skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But only if they actually read the claim. This is the same as for scholars that cite the source of a claim they found in a paper that is, itself, cited from some other paper. Often you see a game of telephone in these citations. Because it's not looked at well to give a factual claim you found in a review paper, researchers often cite the claim as it was cited in the review paper, but they don't always investigate the claim themselves. This leads to a game of telephone.

A lot of high-profile factoids are like this. The claim that 95% of diets fail, for example, is a specious one that developed after a citation chain like this. The original analysis said that 95% of the sample finished the study above the lowest weight they reached. Through motivated rephrasing and citation laundering, this became 95% of diets fail, often paired with the suggestion that dieters always return to a weight higher than where they started.

Yet, you can find this claim being re-issued again and again in the introductions to papers about all sorts of topics related to dieting.

Another thing I have seen is where the source of the claim gets lost. It starts out as something like "Grainger 2003" and then eventually turns into "Grander 2013", a nonexistent paper with a ton of citations.

So, if you read an article and don't read the cited article, please reference only the article you read.
Besides the other comments, was this anywhere near the same scale?
To be fair, you can cite a Wikipedia page along with the last revision date. And the complete revision history is available, I believe. I would expect researchers to include revision dates with any Wikipedia citation.
> and if Signal did not require a phone number, this wouldn't have happened at all

I’d change “require” to “allow”.

If, for example, Signal operated like it did now, but optionally let you sign up without a phone number, with a warning to users that not using a phone number would result in not being able to receive messages to their phone number, I bet most users would still use a phone number.
> because it is not a static resource

What do you consider a “static resource”?
With HOAs you can democratically change the laws as you see fit. This is a substantial difference.
Smart teachers, be glad that they're still around. It is not the fact that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" which is the problem - as noted elsewhere vandalism is usually quickly dealt with - but more that in many subject areas "only certain edits are allowed to stand". Any topic which is even slightly politically contentious is soon taken over by a bunch of self-proclaimed keepers of The Truth™ who make sure that only their narrative is allowed to be followed. Given this phenomenon those parts of Wikipedia have more in common with political propaganda than encyclopedic articles.
Even just using the references is fraught with error since those references are often just as biased as the articles in which they are referred. The only parts of Wikipedia which can still give some semblance of what is really going on are the edit history and talk pages, the latter in combination with its own edit history. It is there you can see how the narrative is being controlled, especially on the edit history pages.
Except encyclopedias don't have _actual sources_. They are based on source but don't include references as far as I remember.
It's not the inconsistency that disqualifies it from academic citation, it's that it's a tertiary source. The Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't a moving target if you cite the edition, but it's also a tertiary source, so it's just as citable as Wikipedia is, that is to say, not (except if you're treating Wikipedia as a primary source, eg you're studying Wikipedia)

It's stupid to ban students from using Wikipedia- sure, Wikipedia isn't of uniformly high quality, but it can be a pretty good encyclopedia. It's just not something you're allowed to cite.

If a school doesn't want students to read Wikipedia at all they really should provide an alternative encyclopedia that the school thinks is high enough quality for students to use (but still not cite), I think you can get subscriptions to Encyclopedia Brittanica now? But that costs actual money.
Mr Musk is unambiguously both brilliant and a complete ass, and I think people who underestimate him or lionise him are both wrong.

That said, I think he is buying Twitter for the lulz / weird libertarian reasons, rather than making a real business out of it, and I have serious concerns it will injure what is currently a public utility absolutely beyond repair.
It's trivial to cite a specific snapshot of a Wikipedia page. A citation isn't an authoritative source in itself, its sole purpose is to point the reader at the source of information, whatever it may be. There are plenty of bona fide academic citations that point at sources of terrible quality.
Indeed. I've found that double drop-D has most of the same advantages and also is so close to an open tuning that it gives you most of those advantages as well.

Worth noting. I don't know why I didn't discover it for the first couple decades I picked up a guitar.
Blue Washing never ceases to amuse me.

> Unfortunately the next phase is usually a few years of tightening budgets...

This happens because post-Blue Washing, execs want to quickly drive cash towards shareholders and bonuses towards themselves, and the easiest way to do that is to slash budgets. This translates into losing the best and brightest, and...

> ...then beyond that 'buying another thing to replace it'.

This doesn't happen at 1:1 product granularity as much as many think it does. It is more a big swap of strategic focus, which happens to include large, splashy purchases of other assets that gets lots of attention while existing steady revenue generators get metaphorically tossed aside if not budget-wise, then management focus-wise.
> The technological problems are not the hard problems in this space. The hard problems are social problems.

