skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It sounds like you want an app that sacrifices usability for a promise of security. That's fine, there are options. Of course, some are honeypots run by the US government, and you'd need to really really have an unusual threat model to warrant such care, but you do you.
>why would you think they'd be a good solution for people who aren't capable of keeping track of a physical device for more than N weeks

Homeless people have no physically secure place to store their possessions. The reason so many of them lose cell phones is because they get stolen or destroyed. It's not because they're incapable of "keeping track" of them.
That's not a compelling rationalization. For example: What is the intended effect of this mechanism?
I probably wouldn't have even noticed had you not said anything. But yeah you're right, that was instant. Very nice work.
I will say the form factor of the classic Mac (in my case a Mac SE/30) was amazing for writing. The height was perfect without the ability of the text to go to just above the keyboard like a conventional monitor on a stand. I end up duplicating it by using half a window or finding a text editor that holds the current line at a certain height. It was also a very portable design. I have an old Color Classic II case that I sometime think I might mod into something a bit more modern (since it is DOA anyway).
I once wrote a Sudoku solver using the following algorithm: For each empty field, find which values could possibly be written there (which values are not already written in the same row/column/quadrant). Then it applied the following two rule: (1) If there is only one possible value for a field, write it there. (2) For each row/column/quadrant, for each value: if the value can possibly be written only in one field, write it there. Repeat this in a while loop, finish if you checked the rules and couldn't write anything.

No recursion, constant memory usage.

I assumed that this would not be enough. I was like "first I will code the obvious thing, then try the algorithm on examples from a book I bought, find the examples this cannot solve, and then think about further rules which could solve those examples". But as I tried it on the puzzles in the book, it solved all of them.

Which went against my intuition, as I was pretty sure I sometimes use more complicated rules when solving Sudoku by hand. But it turned out that it is somehow really simply for me to miss an opportunity.

This is of course not a proof that each uniquely solvable Sudoku can be solved by this algorithm, but I think that in practice at least 99% of them can be.

Then I tried an opposite thing, to use this solver to create puzzles. Like, create a full board, then try removing random numbers and check if the solver can solve this; stop when no number can be removed. This actually created pretty hard puzzles; harder than any example in my book.
Now it is basically a company just as predatory as Oracle. It is just sad.
no. scoring is more resistant to strategy.

consider a green party supporter who normally votes democrat. with score voting or approval voting, he also votes green (of course).

with ranked voting, he still ranks the democrat strategically in 1st place to avoid getting the republican, and that makes it impossible for third parties to grow. ranking is too vulnerable to strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ
It's an interesting comparison with the Parthenon Marbles.

The Marbles are nothing more than a relic of conquest to the UK. Much of the British Museum is a museum of British empire -- a significant historical event, to be sure, but from a purely historiographic point of view the Marbles make more sense at the (excellent) museum in Athens.

The Rosetta Stone, by contrast, is a relatively unimportant object. Everybody has heard of it, but few know what it says or the person being commemorated. That's because its significance is in the role it plays in the translation of heiroglyphics -- in France. It is less clear, from a historiographic point of view, that its best context is in Egypt.

I don't mean to detract from the simple argument that all of this is looted and should be returned on that basis -- emptying out not just the BM but also the Louvre and the Pergamon, among others. But the history of these objects did not stop with the end of the civilizations that produced them, and that is worth considering as well.
Ukraine officially recognized the Northern Territories as part of Japan
Sure, but at this level of polish?

I don't know but I don't think many companies can afford to do this.
Sezzle | Remote (US timezones)

* Engineering Manager, Payments - https://grnh.se/71c7820b3us

* Senior Software Engineer, Internal Operations - https://grnh.se/a3837b453us

Sezzle, a leader in BNPL, is leading the industry in the race to profitability. We have several open roles for folks interested in building our payments platform. Our primary stack (99% of our backend services) is Go, with React/Typescript frontends, built on AWS with Kubernetes. Deep MySQL knowledge appreciated.

For the Engineering Manager, Payments - previous industry or domain expertise in the Payments space (think Nacha, card processors) is strongly preferred as you would be leading the team responsible for processing all payments at Sezzle.

View our career board at: https://sezzle.com/careers

Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, kyle.butz@sezzle.com (VP of Engineering, Risk & Payments)
Yeah, I don't understand why wage renormalization is such a "radical" idea. Retraining people (even if it is just to your style of work) takes time and is expensive. It is far cheaper to renormalize a current worker than to have them leave and train someone new (assuming the worker is competent). Experience, especially experience in your work's framework and culture, is valuable. Wage renormalization is also an essential practice if one wants to avoid wage discrimination.

