skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The test for rule of law is simple:

Are there consequences for billionaires or politicians who break the law or violate ethics.

That answer is clearly no. The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law. Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers.

When peasants get plea bargains and the rich and powerful get "due process," that is how you know that there is no rule of law.

The only reason it looks remotely like we have rule of law is because the power of our billionaires and politicians is fairly diffuse. As that power becomes more concentrated (and it seems clear that our policies concentrate wealth and power) it will be more and more clear that what we perceive as rule of law is the powerful vying for power. It is not the law that provides consequences to powerful people, but other powerful people exercising their own power.
It can be tough even without the impact of the memory hierarchy. I've seen code where adding an extra instruction to the calculation made it faster. The extra instruction implicitly eliminated denormals, thus resulting in faster execution with some workloads on systems where operations on denormal values were slower than operations on other values.

It was a completely unnecessary instruction from a correctness perspective, because it had no effect on the answer. However, it was important for performance; removing the instruction made the calculation slower.
No, unless you think being fired isn't enforcing anything.
I was using CE earlier today to verify that rustc was optimizing the way I thought it would. It's a great service!
> There is more than plenty of resources out there for any possible civilization.

It looks that way to us because of the limited rate at which we consume resources relative to the scale of the cosmos. But our rate of consumption isn’t anywhere near an upper bound for a civilization. We’re not even a Type 1 on the Kardashev scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Yep, that's absolutely right. From my own experience (which is really quite small for that kind of thing), I tend to think that the API you want and would build for a mobile app is not going to be the same as the one you would build for your SPA site. But yes, when you build that API, you'll need that complexity.

I've been doing some hobby experimenting with doing this in a more generic way using Postgres RLS and putting a lot of that permissions checks into the database. That way, if I used PostgREST or my own solution for a mobile app API, the security rules should apply just the same to the API as they do to the website.
You transact in it, it works, and then sometime later everyone's funds are wiped out by hacking, arbitrage and others.
I think that is a Twitter client window, it’s not the shortcat UI (which pops up briefly a bunch of times during the animation I think you are taking about, which is illustrating like an emoji completion feature)
What contexts are they not permitted? I know that not all browsers support them, but are there other limitations?
There is a lot of truth to this. Find "design partners" early in the process and build the MVP for them. After several iterations of making requests and providing feedback that you action on, they're a lot more willing to buy, especially if you give them a sweetheart discount.

Unless it's some sort of bauble or obviously useful tool to them, I think it'll be difficult to sell MVP without any of their input.
Coming from an actual, though unpublished, writer: you are right.
"often 10X faster" is just plain exaggeration looking at it positively, and plain falsehood spread by the for-profit JuliaComputing, looking at it realistically. The statement does not even reflect the numbers posted on the project's page, which has, by the way, nothing to do with Fortran directly.
Used to. Those days are long gone, and they're not coming back.

If we're lucky, the decline of America will resemble the decline of the UK. If we're not, it'll resemble the decline of Russia.
If working hours would increase productivity, why don't they pay overtime? In most situations where there's a direct correlation between work hours and productivity, someone pays overtime. Why is overtime not offered?

Eastern companies often employ 996, where the expectations are roughly 72 hours/week, and compensation is paid accordingly.
I wish there were a fully open toolchain for the esp32. I mostly stick with stm these days just because everything I need to develop is available as a distro package.
> The fact Nancy Pelosi can shout on a loudspeaker that she has a right to trade the stock of companies she regulates is clear evidence that we do not have rule of law.

Which law is she breaking?

Rule of law means following the law. Not making up new laws that you think are good and just following them before they're written down.

-------

Rule of law doesn't mean our laws are perfect. It just means that people follow the laws. Eventually, we work to improve our laws and make them better, but this is a second issue to simply rule of law in the first place.

We cannot improve our laws if we do not follow them first. The fundamental step here is following the law.

----------

> Equally clear evidence is that a former president was able to attempt to overthrow the government and neither him nor his apparatus/enablers (Fox/McConnell) are experiencing meaningful consequences, only his foot soldiers.

Which law did Trump break? Well, the answer is possibly a lot, but its going through the courts right now. As well as Jan. 6th Committee. There is due-process in our laws. We don't just punish people before their trial.
For:

- algebra

- trig / precalc

- geometry

- calculus 1/2

I would suggest "for dummies" series. I did Algebra I and it was easy to read and understand and I really liked it. The math topics that I listed above "for dummies" series also have good reads on Amazon. Linear Algebra of "for dummies" series is not rated high. Also I would personally not recommend statistics of "for dummies" series.
I think the description in the article was actually good. In particular, the part where they say:

> This is the metaphor used to describe the unpredictability of chaotic systems:tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions of a system grow and grow until they completely destroy the accuracy of any forecast

This doesn't seem too far off from you say.
The watermark of a stock photo service is usually copyright protected, and also a (usually registered) trademark.
Utterly broken politics at all levels, plus a ton of corruption.
> I suppose this is an argument for hosting one's own blog, but I do have a lot on my plate already.

