skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An elegant solution here might be to allow users to designate a list of other users who can "vouch" for them; if multiple people who you previously designated as trustworthy say "hey, this is my friend's new phone number, use it instead of the old one for account recovery", then that should satisfy the "who you are" authentication factor (and set the new "what you have" factor).

Similar idea behind web-of-trust or multisig cryptocurrency wallets, except without the cryptographic mumbo-jumbo.
Those jobs are paid way higher than low skill jobs though, and nobody calls them low skill, so I don't see the problem.
> It’s not like delaying these permits does anything to curb oil demand or net production.

Sure, one action in isolation does nothing. But you cherry picked one thing he did and took it out of the context of all the other things he did. Both early things and more recent executive actions. Tell the entire story and that early action looks entirely different.

> People are rarely served and last priority.

The US has one of the highest living standards in the world. I'm not saying there's no room for improvement. But lots of good laws are passed without an agenda other than the goals of the law itself. There's no need for extreme cynicism. What we need is less cynicism and more people exercising their right to vote.

> they’re ineffective even for those who agree with their positions.

No one who impacts the national discourse in such a visible and lasting way can be said to be ineffective. Sanders, along with the help of others, has shifted the Democratic party from right central to almost central. That's highly effective.
>Note, CA has the highest state level debt per person of any of the US states.

Meaningless. What matters is the ability to service that debt, and the value of the debt compared GDP.

Put more simply, would you rather be someone earning $20k/yr with no debt, or someone earning $100k/yr with $20k of debt?.
Yeah Ian see that. Actually I kinda give up and just pick up new things and drop them at will. Ironically Kid, work and school leave me little time for hobbies actually. I guess this is...more productive?
> Isn't that just...how it works?

Hum... No. They are saving $x, and getting $x/2 as extra profits.

But anyway, management is supposed to impact a company's revenue. As a rule, profits and salary should be correlated.
I found out that's just disk cache. Try launching some memory hungry programs and you'll see the cache released and qBittorrent running at around 150 MB again.
>How would this other method make it hard/expensive/infeasible for a malicious company to produce 100M accounts to cause problems with spamming, DoS, and related issues? Phone numbers are finite, cheap, but not zero cost. If sending a spam email cost $0.01 much of spam would disappear.

complex captcha and/or expensive PoW. and an option to use a phone number instead

>How would this other method protect a user's social network without having to upload that meta data in signal? Currently this is handled by a user's address book hosted outside of signal. How many users would you lose if you required some key exchange in person?

store it on the server, encrypted by the client. jesus.
IMO there's nothing wrong with passing the torch to a new maintainer, this is just part of the design of mastodon. People shouldn't arbitrarily trust an instance maintainer on mastodon any more than they should trust google, twitter, fb, or a tor node with their data. The info they chose to share in plain text with a mastodon instance should be considered compromised. All that matters is the future; where will you send your data going forward?

It's part of the design of mastodon that the maintainer can pass the admin role to a new maintainer, and if a user doesn't approve, they can migrate to a new instance. If other instances don't approve, they can blacklist it.
Author here. I agree with your points! I use AWS for a computational biology company I'm working on. A lot of scientific computing can spin up and down within a couple hours on AWS and benefits from fast turnaround. Most academic HPCs (by # of clusters) are slower than a mega-cluster on AWS, not well utilized, and have a lot of bureaucratic process.

That said, most of scientific computing (by % of total compute) happens in a different context. There's often a physical machine within the organization that's creating data (e.g. a DNA sequencer, particle accelerator, etc), and a well-maintained HPC cluster that analyzes that data. The researchers have already waited months for their data, so another couple weeks in a queue doesn't impact their cycle.

For that context, AWS doesn't really make sense. I do think there's room for a cloud provider that's geared towards an HPC use-case, and doesn't have the app-inspired limits (e.g data transfer) like AWS, GCP, and Azure.
> I'm also amazed that giving users control over what they see isn't an option.

so... you never actually used Mastodon? Its users do have the ability to filter content based on keywords, accounts or domains.
Ah! Then the problem is solved, I suppose.
Hi! Great post. See my comment below about scaling down.
I used to think that it would be hard to imagine a time where 120 million people watched the same thing at the same time. And then I realized that's an outdated thinking. Here's my example:

There are certain ads that get played on campaigns. It's a longer time scale - not everyone is tuning in at the same time. But I've been able to communicated shared suffering over Forward ads to other people that I've met. If I like a similar topic to someone else and we both watch Youtube, then I guarantee they've seen (and hate) the "Toxic Poop Guy".

Instantaneous watching was the past. Experiencing the campaign is the now, in my opinion.

Sure, maybe not 120 Million people at the same time for a TV show. But it's definitely still out there.
Someone with a drug addiction or mental health issues needs treatment _now_. Access to email is a lower priority.
I'm suspicious of the author's actual experience.