What's odd though is that it seems MBA types understand that people leave jobs because of managers and not money, but don't see how the two correlate. Wage differentials between old hires and new hires are always seen as personal attacks from managers and I think this is perfectly reasonable. It is a signal of how you are valued. Employees are also not naive and do understand an (average) inflation of 2-3% per year and that a matching raise is equivalent to a wage reduction (more so in times like these). Wage renormalization (especially with back pay) is often a relatively cheap means of garnering employee satisfaction and increasing productivity. It can turn burned out low productive workers into hard workers. Asymmetric pay information surprisingly can (not always) cause employees to think they are being treated unfairly. Especially if they find this to be true.

But I think there is so much more and really what it comes down to is "humans are complicated. There is no universal solution within all businesses, a single type of business, a single department, or even a single team. If nuance is not actively demonstrated then malice/naivety is." The "simple solution" is that you need to recognize there is no simple solution.
Potentially the best command line gister
I don’t believe it will feel like this. “Buying an NFT” will be more like “paying for a service.” You visit a Farcaster client, and click the buy account name/domain button, it triggers a stripe payment, and then you are given a private key for the account.

A savvy user could circumvent this and use the blockchain directly if they want to pay in crypto and/or cut down on the payment processing fee.
you have this exactly backwards, as explained by 3 different math phd experts here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ

https://www.rangevoting.org/NESD

https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/
If a person can remember a password that is a minimum of 8-digits, they can remember an 8-digit backup code that is already provided by google. They are functionally equivalent, but a backup code is one-time use.
As you know, you see ads everywhere outside, and on many websites, including this one. If this genuinely feels like "shit smeared on a wall" to you, you really need to seek help.
At the end of the day, no matter what the analogy is, there is no logic-ing your way through this. The reality is that the RIAA lobbies to have laws that protect their intellectual property, even at the cost of consumer rights. The RIAA would make what you just said illegal if they could.
> For any of the types of people who are against taxes and regulation

Please don't introduce this kind of barely-related, politically biased, emotionally-charged, tribalistic tangent into HN. Virtually nobody here (either in this thread, or on HN in general) is arguing that taxes should be abolished or that financial stuff should be deregulated. You're just invoking tribalism where there was none previously.
This is a seriously braindead take.

There's short books that feel interminable and long books that fly by.

It's amazing that a professional writer would espouse the opinion in this article publicly.
Marriage was considered a core social obligation until very recently. In modern times, I take this quote to mean something closer to "choose to conform to what society expects or choose not to; you will have some regrets either way."
There was a con called Notacon. I suppose it’s accurate to say this one is NOT Notacon.
So far I have learned that Scrum can work, but only if the CEO personally wants it to and they have someone spending time with them explaining what every level has to do differently and expect differently for it to work. Partial successes can be won from the bottom up approach, but they are far less impactful.
> In December 2007 Brandon was chosen by Harriet McDougal Rigney to complete Robert Jordan’s Wheel of Time series after his untimely passing.

Ah, it didn't happen the way I thought it might have. So perhaps he was selected for having a similar style of long-winded writing?
I suspect it’s hard to actually consistently make 500$/day breaking into peoples homes. Most used things aren’t worth much and would be difficult to sell in bulk at anything close to what they cost.

That’s why people steal catalytic converters etc.
I did some demo projects with QNX in the 90s and I thought it was the best OS ever. Unfortunately trying to license it for use with our company products was a nightmare and after a while I just said the fuck with it.
no, it's not a case for approval voting over score voting, because score voting is better than approval voting if even one voter votes sincerely.

if enough people use honest scores, then score voting is better than approval voting even for the "honest suckers".

https://www.rangevoting.org/ShExpRes
The OP manages their servers on this mac, but the mac itself isn't used as a server.
https://mbaoath.org/ "A voluntary pledge by MBAs to create value responsibly and ethically"
I don't know if that helps ... but I didn't that without the sociologist and only with the help of the Internet.

I took me sometimes, I am much better on that. But it takes a shitload of work and just removing the blaming you put on yourself everytime your relaspe.
This is the Bitap (or Shift-And) algorithm described here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitap_algorithm

Change

maybe := prefixes << 1

to

maybe := prefixes<<1 + 1

to fix the bug.
Wikipedia is the single greatest tool mankind has ever developed for the internet. Where else can you get a mostly correct and accurate understanding of essentially any topic known to man for free, and then have resources for further research if desired.

Even if Wikipedia isn’t 100% correct on everything, I can’t think of any resource that is (that is also free).
I think the issue is that without regulations forcing banks to serve customers better, they will simply abandon all responsibility completely because it's cheaper for them. And since we see that with Zelle, banks will collude to all hose customers in the same way, the free market is not a solution.

