skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wireguard is L3 encryption. It's great because it's simple. Linus called it poetry. If you are bridging L2 over the Internet, then one way or another you're stuffing Ethernet frames into IP packets. Linux has built in L2 tunneling, sans encryption. I wouldn't call it a custom hack to open an L2 tunnel over wireguard. It's a one liner on each end. A configuration utility like wg-quick could be made to set it up for you. I wouldn't want wireguard to become OpenVPN.
We had two kids largely because my wife was resigned to her career already being destroyed, so why not?
The best thing about this is that I no longer feel an urge for another side project to make an elevator programming sim myself :-)
Websites don't give you the option to opt-in.
China doesn't dominate shipbuilding in the same way it dominates most industries. Japan and South Korea have active shipbuilders building immense container ships (Ever Given was built in Japan), and Europe dominates the cruise ship industry.

It's still a national security issue that there's little domestic shipbuilding. In the event of a major war, it would be useful to have domestic shipbuilders available to press into service making warships, beyond the peacetime warship builders.
It seems to have been created by ex-Groupon folks, so that one is believable. Not sure about the rest.
Honestly: this is ridiculous coming from a firm using ECB mode for encryption and deeming it “won’t fix”.
The most important way to hold down rents is to let housing be built.
This is fairly common in good error logs.
Hrmm, the problem is with infinite scroll. Opening in new tab is the best UX I've tested that works best. Anything suggestions with that problem if I did add that option?
That’s a claim but it’s not true. If you actually talk to people you’ll find out that the crazy cancel racist left is actually a very small loud group and few real people actually align with them. The rest of the left just doesn’t speak up because they don’t care to get into fights.
As seen in their video (the fact that movement is choppy, but not the rendering. Indicates they are already doing that
This looks like a great option similar to LittleSnitch (or ZoneAlarm) for being able to selectively deny apps access to network, in an ad-hoc manner, on mobile devices.

For what it's worth, GrapheneOS has a network-level permission which can be toggled. LineageOS and other AOSP forks also have this, but it's not as... robust.

This package name is "bravedns", does this have any ties to Brave browser or anything users should be aware of?
Unfortunately, it’s much easier said than done, but I do believe that the best way of dealing with issues is to take action. One action you can take is to look into an adoption. 40 and 39 is very young. There are many countries in the world where you can adopt a child. It will take lots of work, but this is one thing you could consider doing.
Thank you! Glad it works well for you!
Playing with fire: millions of .git folders exposed to public
You say "us" existing, but I think the more interesting way to phrase it is "anything" existing. Why there is something instead of nothing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_there_is_anything_at_all
Yeah – I'm not even sure we can call it adversarial where there seems to be no signal for relevancy. I'm sure there are "good" reasons for not having one (where by "good" I mean "profitable") but oof it sucks (esp. relative to the much simpler Web2.0 organization of e.g. Reddit)
Yes!

There are people who don't read formal documentation but do read logs, after all.

If the advice is the same over and over again, then yes, give the advice over and over again. I wouldn't want to assume that someone has read every line of the logs, or has started to read top-to-bottom, so the advice should always be among the most recent lines in the log, and the only way to ensure that is to give the advice again each time the error happens.
Wifi's use case was, and still largely is, to be a wireless LAN. This means few users, no mobility, static devices, short distances, devices plugged in (not so true now). It started pretty much as exactly that: Just transmit ethernet frames over the radio and everything else is exactly as wired ethernet.

Cellular standards cater for a very different use case and, as a result, as vastly more complex and robust. To manage a lot of moving users and to support mobility is hard, also taking into account that cellular has had to deal with quality of service from the beginning because even if data rate was low voice requires a constant throughput with constrained delays.
Making babies is one of the least logic-driven decisions you will make in your life.
It is a joke -- it's the exercise regime used by one punch man to become stronger than a god
I enjoy spending my free time working on my pet projects. Some of them are good, most are stupid. But I enjoy it.

But I also understand that a lot of people only program as part of their job and I respect that. You don't need to program for fun to be a "real" developer. Having hobbies outside programming is great.
I think Suse is seen as more of an enterprise distro than Ubuntu. And regular internet citizens don't pay for their Linux.
Awesome you bookmarked it. Glad it helps with what you were wanting!
I'm not arguing trickle-down economics. The concept I'm talking about is called the "money multiplier" [0].

Think about it like this: You go to the store and buy some bread for $1. GDP has increased by $1. Now the store owner saves 20% of the store's income and spends the other 80%. So after your purchase, the store owner goes to the bakery supply store and buys $0.80 of flour. Now GDP has increased by $1.80 from your initial $1 purchase. Trickle-down economics is more about how income is distributed in a society.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier
this was the arithmetic we made 17yrs ago.
> The double turnstyle symbol has multiple uses

Ah. TIL.

> This is true.