With a little effort, you can do this. Your own domain and NFSN (Nearly Free Speech) [1] for hosting is the combo I’d recommend. You need to handle the blog generation (and/or sFTP) part. You’ll get proper support from humans if there are any issues.

[1]: nearlyfreespeech.net
Just FYI, I had changed 'illegal' to 'unenforceable' probably while you were writing this comment.
Edit: 1 hour later: I am signing off for the night folks. If I don't respond to new replies to my comment, that's why. You all have a good night, or day.

-- OG comment --

Forgive me for being potentially controversial here, but considering the topic I think it should be fine for me to suggest this, especially since this measure is (Edit: In my opinion after reading it) about 'grooming', which requires interaction.

We don't allow children/minors into bars, and many other places where adults congregate, right?

Why are we allowing them on the internet? Seems rather simple to me that if we just remove their access to the internet, that nearly almost all the potential issues involving children cease to exist.

Companies can't exploit them. (as easily) Creeps can't harm them. (as easily) Etc and so forth.

Sure, the internet is a wonderful tool for learning, and having fun, and communicating. But so is going outside, playing with your friends, and paying attention in school.

That's all I have to say on this.

---

Edit:30 minutes after post: I guess there is one more solution.

Make a kids only internet, if we really must allow them to have such a thing. All adults are restricted from it. *except perhaps their parents, but even then that opens new loopholes. So even that's not perfect.
That's a practical matter: either cryptocurrencies will (in their quest to become actual financial systems) make debt a serious problem for the indebted, or they will continue to be financial "mystery meat."

In other words: they avoid debt because they're not doing real finance. But the entire point of this grand experiment is supposed to be a real financial system, so "it's currently broken" is not a good argument for "it will get better."
Thanks for your reply. The first few paragraphs are educational and appreciated.

We may disagree on the last one - I find "everybody understands..." assumptions can range from mostly happen to be true to tragically incorrect to manipulatively deceptive. Based on other discussions in this thread, I'm not alone. The fact that you indicate diversity and inclusion has moved away from equal treatment phrase, that Equal vs Fair is now being taught as basic differentiation just like Pretend vs Real, and Opinion vs Fact in school, also I believe supports my claim these are meaningfully, substantially, importantly different concepts. Again, I think they get confused enough, intentionally or unintentionally, that "everybody understands" is just too dangerous of an approach, even if well meant.
> Then you proceed to require exact wording in agreement :-)

Ain't my fault that lawyers are Sith :)

> you're of course free to rationalize any way you want, but if it's so simple, why not bring it up with a manager?

Because it's quite frankly none of their business. Corporations, contrary to what they might believe, do not own their employees. If they are dissatisfied with their employees' output, they are already more than willing to terminate employment for any reason, and that's that.

> Funny. Last time I had to deal with it, entire ten people team had zero issues with engagement. Only one guy had

And for all you know those ten people could be working second jobs, too, as is their right. You would have no idea because you are explicitly only measuring the ones who can't hack it, and have no visibility into those who can.

> Yup slack time is important. Every reasonable company knows that. You need to wind down sometimes. That's why you have table soccer, xboxes etc

Sorry to burst your Silicon Valley bubble, but such companies are very much in the minority.

> You argue that, instead companies should assign second project to everyone, to help them relax?

No, I argue that companies should not expect to own their employees 168 hours a week while only paying them for 40 at best. I further argue that employers hire and fire by productivity alone, and therefore employees have every right to contribute based on productivity alone rather than some archaic notion of ass-in-seat timekeeping.
I still think that if you build a ton of housing, prices go down. But I've been told by commenters on here that you could build and build and build until your city is stuffed to the gills with empty housing - empty housing that does nothing but drain the owners' bank accounts with property taxes - and still, somehow, prices would relentlessly go up.

Supposedly, the owners of empty properties would rather "charge" a zillion dollars for their "luxury condos" and never actually profit from their property in any way, than ever allow the "value" to go down.

It's a baffling mentality. Housing alone is thought to fly free of supply and demand.
She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation.