It would be trivial for banks to give customers better fraud protection tools and enable better recovery, but they clearly don't care.
* For one, since you can't have a bank account anonymously the receiving bank knows exactly who stole the money. They should at least be able to refer them for criminal investigation.
* Two, since they own the machinery of transferring the money, yes they can easily reverse fraudulent transactions -- the bank doesn't have to take a loss since the fraudster has to have an account with them. They know who to take it back from.
* The fraudster withdrew the money and ran? ACH transfers have always taken up to 15 days to "clear" -- banks wouldn't let you withdraw money you just deposited exactly for this reason, to verify that the sending bank actually has the funds and there are no issues. Why can't Zelle let the sender specify a "hold" period so there is time to dispute the transfer and the funds can be recovered?

Basically is seems to me that a modern digital payment systems must have a kind of escrow service built in. IMHO this is what we need the law to require banks to do. In combination there needs to be a payment dispute resolution system which would probably take the form of a kind of arbitration system not unlike the role small claims court plays. This is something the banks should lobby the government to provide since doing it themselves would clearly get complicated and expensive.
I still have one collecting dust in a drawer. Should pull it out and put it to some use.
Cloud never has made sense for scientific computing.
Renting someone else's big computer makes good sense in a
business setting where you are not paying for your peak
capacity when you are not using it, and you are not
losing revenue by underestimating whatever the peak capacity
the market happens to dictate.

For business, outsourcing compute cost center
eliminates both cost and risk for a big win each quarter.

Scientists never say,
Gee it isn't the holiday season,
guess we better scale things back.

Instead they will always tend to push whatever compute limit there is,
it is kinda in the job description.

As for the grant argument, that is letting the tool shape the hand.

business-science is not science, we will pay now or pay later.
>We really let creditors hoodwink us when we let them invent the idea of "identity theft" instead of what it is: "You trusted some fraudster's claim they were who they said they were."

This pissed me off so much. Victim blaming and they get away with it.
> However, I believe that there are some within IBM and also at customer mainframe shops who like it this way because they believe there's an additional layer of security through obscurity.

This mindset is changing in the recent years. There is more information how to hack z/OS than ever, and IBM is trying to fix the weaknesses (for example, discourage custom authorized code, scan existing customer and vendor applications for vulnerabilities, etc.). So they are realizing that obscurity is too little protection for a determined attacker.
I remember attending the Embedded Systems Conference frequently during the late 90s and early 2000s. QNX always had a strong presence there.

It always seemed too "big" (too capable, too complex, too pricey) for my projects so I never took it for a spin.
What fun! It's so good to see these systems still in use.

The Amiga community never fails to impress. In addition to modern updates to AmigaDOS (3.2.1 is great), there are projects to replace battery damaged motherboards, to replace hard-to-find custom chips, to offer brand new accelerators, and to even use a Raspberry Pi as an inexpensive accelerator (https://github.com/captain-amygdala/pistorm) for those on a budget.
I sincerely enjoy this thread because it asks the harder questions to the audience. Human stuff are very hard.
> Hardware is amortized over five years

hardware running 100% won't last five years

if hardware is not needed to be running 100% at full steam for five years, you can turn down instances on the cloud and you don't pay anything

in 2 years you'll be stuck with the same hardware, while on the cloud you follow cpu evolution as it arrives to the provider

all in all the comparison is too high level to be useful
And then there's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33125640
We'd probably all be better off if our scripts weren't in the same language as used by our interactive interface. I do paste snippets of scripting (if, for, etc.) into my interactive terminal from time to time, but that's rare compared to just typing commands to run.

I wouldn't mind it if all scripting in the shell had to be offloaded to a completely separate language that was less error prone and more consistent.
When a user goes to your website, the user is trusting you to run you run your software on their hardware. You should respect that.
Years ago, a largish bank (boa) had given me a pre-printed visa debit card for a new account I'd opened. They had a small stack of them, ready to activate against new accounts. Better than "we'll mail it to you in a week".
It's so you can enter your password over a touch-tone phone.
I'm an advocate for the legalization of all drugs, but that it should be taxed and regulated as well.

All drug use has risks, including cannabis. But it's been so demonized in the past there's a natural reaction to sweep all concerns away because almost all of them are garbage. Reasonable regulation would be that it's not sold to minors, and that its active ingredients be accurately noted, and that the transaction is taxed appropriately.

It should be legal to sell fentanyl but not as an adulterant. Most of these opioid deaths are due to fentanyl and if they had access to regulated drugs those deaths would be greatly diminished.