OK, it's good that we agree on that, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not the english statement "G cannot be proven" (or some variation on that theme) is true or false. More to the point, what matters is what it takes to persuade a human being that it is true or false. The double-turnstyle symbol may be useful, but it is not the main event.

> That is basically true, assuming that the theory is also sound

OK, so we are basically in agreement on the things that actually matter. (Ironically, AFAICT Leary & Kristiansen don't actually define the term "sound". But again, whatever. It doesn't really matter for the substance of the point I am trying to make.)

The point I am trying to make is this: the reason Godel's theorem matters is that it is a negative result on the quest to reduce all of mathematics to a mechanical process. Implicit in this goal is that the process yield results that are in some sense "reasonable", i.e. if a putative mechanical process for doing math ever yields the result that 2+2=5 then we can be pretty sure that something has gone wrong even without knowing anything about double-turnstyles or soundness or validity or consistency or any of the other myriad things that logicians concern themselves with. These are all just ways of battening down various hatches, but none of them actually matter. What matters, the reason Godel's theorem is a thing, is that it is what informs us that it is impossible to mechanize all of mathematics, and that attempting to do so is a fool's errand. Finding the weakest possible conditions under which this result holds is of secondary importance, of interest only to logicians. If you can add 1 and check for equality -- or any of a myriad other combinations of trivial operations that allow you to enumerate proofs -- you've lost. That is what matters. And that can be proven without Godel numbers.
> Before I do, let me say that I am forever grateful for the tremendous work that scholars at the Cato Institute have done—and continue to do—to expose the Jones Act’s many flaws. ... A special mention goes also to Scott Lincicome who, more than anyone, has made fighting the Jones Act hip on Twitter.

> Other scholars have worked on this effort, of course. For instance, in 2018 the Mercatus Center published a piece by Thomas Grennes called “An Economic Analysis of the Jones Act” urging the reform of a law that “imposed large losses on American consumers.” My Mercatus colleagues Alden Abbott and Andrew Mercado also recently published a policy brief that delineates the negative economic effects of the Jones Act

This looks like typical free market libertarian dogma, so color me unconvinced. Especially since the reasoning seems all about consumer prices, which libertarians seem to often forget are not the only policy priority.

> The Jones Act is a 102-year-old federal measure that aims to promote and maintain the American merchant marine fleet for commercial and defense purposes. To achieve this goal, it restricts the waterborne transportation of cargo within the U.S. to vessels that are U.S.-flagged, U.S.-built, at least 75% U.S.-crewed and at least 75% U.S.-owned. The concrete results are that a foreign ship can enter a U.S. port to drop off its foreign cargo, it can even from there sail to different U.S. ports to drop off other foreign goods, but it is not allowed to pick up any domestic goods in a U.S. port and bring those goods to another U.S. destination if it doesn’t meet the four conditions listed above.

Personally, I think it's probably time to strengthen the Jones Act. It seems written for a time where a larger fraction of American sea trade consisted of domestically-produced goods. Now that we've unwisely outsourced much of our manufacturing ability, so maybe it should be modified to also mandate a certain percentage of all cargo, foreign and domestic be transported by US-flagged, US-built, US-crewed, US-owned ships. That should increase US sea transport capacity, and the greater volume should help drive down the costs of US-build ships.
I've met with the founders of the project before. They really don't strike me as the bulls#$ng type of promoters we've all grown jaded over.

They love this project and what they do.
A tale that Elon knew well (as publicly demonstrated numerous times), yet still tried to back out of the deal using it as an excuse.
There are always tradeoffs. You could make a lot more money, but in return you'd have added risk and probably have to do things that you think are "evil". If I said, "I can't understand the kind of person who doesn't want to make more money" that completely ignores the tradeoffs.

Likewise, work-from-office people get something out of that experience that is more valuable to them than 2 more hours per day of free time. It varies from person to person.
What I advocate for is not a simple up and down vote by the existing members. What I advocate for is a web-of-trust without the cryptography and with some sane AI to handle things like responding to malicious account take overs and other tricky bits like dealing with forged identities.

This isn't my invention. This has been used before in a limited form at Dribble and it worked to keep the riff raff out.
Whow the experts!

Of course a broken feedwater pump is safety critical, and it will not generate any power without.
Sure, one could argue that. But note that even Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner, the co-founder of Opera (who even built their own independent browser engine), also chose Chromium to build the new Vivaldi browser. Everyone avoids Firefox codebase because it is a mess (on purpose, so that others can't build a competing browser with it). As for Brendan Eich, I honestly believe that someone wanted him removed to weaken Firefox's growth and development, and they successfully used "cancel culture" to do so. After all, what does one's political beliefs have to do with one's technical and management skills (especially when they are able to compartmentalise and separate it from their professional life)?
> It seemed like such stuck up, pretentious 'advice' at the time

Because it is pretentious and stuck-up.