The fact that scientific computing has a different pattern than the typical web app is actually a good thing. If you can architect large batch jobs to use spot instances, it's 50-80% cheaper.

Also this bit: "you can keep your servers at 100% utilization by maintaining a queue of requested jobs" isn't true in practice. The pattern of research is the work normally comes in waves. You'll want to train a new model or run a number of large simulations. And then there will be periods of tweaking and work on other parts. And then more need for a lot of training. Yes, you can always find work to put on a cluster to keep it >90% utilization, but if it can be elastic (and has compute has budget attached to it), it will rise and fall.
People respond to incentives in generally predictable ways.

If you are told you will get a substantial raise if your subordinates work harder, guess what, you are going to get your subordinates to work harder.
yes, an old version of zOS that you can't download without a license, and I have zero idea how to even install the OS.

I want something official, supported, and free or cheap to acquire and free to use for (at least) development.
Why We Use Babylon.js Instead of Three.js in 2022
I could see it as a easy example of the "brown M&Ms" theory: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2012/02/14/146880432/...
To be fair, the Axios docs also suggest using the hosted package as well which I assume would also lead to the same situation.

https://github.com/axios/axios#installing
> There are plenty of other choices.

There's even WordPress, with a plugin.

A lot of ~~people~~ entities such as companies, organizations, etc have a WordPress site.

edit: Pretend this site supports basic formatting in comments?
Until a few years ago Racket was a dialect of Scheme. In addition to the main language "Racket" it also supports R5R and R6R in the standard distribution, and also R7Rs using a user maintained package.

There are like 20 of additional languages as part of the distribution. Some are variants, like "Typed Racket" that is like racket with static types. Other languages that are more/completely different and/or almost unused and keep for compatibility or as a demo of some strange feature. And also there are many user defined languages that can be downloaded as packages.

The batteries are included. I had to make a program that uses IMAP, SMTP and web scrapping. In another I used support for gzip and xml. In both cases, and all of that was installed by default. And also there are many user defined libraries that can be downloaded as packages.

Racket is more immutable than a normal Scheme. For example, lists ("cons") are immutable, and that allows the generation of faster code. Anyway, you can load a library to create mutable lists/cons if you need them.

There is more separation of the normal code from the code in macros. So normal code does not affect the code inside macros. Some people like that, and some people dislike that. It's better to reason about macro expansions, but to share a function between normal code and a macro you must define it in another file.

It's quite fast in the Scheme family https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ Still like 5x slower than C, but 5x faster than vanilla Python. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... YMMV
George Carlin was on it 30 years ago. Read or watch his bit "Euphemisms"
> This program is not that. This program is providing a tax refund from CA's tax surplus. No new money is being created. The only change is who gets to decide how the money is being spent? (e.g., the state? or the people?)

Did they raise taxes on some group to specifically to take the money out of the economy, to pay for this stimulus? If they didn't, I'm pretty sure this is inflationary.

IIRC, it doesn't matter so much for inflation if the money is "created" or not, it matters if it's circulating in the economy. If CA left its tax surplus sitting in a vault somewhere, that will help reduce inflation.
The culture of dad having a mid life crisis being frowned upon and only seen as a means to provide for the family by placing their desires above his own could be why soccer son often ends up beng raised by single mom. Dad needs help and soccer is the most irrelevant thing in the world right now.
A famous Bayesian arguing for frequentist statistics?

Gelman tries to steal the concept "Frequentism" from simple minded frequentist statisticians.

His argument seems to be:

Simple minded frequentists statisticians perform a statistical procedure once - they do not think about performing the procedure many times.

They fall into this trap (from Gelman's paper):

"3. Researcher degrees of freedom without fishing: computing a single test based on the data,
but in an environment where a different test would have been performed given different data"
An only-slightly-less-sarcastic solution would be to get a tattoo of the recovery codes.
>...often forgotten...

The great thing about something like an email service is that password guessing can be extremely rate limited. You miss three guesses and you can't log in for several hours. So an easily remembered password is perfectly fine unless it is blindingly obvious. As a homeless person loosing access to a phone on a regular basis, I am going to be comfortable with the risk that the Gmail password hashes might get leaked. I think others would be quite comfortable with that risk as well...
Egypt Wants Its Rosetta Stone Back from the British Museum
Relevant material about CD-R and DVD-R archival: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33117813
This is Wikipedia's fault.

- Wikipedia know people mistakenly cite Wikipedia itself

- Wikipedia agree that people should not do this

- Wikipedia had the opportunity to educate Wikipedia's audience not to do this.

- Wikipedia has not educated Wikipedia's audience not to cite Wikipedia itself.