My brother died of a heroin overdose many years ago, and I think he might be alive today if the drug he was abusing was at least calibrated for dosage. Maybe not. But it being illegal did not protect him or any of the others lost in the war on drugs.
Reading things like this on hacker news and twitter reminds me a lot like particle physicists unwilling to grapple with lack of evidence for SUSY. Every time someone points it out, these guys merely recite the holy texts (describe the model in gross detail with more magic words as if the criticism is because the critic don't understand it well enough), as if that addresses the critique at all. They then eventually gesture at the energy horizon, suggesting that "with more s[0] you'll eventually see my particles."

It's feels a bit similar here. There are clear limitations to AI by just NNs, namely they like Stable Diffusion must be trained on so much data, far more than any single artist will ever see, and they still fall short sometimes. With NLP it seems a little more obvious because the limitations seem to lag actual speech understood by humans still, even with the massive dataset again beyond what any single human will ever digest. There are clear issues here, merely reciting to critics what your model of intelligence is doesn't address the shortcomings these systems have which any literate person can perceive. And gesturing at the data horizon (you need even more data??) is not convincing either.

Apparently this cat (the interviewed author) has some baggage, but the things he's talking about (symbols) have already been studied and used by philosophers and linguists long before AI or computers were a thing. It helps to build upon what other researchers have already done, I don't know why NN researchers don't seem to map what they are doing to existing research on intelligence in other areas, namely cognitive science. Do NN researchers have any contact with linguists or cognitive scientists generally?

Again, being a little ignorant of his baggage, I do think a hybrid approach sounds like it would be promising. Symbolic AI failed in the 70s, NN is getting a bit of the way there now and is pretty useful but misses a few things, why go all in on just one type of approach?

[0] s is basically the center of mass energy, what particle physicists mean when they say the "energy" of an interaction (collision)
I think you are drastically underestimating how absolutely bonkers the 1970 Britannica edition was in terms of (using your example) Social Sciences.

I did this analysis long ago and i don't have the set in front of me, but there absolutely were hoaxes and nonsense which were believed to be true (or which fit the prevailing narrative) in 1970.

Not being up to date isn't just about incorporating new information. Fields like social sciences have huge revisions and reversals because conclusions in those fields are so often rooted in opinion and inference rather than empirical observation.

Yet, no teacher would complain about using an old copy of Britannica.
What has Mastodon improved on this process, though? It seems the same issues are in place -- difficult to administer technically (this post) and hard to deal with spam (have heard before, don't have a link on hand unfortunately). This is a genuine question -- I wasn't around for USENET so maybe this is a "quantity of difference becomes quality of difference" issue where the degree of effort for maintaining it was just way harder than it is now.
> It would be nice if we could have communication systems that are compatible with basic human biology.

At some point, this becomes a problem better suited to the government.

Imagine you have a loved one who has dementia or is homeless and incapable of administering their digital accounts with traditional authentication methods. You want to take over their accounts.

You will need to present evidence that:

- they are indeed incapacitated

- they are who they say they are, aside from you vouching for them

- you are who you say you are

- you legitimately represent this person

- there isn’t somebody else who has a better claim at representing that person

I personally don’t want any tech company in the position to sort through all of that on a case-by-case basis and decide which accounts to unlock or transfer ownership to. Let the government or the courts figure that out.
Wiki is transparent in a self-referential sense only. History started in 1992. If there’s no hyperlink, it’s lost. Pick any wiki page and see all the dead, rotting citations.

I’d bet any mining of actually working citations would average closer to 2015. It used to be people citing something from the 70’s or 80’s would get strange looks from people who lived then, now I see Millenials looking at Gen-Z kids that way.

History is written not by the victor, but by the last wiki editor.
I remember hearing this a long time ago, and the article you linked is from 2005. I wonder if Wikipedia having >= accuracy to traditional encyclopedias remains true today, given how different the web and web users are today.
Gelman is one of the few self-proclaimed Bayesians who doesn't seem to outright hate frequentist approaches. They're complementary approaches. Bayesian methods are great for combining different sources of information. Frequentist methods are great for validating that a method is working well. (For example, Gelman often recommends running simulations to see if models give sensible predictions, but that is itself a pretty frequentist thing to do.)

Frequentism is mostly about how to evaluate a methodology. It's pretty agnostic about what that methodology is. Bayesian methods are about combining different sources of information. In a situation where you only have one source of information, Bayesian and Frequentist methods usually give the same answer.

People say you might as well always use Bayesian methods then. But no matter what, you should always try to validate or poke holes in your model, and Frequentist techniques are great for that. So it's best to be familiar with both!
Deep Learning Is Hitting a Wall
this guy bashes
this is absurd. you're talking about what the CANDIDATE wants, not what voters (who actually do the voting) want.

STAR voting is shown to outperform virtually all other methods with any mixture of honest or strategic voters.

https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/VSEbasic/