This is something that perplexed me when Mastodon and Diaspora and others appeared: why would you want to recreate/mimic the toxicity of FB and Twitter ? The resharing, the upvotes, etc. If social networks all have the seeds of their defaults, why clone it ?
For clarity, you allow the open source client app (which you can audit and compile yourself) to securely share your contact list with a secure enclave (which is open source so you can audit it as well).
Garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem (2013) [pdf]
It was for HUMINT in the US military.

Off-duty cops are clueless, especially the drunk ones. A drug dealer friend once got a cop room mate for a couple years. That was hilarious and he would always pick us up if we were too drunk to drive, which we always made a fake scene about why a squad car was picking us up. Sometimes I miss my 20’s… nah, I don’t.
Notice how your facts are not accompanied by an open source categorization algorithm (which would reveal how easy it is for them to be true, as stated/framed). Also notice that this level of epistemic transparency is not only not needed for people to believe that what you say is true (and the beliefs that subsequently emerge from that), but will typically be actively opposed by both unintelligent and genuinely intelligent people.
I've struggled to grok Notion and Coda. What are the killer apps? I'm happy with Google Docs.
Lessons Learned from Three Years of Open Source Contributions
Well, I don't know for sure that I'm right about that. But: take the garden of eden story. It's a metaphor for coming of age. They realize they are naked. They are expelled from the garden (childhood) and must go out into the world where they face toil and hardship. They eat the forbidden fruit (sex). I think it's pretty clearly a parable.

Take Noah's ark. Noah plans and looks towards the future and toils when everyone else is being lazy and is therefore safe when everyone else gets drowned, despite being laughed at and dismissed. It's a similar story to the grasshopper and the ant. Seems like a parable to me.

If you're out hunting in the middle east for an apple core or scouting mount ararat for mummified timbers, or trying to add up how many days ago was the exact day of creation, you're clearly missing the point of both stories. There's a reason these stories continue to resonate centuries later, but I don't think it has anything to do with whether they are literally true.
It's a MSR reactor. 4' x 7', so again close to the "closet sized" ORNL original MSR reactor. Yes, liquid fuel can be used to separate valuable fission products, and the reactor can be used to breed new fuel or other substances. Should be able to reprocess/consume solid fuel rod waste.

These designs are meltdown-proof as well. Because the fuel is fluid, you place a "plug" underneath it that is cooled to keep it solid. If the reactor starts to get out of control, the plug melts. The liquid fuel then flows into a shallow pool, which if you understand the basic concept of neutron economy/chain reactions, drops the criticality beneath a sustainable chain reaction.

I believe some designs also self-regulate temperature in other ways because hotter salts expand, which reduces criticality as well, so there is a secondary mechanism of regulation, but I'm hazy on that.

Anyway, all that is 1960s knowledge/facts on MSR that is well known. I applaud this because it means MSRs are getting back to the square zero, but there isn't anything on costs, materials innovations, or other design enhancements to the ORNL design.

And I just see YET ANOTHER MSR reactor coming online in academia, just as China boots up their prototype scaled-up reactor. And yet, 60 years of previous academia didn't boot a single one. This is the third I believe, in addition to new projects at the national laboratories.

Maybe there actually was a policy against approving any MSR reactor for the last 60 years, which is what Kirk Sorensen of one of the LFTR companies contends, but all the mainstream nuclear folks say there wasn't institutional bias against this design.

I'm a huge MSR stan, I'm glad this project is starting at the "closet sized" scale which I think is key to an economical nuclear reactor.
One of the standards that I live by is that I don't want to live around people who think they have a right to tell others what colour they can paint their fence, or if they can hang washing out or not.

I would pay good money to avoid living near people like that, and indeed I do.
you mean today!
Idiotic. Currently elected politicians are literally doing the opposite of the FED and making inflation worse all in the name of trying to stay elected. Burn the economy, peoples savings, and retirements at all costs to stay in office.

I hope people enjoy their stimulus checks while their pensions, savings, retirements and jobs go up in smoke.
It's good to learn how not to be blocked on long-running calculations.

On the other hand, if transitioning to a bursty cloud model means you can do your full run in hours instead of weeks, that has real impact on how many iterations you can do and often does appreciably affect velocity.
>I don't really care about your argument here. Mine is very simple. If you write a crap sentence a good editor will flag that sentence for being crap. Maybe the editor cared about ideology. Maybe they did not. But if they didn't flag that sentence they would be a bad editor

Well that's how editing works. I'd be charitable and say that, certainly, both I and the author know this.

On top of that, basic function, however, an editor can have other causes in mind for flagging a sentence (either explicit or unconscious motivation), besides it "being crap". And if they do this frequently enough, one can spot a pattern.

To put it another way, sure, a cigar is something people smoke. And sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar" as the quote goes. But also sometimes a cigar is NOT just a cigar. It was put conscisously as a phalic symbol, or even uncosciously so.

