncivil language.
>I refuse to believe that anyone who thinks that 1984's main takeaway is that there is no objective truth and that any attempt to stand against propaganda is a greater crime than the propaganda lies themselves has actually read it.

The issue has never been about truth itself. It's always been that you should allow no single entity to be the arbiter of what is the truth, because everyone has an agenda, and organizations have multiple people with multiple agendas.
"Believe" is an overloaded word. In one sense, it's simply the content of your mental state. In basic epistemology, Knowledge is defined as "Justified True Belief", i.e. when your mental state matches the actual state of the world for the "right" reasons (this is surprisingly tricky to make formal, see [1])If your head is a memory cell, your beliefs are the actual 0s or 1s inside it.

In other senses, "beliefs" are an identity, and some people like to think theirs are more based on science than others. "Believing" in science amounts to adhering to a broad package of ethical and lifestyle choices that references science to various degrees, their followers believe this gives them more legitimacy than other lifesyles or ethics systems, but the actual degree to which they are justified by science varies enormously.

To take 2 extremes :

(1) Taking a stance against fossil fuel is "believing in science" because (good, credible) science says those increase carbon footprint which in turn disrupts the climate in a huge variety of ways, technically this doesn't necessarily imply to oppose fossil fuel as science doesn't have normative component (science doesn't care - in the strictest sense - if human civilization is destroyed or signficantly harmed), but with only an additional few, normally agreed-upon, assumptions you can get there.

(2) Taking a stance against biological-women-exclusive sports is "believing in science" according to the stance followers because a few studies of shaky foundations and questionable funding says there is no unfair advantage to those who had male puberty, although there are tons of other studies that disagree.

Those who say (loudly) they "believe in science" are usually using "believe" in the non-philosophical sense, and the viewpoints they love to push most are usually (2)-like rather than (1)-like.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
I've got a long set of thoughts on all of this.

I come from the position that AI cannot be like human intelligence. I don't believe it can function like a human being, I don't believe it's actually intelligent, just a more complex machine. We can go into whether people are just complex machines and all that, but I don't really want to.

I always thought that human generated art would have some quality that machine generated art could not, and perhaps that's true but there reaches a point where the average person cannot distinguish them. My girlfriend showed me an AI art generator on Discord called midjourney (referenced in the article I believe) and I was blown away. I've seen pictures I'd hang in my wall generated by the thing.

How long before the vast majority of paintings, drawings and the like that people enjoy are generated by machines? What about music? Then, without human input at all? Then even without human curation? It's a neural net model after all, can't it be trained on its successes and keep spitting out wonderful art pieces?

What about movies? Look at the Marvel movies, Star Wars, they're mostly CGI. At what point do we stop needing people to make them? At what point do we stop needing actors?

Video games... It's beginning to look like any form of artistic content can be generated by machines, and be very, very good, and by good I mean pleasant to people who interact with them. Eventually these things will be better than anything a human can make, if our yardstick is how much people like them and how many. And there will be a near endless supply. Imagine every person you know having absolutely unique pieces of absolutely gorgeous art that cost them absolutely nothing. Imagine a thousand top notch feature films a week being released for peanuts.

And what sort of information environment are our minds swimming in in a world like this? What effect do all these things have on us? We see how algorithms ranking content available to us causes massive behavioral changes throughout our societies (the most off cited being political polarization), what happens when the content itself is generated by machines?
How did you end up resolving the issue with too many generated emails addresses? I built and use my own domain inbox which buckets emails by email addresses (https://PretzelBox.cc) but more and more, I find myself using just one or two email addresses.
'Anti-reflective' coating allows Wi-Fi to pass through walls
Obligatory mention of his Klein bottle business and absolute willingness to meet and converse with guests. It’s a dream of mine to visit him with my son and hope to someday; reports of his kindness are legendary.
I want a system that can audit systematic records falsification leading to severely worse outcomes for human subjects and punish that company/hospice/nursing home/hospital/etc. accordingly.

Yea, I've been in places that have those types of systemic issues and in general those places sucked to be at and work at. Would hope those with enough morals recognize the situation and bail. As mentioned, there 'skillset' or willingness to do certain activities is sorely needed in this current labor market and has been needed for some time.
I haven't yet identified any french posts here. Could you point me to them?
But it's the other way around - why would you pay someone who was also using your work for free?
EFT?
It's the same Science you know and trust, now with 50% more social consciousness!
It's not clear that desalination is the best approach. In California at least, 80% of our water goes to agriculture. And a big chunk of that is spent on growing alfalfa (and other fodder) for export to China and Saudi Arabia. We should consider whether that makes sense before investing billions into desal plants.

Many farms are still irrigated with sprayers. Israeli farmers have shown it's possible to maintain high yields and reduce water waste with drip irrigation and other techniques.

We can also do a lot more with water recycling. Wastewater can be cleaned enough for watering lawns and certain crops.

On the residential and commercial side, much of the water is spent on lawns and other decorative landscaping. How much of that do we really need?
I’ve also fallen back into favoring relative paths and doing my best to keep nested paths to a minimum. This also makes publishing on Deno’s module listing possible too!
No one gets to be the decision maker on what is misinformation and what isn't. Nobody is the exception to that rule. No matter how good faith and good their intentions are. It's not how you're doing it, it's that you're trying to do it at all that is the problem.
thanks. I take Adderall for narcolepsy already and that certainly helps a LOT, and even with that help, I can still only get a few minutes of productive time on most days.

there's about a 30-60 minute window in the morning where I can mostly (mostly) keep myself on task and/or not get very sleepy, so that time is very important to me to accomplish most of the day's tasks.

without Adderall I would be un-hireable.
They injected miners in websites and even free CI pipelines on GitHub and similar.