A country can say our emperor makes all the laws, the emperor could write them down. Would you say they have rule of law because there is a written law?

There could be a law that the empreror can selectively enforce the laws, would they have rule of law?

Just because there are laws in books with an apparatus to enforce them does not mean there is rule of law.
IMHO the books with the transcription of the Krishnamurti conferences encourages the practice of thinking in novel ways.
It does address it, although not that clearly. This happens all the time with news media. They will post a picture and say they got permission from X person, but X person actually didn't even own the copyright in the first place. That doesn't make any of it okay, but it does mean that the organization has legal cover in this case and the worst that will happen is that they'll have to take the content down. In GitHub's case if that same code snippet is found in other repo's that have different licensing then it's difficult to really prove who owns the copyright, it's a legal issue between the original copyright owner and the person that re-distributed the work. They can submit a DCMA takedown notice for the other repo's. But it's pretty unlikely Github gets into any legal trouble as long as they can prove that they got the snippet from someone else.
Can you go into more detail about what you mean by "duplication of data"? I worked on a team whose product uses Hasura; my understanding is that data still comes directly from Postgres, even if Hasura is sitting in the middle. Where is the data being duplicated?
That reminds me of the Peril-Sensitive sunglasses from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that go completely dark when the wearer's in danger.
Coming from a lot of python knowledge, including deep language junk draw trickery and being able to do all sorts of interesting tricks with it… and having looked into go to do a bunch of things where Go is basically the only supported language (kubernetes operators and some other niche stuff like that) … and now diving into .Net 6 with c# for a few new projects after some past experiments with Unity.

c# all the way…

Go is like hunt and peck typing with my nose while I’m strapped into a strait jacket. It’s deliberately designed to make it hard to be clever, hard to deepen your knowledge, and for me this makes it hard for me to be efficient… Other than small edits of other peoples code I have never once found Go enjoyable. It’s intuitive to a fault because it’s so minimal and restrained. Like a set of Duplo blocks compared to a set of Lego blocks. It’s really hard to convey this feeling of mental abrasion I have while using it… if I’m not fixing/extending something else where there’s likely only one good way to do something and I’m not in a position to change anything outside the little bit I’m working with… every time I use Go I am constantly ignoring the part of my brain that sees how inefficient this language is for my time I have to sit there typing out so much god damn useless shitty boilerplate that every other language gives you tools to avoid by way of better syntax, syntactic sugar for more advanced patterns, tools for polymorphism and meta programming and all the other things go rejects… hell until very recently it didn’t have generics (I haven’t been forced back to using it since this so maybe it’s slightly better now)

C# has a powerful type system, good enough and growing ecosystem of language level packages to empower you to work well. But it does have one big negative, it’s rather IDE dependent, and the package/module/import system is very “implicit” as opposed to the explicit Pythonic way of doing things. So it takes a while to get used to (still doesn’t feel right but my brain no longer bristles at the sight of it anymore) how everything is imported an entire package or module at once and the compiler just takes care of optimising out unused stuff. It also makes it harder to read peoples code samples which cycles back to how much you have to learn to let the IDE do the work, because it’s often the only antidote to tersely referenced object names that have been pulled in from a large package namespace. I’ve gotten rather used to just asking JetBrains Rider to add the necessary using statements.

For all the downsides C# doesn’t feel like sandpapering my brain while using it, it’s more employable, .Net 6 is a real boom time for new open source code as they have finally unified the weird .Net Framework vs .Net Core mess, it’s one target and everything lives here now. And Microsoft are supporting cool new technology like gRPC/Web and Blazor which might get us back to the days where you could just design a UI around a push/pull function call model and deploy to desktops which could perform RPC via the LAN to the back office server. Exciting times!
> She is making a clearly egregious ethical violation.

EDIT: Cool. But which _law_ is she breaking?

That apparatus cannot operate unless there is a law written down first describing that ethic. One of the most important principles of legal theory is that you cannot retroactively punish someone for breaking a law before the law was written down.

You can only punish people _AFTER_ writing down a law. Punishing people _before_ the law is written is blatant tyranny.

Just because YOU disagree with the law doesn't mean that the law isn't working, or that the "rule of law" is failing. It just means that you disagree with the law and want to change it.
One of the hallmarks of insensitivity is doubling down on it by using justification like, "that's just the reality." Be better than that.
Sure, but the broader context is around what's already planted or harvested; even if you'd have to plant something other than dent corn later on, existing stockpiles are still useful even for human consumption.
I don’t think anyone believes it’s possible. Even the “ai ethicists” have to realise this. We can still acknowledge that these tools can be bad for society while knowing they can’t be stopped.
I'd politely suggest that if your hearing is bad enough to be noticeable, then it is definitely enough to look into getting hearing aids. Hearing aids for those with only mild hearing loss can be very discreet.