Similarly, an edit it's not always an edit - sometimes it's imposing an ideology behind the editing - even if it thinks it just removes a bad sentence.

Now, about the "no evidence" part.

Part of the essay is about how for some of those cases there's no evidence, but you can see it if you come from the right (constrasting to the editor) background. And where it's more obvious, there's still "plausible deniability".

It's more about about the emerging pattern of editing decisions that you get a feel for.

So, there's no "evidence" or "proof", in the sense of a court case or math, the same way you can't prove a comedian is funny to someone. They either find them funny or not, and there are no real arguments and explanations that can change their mind.

At best you can point that many agree with you and find said comedian funny (though, of course, that wouldn't convince anybody that the comedian is funny - it might just give them some doubt about them finding them unfunny, or merely make them think those "many" have no good humor either).

>The author's thesis can be correct even if his evidence and persuasive reasoning are bad.

Certainly.

Tho in this case, I think he makes a good case at the literature level: how what's conveyed changes by the proposed edits they point out.

And how even when the sentence is not good, the suggested edit doesn't propose an improvement that removes the "bad expression" and retains what's conveyed, but completely removes what was conveyed.

Not because they're a bad editor and don't have a feel for improving phrases while retaining their meaning in general, but because they have a different mindset/culture.

That is, the editors can handle the "improve-but-keep-meaning" fine for phrases where the ideology is not an issue, but get a "blind spot" when it is...
> The teacher instead should be directing the children to print or digitized encyclopedias

Any data source you encounter needs to be validated. Wikipedia is a fine source for lots of types of data, traditional encyclopedias aren’t known to be any more accurate. The reality is you have to think about the importance of the information you’re looking up, but most people shouldn’t be referring to primary sources as they are much harder to validate than secondary sources.

“Wikipedia has a similar number of errors to professional and peer-reviewed sources”

— https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6889752/

Another source: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
Somewhat related:

(Most of what you read on the internet is written by insane people) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32897812
Generics in Go are very helpful for my team. They allow us to create reusable functions in common libraries in our monorepo that are simple to reason about and easy to read.

For instance, we have an internal library that helps us create and perform common operations on concurrency-safe maps. Being able to pass and return arbitrary structs to/from those functions has made our codebase much cleaner and easier to work with.

Please take my response with a grain of salt, as we have not benchmarked or otherwise compared (via escape analysis, etc.) those generic functions against any non-generic equivalents.
Okay, you don’t like Wikipedia, newspapers, or textbooks as sources.

What about journal papers and monographs published by academic publishing houses? I read academic works on a daily basis, and they are chock full of nonsense, even from high-impact journals. Sometimes just sloppy scholarship uncritically repeating dubious claims (sometimes even found on Wikipedia then not credited!), but other times intentional fabrications. In the academic literature you can find misattributions of discoveries, serious calculation errors, sources that say the opposite of what they are cited to say, claims from notorious fabulists and mentally ill people credulously repeated, false history, faked study data, nonsensical mathematical models extrapolating trivial numbers of data points far outside their original range, invented interviews, legends presented as factual, speculation presented as factual, promotion of snake oil, amateur psychiatric diagnoses based on fragmentary evidence, apologies for genocide, and whatever other bad thing you might imagine.

Students should be taught to critically examine these sources and look for biases, mistakes, and incongruities.
Can't read the paper, but the abstract seems to claim profits don't increase:

> But consistent with our first set of results, these business managers show no greater ability to increase sales or profits in response to exporting opportunities.
> MD5 checksums

Better do recovery records, that way you would able to recover data and not only know it was corrupted.

RAR recovery records, if storing in an archive is okay, or PAR.
Religious texts contain many lessons, fables, morals and parables about collaboration and cooperation, especially in contexts of extreme poverty, low tech scarcity, etc, the likes of which one would certainly be facing under this scenario.

Don't blame the tools for how people have historically used them. I do, however, agree that it makes sense to include more than just the bible, as almost every sacred text is rich in wisdom.
My understanding is that exchanging crypto that's gone through a mixer, especially Tornado Cash, is getting more and more difficult. The major exchanges don't want anything to do with coins that have gone through a mixer. That's where a sketchy guy who charges a large percentage comes in.
The kind of "research" school kids are usually doing, Wikipedia is perfectly suited for. Their work is likely going to be read by the teacher or their peers and that's it. It's basically just used as proof that they're capable of finding information on a practical non-academic level, and Wikipedia is good at that, no matter how citeable it is.
OpenStreetMap is such a huge dataset, for example: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/
Wtf is "unhoused".
This process is called bluewash.
That's what TFA says
I've been there! The wooden bar in there is amazing.