What they should have done:

> We hope you find Wikipedia useful. Remember to never cite Wikipedia itself! Instead cite the websites and research papers Wikipedia cites. If information isn't cited by Wikipedia, don't use it! It can be added by anyone and can even be removed from Wikipedia at any time!

That's all they needed to do.
I am struggling to figure out the vision / roadmap that the Blizzard executive team is looking at. Clearly, none of this is about having fun anymore. These principled approaches where you ban a logical human from your product for all eternity don't really work out in practice.

If someone is willing to spend hours and days setting up virtualized hacks via exotic PCIe memory snooping interfaces, I don't think they will experience an SMS requirement as even a speed bump on their journey. In fact, for many types in this space, it would serve as a form of encouragement.

The real answers to this involve blended statistical approaches, community ran instances, pre-game lobbies, et. al. You can still have a highly-competitive ranking / ELO system in place without top-down tyranny. It just looks a little bit different and requires some lateral thinking.
Calculating costs based on sticker price is sometimes misleading because there’s another variable: negotiated pricing, which can be much much lower than sticker prices, depending on your negotiating leverage. Different companies pay different prices for the same product.

If you’ve ever worked at a big company or university (any place where you spend at scale), you’ll know you rarely pay sticker price. Software licensing is particularly elastic because it’s almost zero marginal cost. Raw cloud costs are largely a function of energy usage and amortized hardware costs — there’s a certain minimum you can’t go under but there remains a huge margin that is open to be negotiated on.

Startups/individuals rarely even think about this because they rarely qualify. But big orgs with large spends do. You can get negotiated cloud pricing.
I guess I'm just waiting till they point where they tie to either party registration or previous voting records.

Buying votes is illegal basically everywhere I think. Paying for prior votes, probably not illegal?
>Would anyone seriously argue that we should fight inflation by _raising taxes_?

My understanding is all generally accepted economic theories argue that raising taxes will fight inflation. So: yes. Basically everyone who understands macroeconomics argues that raising taxes will lower inflation.

It's not hard to see why, either: Inflation measures the costs of goods and services, but not of taxes. If you increase taxes, there is less money to buy other goods and services, and the price of them will go down.
Did you completely remove secrets from Git repository? Really?
> Lowering tax is inflationary

It's not. At least not per se. Lowering taxes for the wealthiest does not impact the basket of goods that generally composes the inflation index.

Markets reacted badly because the British debt and currency, despite covid and brexit, are still risk havens and worth holding for hedging one's positions. were.

The Kwarteng budget upended this picture, the long term solvency and ability to deal with the future of the UK government. Financiers readjusted their models and positions accordingly.
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33116940
I'm amazed at how many new Californians we must be creating every year. Those leaving the state are doing so in numbers able to impact the housing market and political situation in seemingly every state, city, and town across the country. All while still increasing our population every year.

Truly incredible.
It’s trivial to get Signal messages from Desktops synced. If you have anything more than a casual observer threat model, syncing to Windows/MacOS means digital forensic types like me can get it and parse it. Phones are actually more secure for Signal in this regard.
Google accounts are required for many other Google services besides Gmail. Replacing Gmail is the easy part.
Yes. https://github.com/cornelk/hashmap
In case it's not obvious the implication is that cost per good part starts to go up quickly. The wafer size and cost is essentially fixed so bigger dies mean both a lower % of parts are good and also fewer fit on the wafer in the first place. Wrong kind of hockey stick chart.
TIL about .compact on reddit threads. Thanks!
Whatever the topic, there is a significant benefit from first browsing some high level Wikipedia articles to get the lay of the land. I don't think you are thinking much about the learning process and how our brains work. You're jumping to step 5 because you seem to have an ax to grind. Steps 1-4 are "what the fuck is going on and why should I care" and Wikipedia is great for setting us up to learn more (and to want to learn more, and to know what there is to learn!).
This! Honestly, this is the reason that I want a house. In reality, I don't want the house, but a bit more space that isn't just in my apartment. A little space out back for if I want to dabble with grilling. A basement or garage if want to start a larger project. These are things you can't easily do in a standard apartment. That's also why I think the next stage of development will be more townhome focused. Think UK row houses, where you have a little backyard and maybe a garage, but not detached.
Don’t worry, we do incremental backups during weekdays and a full backup on Sunday. We use 2 tapes only, so one is always outside of the building. But you know, we saved money.
This is par for the course. When doing a library course in university, I learned that you typically end up discarding up to 99% of sources. (very rough rule of thumb: you get say something like 1000 hits, review the top 100 titles, read the top 10 abstracts, and select the remaining article(s) as a source. Wash rinse repeat)
"Its math and science content is too nonsensical to be useful."

Can you name a example?

I found them to be generally of higher quality than controversial topics. So maybe not always with the best didactic approach, but usually a good start. And then I follow the links, if I want to dive in deep.