There is evidence to suggest that living with even mild hearing impairment can accelerate cognitive decline (though I don't know if there is yet evidence that this can be prevented by using hearing aids).
> you’re talking about only one narrow form of cancellation, and trying to downplay painful social stigma as an outcome.

The former is true, but I'm not sure the latter is true, or that the former implies the latter.

> unstoppable influence

I disagree that it's unstoppable.

> It is not useful to draw a line between who’s making a final decision and who’s starting a campaign to spread information with an agenda

I also disagree with that.

> Harvey Weistein’s trouble did not start in a court of law. It started with allegations, many shared on social media.

Well, no, his trouble started with sexually assaulting a number of women. And that's also why he's in jail.

You actually seem to have your timeline reversed. The New York Times published an exposé https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-haras... on October 5, 2017 and the New Yorker (Ronan Farrow) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-ove... on October 10. Rose McGowan didn't start tweeting about it until after the NYT story broke, and "Me too" started https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/919659438700670976 on October 15. Weinstein's victims were talking privately to the news media long before social media got involved.

> the order of events here was extremely public and extremely well documented.

Indeed, as I noted above.

Weinstein was actually investigated by police a couple years earlier https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/nyregion/harvey-weinstein... but they didn't bring charges against him at the time, which in retrospect turned out to be a scandal itself. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/nypd-pro...

ADDENDUM:
I see that you rewrote some of your comment after I published mine, apparently in order to make yourself look less wrong about the facts I cited. That's pretty silly and pointless, because I know you did it, and there's likely nobody else reading the thread at this point except you and me.

I'm done with this now, I won't be reading or replying anymore.
It’s not against the law! I agree that she shouldn’t do it and that the law should change so that she can’t. But presently-legal congressional sleaze is not relevant to the discussion here.
it would be nice to have a filter by a type of license
Realistically, there are virtually no utility tokens.
Not the OP but I have a sinking feeling that these AI tools are going to take away from the most enjoyable careers and creative pursuits and leave us with only mundane button pusher AI supervisor jobs.

Current AI is not replacing anything yet but I feel we are only a few years before AI can do a better job at drawing or programming than someone with years of practice. Sure, you can utilise those tools to stay ahead. But will AI prompt engineer be as emotionally satisfying as drawing for real?
The replies appear to be here:

https://nitter.net/ryanjsalva/with_replies
Salton Sea faces ecological collapse; plan to save it with ocean water rejected
Sounds related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
We’ll know on approximately November 8th how bad it really is. Not until then, though. Maybe not for a couple of weeks afterwards.

edit: fix date
For crypto, I think it has to be "code as law". Otherwise, what is the point. People will be better off depositing their funds in a brokerage and trading that way. Trading and settlement have to be merged to get the benefits from the crypto approact to money.

I think the next step for smart contracts is to port risk engines (for leveraged trading) and treasury risk management into smart contracts. But I think there is little overlap between people who write risk engines (almost never open source) and people who write smart contracts with slick UIs, so I don't see this happening.

I think SBF (see https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1580170203664904195?s=20&...) of FTX, who knows how leveraged trading works, explained what risk controls FTX implements.

A simple risk control would be to have a single transaction rate limited in funds it can suck out of an account.
Dunno if anyone mentioned it but don’t forget the following:

Each small business will have their own sales cycle. They will have different payment schedules.

This is a pain in the ass to deal with. Don’t assume they will all pay with a credit card. Be able and ready to accept checks.
Human history has shown us that intuition-based reasoning has been terrible for understanding bias.
Insider trading is against the law. Her trades, if conducted by anyone without power, would be investigated for insider trading.
Yes, box should link to that entry.

What is really needed in this and the app on my phone is a decision tree before the results to narrow down in terms of adjective, verb, adverb, etc. This shortens to the words you’re really wanting.

For example, entry: boot

Verb? Noun?
Cryptocurrencies "avoid debt" only as much as regular currencies "avoid debt". If I borrow USD from someone, I sign a legal document promising to pay it back in a certain time frame and they give me the full balance of the loan immediately - it has nothing to do with the currency itself. Cryptocurrencies don't somehow stop you from doing the same.
I'm talking about https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/

"A DID refers to any subject (e.g., a person, organization, thing, data model, abstract entity, etc.) as determined by the controller of the DID."

So, is for anything (where persons are in the set of anything)