The attached bookstore is pretty nice too if you like a certain type of book.
“It’s not for the lack of traffic signs and signals that people keep crashing into each other at intersections rather that the average person does not take it upon themselves to slow down.”
So when I googled it while in the middle of writing my last comment It was heavily implied that there was not a separate phobia for just the web.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/fear-of-spid...
Do Lead Generation Platforms Generated Quality Leads?
Research analysis logs to answer the question of quality leads.
A teacher who calls wikipedia a bad source is usually a bad teacher. They think their job is to weed out the bad students from the good, and they hate how wikipedia makes this job harder for them, so they forbid the use of wikipedia. Only a bad and lazy teacher would do something like that.
Parent bubble I assume :D
not cashing out in time this March before market took a hit. I lost years of investment gains (down 80%) and honestly feel hopeless if I can ever recover.
i.e. my laptop could handle the write load. A retired nerd with a real server they put in a data center for bandwidth could easily run that level of traffic on 2022 hardware.

For reference my work laptop (8 logical cores, so 4+HT? 32GB RAM) can handle 100k rows/second sustained inserts into postgres 14 with some batch jobs I'm working on. You can buffer http requests into batches and easily handle way more than 10k/s on a server while still providing synchronous semantics and reasonable latency to the client (e.g. flush batches every 10-100 ms).

I doubt Mastodon is designed for that kind of scalability, but most techies could probably afford to run Twitter as a hobby if they knew what they're doing and they weren't trying to do all the analytics and advertising stuff to monetize it/just wanted to provide the service.
My comment was really about uranium 233, which is very hard to work with because it emits a ton of gamma rays, which means you need great care in handling it as you purify it from thorium waste.

Yes, if you got a hold of a ton of depleted uranium and had a ton of money to burn and somehow hide what you were doing, you could breed it. I suspect you could use a neutron generator to do it at a staggering cost in electricity (at least until you bred enough fissile material that you could then sustain the rest of the breeding). But these things are not remotely trivial, and they're definitely not cheap. They're within reach of large corporations, but not small ones or individuals.
Please explain why hiring a smart person is a liability without relying on a hypothetical strawman.
> Users have put their trust in me with their data. Choosing a new admin would require a massive amount of trust, since they’d have access to over a half decade of user data. Not just data from my local users, but from users they have interacted with.

I'm not a Mastodon user, but this is haunting. Just like shady data brokers, political shadow companies and "the feds" are running VPN nodes, subreddits etc, this architecture is practically designed for malicious actors. It wouldn't surprise me if it's already being used this way on other nodes.

To be clear, in 2005 this would have been great, tech is moving fast so one has to remain humble when critizising architectural decisions. Nevertheless, today we can't trust private data in hands of benevolent (and often de-facto anonymous) volunteer actors, if we want scale and security in the decentralized (or even federated) world.

We have had enormous progress in applied cryptography, both in social apps (Signal, Matrix) and defi (some successes, many failures to learn from). We should have the expectation for private data that the operator cannot read it. Doesn't mean that all data on a social app must be private, but DMs and invite only "groups" should be.

Currently, the typical website with per-node password auth doesn't satisfy these constraints, since credential harvesting is trivial. It's very difficult to build E2EE web apps and even if, users have no habit of keeping secrets on-device. The client itself needs to be vetted and accessed securely. Perhaps Matrix is best positioned in this space.

(Please correct me if I got any details wrong)
Why would it? Encyclopedias were not regarded as good sources before Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is demonstrably less accurate than encyclopedias and more biased towards their sponsors
You can take good picture with a toy camera from 1990

These crazy HDR, face smoothing and fake background blur are objectively ugly, but sure you can take good pictures with them, the pictures would be better with proper tools though
The term you are looking for is "rivalrous good".
Create,Test,and Deploy Node.js REST API Using Mocha and Google Cloud Functions
Thanks for this comment. I think I started in this comment section trying to say something like this, but said it in a bad way, and then got progressively more confused and less clear in my responses as the day went on.

This is much more clear than anything I would have been able to write.
It feels like having a way for them to transfer the Obamaphone numbers would solve this, and probably some related issues.

Since I've been able to keep the same number through various phones and Sims, this seems technically possible.
Well that’s just rebuilding AWS badly. I’ve used academic-managed time-sharing setups and have some horror stories.
Or if we were being cheeky, made up our sources/citations (at least in my high school teacher ever actually verified). I doubt this would have worked in university, but I never attempted it.
Checkout Apache Iceberg which makes it fairly trivial to get high throughput from S3 without much fine-tuning. Bursts from 0 to 50Gbps should be possible from S3 without much effort, just have object sizes that are in the NN+ MiB range. Personally, Lustre is a mess, it's expensive and even more pain to fine-tune.
The article says they are not stored. That's what I'm questioning.

"user messages are stored only on their devices, not on Signal’s servers or anywhere else."