Wikipedia is useful for me, for quickly checking something. Not scientifically dive into a deep topic.
It's nice to see some coverage of AI that is realistic about the issues.
The problem with math and science content is that there are many possible audiences with many possible backgrounds, and such content tends to require substantial prerequisite knowledge. So when you have a source edited by anyone, you end up with a hodgepodge of different material aimed at different audiences with different expectations of background. It takes a lot of effort and expertise to rewrite this mishmash into a clear and coherent narrative.

This is a much harder problem for an encyclopedia than for a textbook chapter or a journal paper, because each article is supposed to (somewhat) stand alone and be both broadly accessible and somewhat comprehensive. For a textbook chapter you can systematically build up prerequisite knowledge from earlier chapters and you can assume that students will spend significant time and effort working problems and will have some expert guidance and support if they get stuck. For a journal article you can assume readers have deep subject-matter expertise, e.g. have a PhD in the field. In both of those cases you can leave out most information about the topic as clearly out of scope.

Traditional encyclopedias typically punt by just not including much technical detail at all. (Some Wikipedia articles also do this.)

* * *

As a basic example, let’s think about what might be included in an article about “circle”. You can look at this from a kindergartener’s point of view, or a high school geometry student’s, or an ancient astronomer’s, or a physicist’s, or a signal processing engineer’s, or a 19th century projective geometer’s, or a complex analyst’s, or a group theorist’s, or an algebraic geometer’s, or a topologist’s, or a number theorist’s, or an ergodic theorist’s, etc. Some of these audiences are easy enough to satisfy, but to provide deep comprehensive coverage of the way a fundamental concept like the circle is related to every mathematical field is going to take careers worth of background. Which parts to attempt, which parts to skip, and how to organize them is a very challenging set of editorial choices.
I learned 10x the world history from Wikipedia than I ever did from history classes writing up non-wiki citations in the proper format.
Researchers develop thermoformable ceramics, 'a new frontier in materials'
I would imagine CERN's resources are essentially a data center comparable to a small cloud provider's resources.
So, the first time we standardised symmetric encryption was DES in 1977. DES was at that time already known to have keys which are too small (56 bits) and blocks which are too short (64 bits) to be safe against a powerful attacker (like, say, the US government) but it appeared otherwise to be a good design. The algorithm actually has one flaw in its pre-DES existence, unsuspected by academics, but which the NSA had in fact fixed in DES because they knew about it.

And sure enough, even today the most practical attacks on DES are in effect brute force on those too-small keys and too-short blocks - this brute force is practical although very expensive.

Now, in 2001 DES was superseded by AES, which is used for this purpose by Signal. In AES the keys are larger (128, 192, or 256 bits, Signal uses 256) and the block size is longer too (128 bits), thus fixing the only problem DES still had. We are done.

So, while of course nobody can prove it won't happen in 30 years, it is extremely unlikely.

You might think to yourself, surely computers get faster and smaller, so the brute force problem would still arise maybe in a few decades? Nope. In the late 20th and early 21st century humans experienced something that's only going to happen once, and it has distorted our perspective on the matter. The machines are not, in fact, going to keep getting faster and smaller, there are physical limits imposed by the universe. They will get gradually a bit faster than they are now, and we will make a lot more of them, but nowhere close to enough even if (for some insane reason) our civilisation decided its only goal is to decrypt my old Signal messages.
Most people care about their findings replicating. The hard part is knowing what you need to do to improve your chances.
Utter nonsense. Mandated treatment for drug addiction and severe mental illness would tackle half the problem.

Then provide contingent housing based on staying sober, sticking to your treatment plan, and getting a job. You can graduate when you’re able to pay your own way.

For non-addict/mentally ill homeless, it’s housing contingent on employment, graduate when you can pay your own way.

This would solve 90% of the problem.
It's a multi-architecture package - ARM and Intel.
Yep, if you cite Wikipedia (and you should if you're using it as a source) you can use the fixed URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Y_Combinator&oldi...

Then anyone following can see what you saw.
Replace GPT-3 with Bob, language model with person, and deep learning with learning, and you arrive at the conclusion that we're not able to determine whether people actually understand the world around them. Any utterance is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced computation model which simply produces the next token of text. Which is to say that the essential discriminating characteristic isn't the fact that GPT-3 runs on a computer, it's that it doesn't have a basis of reality rooted in the present.

The article correctly recognizes this, but then fails to actually make any meaningful contributions. Say the model was in fact conditioned on the basis of a present reality, would that change the interviewee's mind? The fact that it's difficult to say simply hints that the interviewer didn't really do that great of a job drilling down to the interesting questions.
"Worker" in the economic context is a socialist term. It doesn't sounds dignified to me. Employee is a better word.