Any non-trivial endeavor requires humans working together as a group to achieve it. Reducing the humanity of the group you're working with to "donkeys" is horrifying, and the best executives are the ones who understand - and respect - their people.
> Why does it matter if it's woke? The majority of the points seem to be purely beneficial.

This is a very good point. Let me provide an argument:

The woke ideology/movement does attempt to address some real social issues (e.g. racism, classism, and areas where the disabled aren't served as well as they could be). However, on many of those issues, they either (1) attribute a specific cause to the issue that isn't universally shared (2) attempt to manipulate the language around the issue and/or (3) use unethical means to attempt to fix the issue.

This wouldn't be a problem by itself, but is made into one by the woke movement's totalitarian facets - the redefinition of common words in order to push an agenda, the suppression of dissenting thought (either through censorship or through extra-judicial persecution), and the weaponization of emotion to win arguments.

This means that while basically everyone (aside from white supremacists) can agree that white supremacy is bad, as soon as the woke movement gets involved, you lose the ability to tell what is white supremacy, because participants in the movement actively twist speech around the issue and emotionally attack those calling for reasonable discussion. For instance, in my work organization, a recent internal discussion thread had multiple employees claiming that "white supremacy" was the reason that Black people happened to be underrepresented in specific branches of that organization - and then attacked those who disagreed using emotional language instead of reasoned arguments.

This is why Scott Alexander doesn't like "SJWs" and tries to keep them out of his discussion forums - not because he finds their views bad, but because a core part of the movement is tribalism, censorship, manipulation of language, manipulation of emotion, and other anti-intellectual things that are definitionally unsuitable for the rationalist community (and, topically, Hacker News), and probably unsuitable for liberal democracies like the United States, as well.

> Personally I feel like discourse has grown more toxic.

It has - as a direct, causal result of the woke movement's aggressive propagation of the idea that "everything is political", which necessitates conflict and politics spreading into every area of life where there formerly was none.

That's why you have to be careful to separate the woke movement from the individual issues that they claim to represent - because the movement isn't just about (the very real issue of) racism, it also includes redefining the definition of "racist" to advance a hidden agenda.
I think the generous claim would be that given that Puerto Rico has a manufacturing dominated economy, if foreign flagged vessels could pick up goods there and take them on to the USA, they would be more likely to build routes that included them. Eg you could go through the Panama Canal, stop in PR to drop off goods from Asia and pick up goods from PR, and then continue on to Savannah/Charleston/Newark.

I'm personally skeptical of that.
> What surprises me is that almost always these people don't use their free time to do something productive—like picking up a hobby or up-skilling, they squander most of it.

I agree that this story is probably fiction, but I feel like I broadly fit into this category of collecting a paycheck with minimal work. I feel it takes one or two days of effort per week at work to station keep.

I spend nearly all of the "extra" time on a few work Slack channels, goofing off with work friends, occasionally doing internal tech support, and reading the web. I feel regret that I'm not making better use of this windfall of time, but I haven't been able to take the step to working on my own startup or pursuing hobbies during work because it feels outright dishonest while "be available, but not very productive" doesn't hit quite the same way.
I don't like crypto so I was pretty skeptical of Brave when I first looked into it, but after reading about it it came not so much as them trying to piggyback on the crypto train but rather as them prototyping different funding models to see what sticks. I prefer this approach to Firefox's who is fully dependent on funding from Google to survive.
Thank you!

Hrmmm, I don't have Ubuntu. What version of FF are you using? Did everything not work, or certain parts? I know Firefox seems to block embeds.
> How can you argue it's not a scam?

It implies something has not been disclosed to users. Brave has been almost painfully honest.

> It could actually be argued the whole 'privacy' angle they use is merely a way to justify the whole idea of ad-swapping

Brave does not ad swap, and brave rewards ads show up as a browser notification, not inline with content. This idea came from a 2016 article where content publishers were afraid that Brave might launch with ad-swapping. Brave did get caught re-writing Binance affiliate links to their own affiliate code, but immediately discontinued the process.
Manifest v3 only affects extensions. Brave has a native adblocker, that doesn't need access to the Manifest API.
That really strikes me as a better use case for Square or Gumroad than either Shopify or KillBill.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with this strain of research. I'm reminded of the University of Minnesota researchers who tried to see if they could get bad commits into Linux. I agree with encouraging us to widen our view of security to include gaming the system.
"Ego sophos, ergo et qui mihi similiter cogitant sophi sunt"?
There's a strong (underappreciated?) interaction with parental leave too.

If people got six months or a year, there would be far fewer babies in that labor-intensive category.
I don't understand this complaint anymore. Hotspot and OpenJDK are all GPL, licensing and Oracle aren't worries at this point
Some day some master's student is going to write a thesis on the history of the #witchcraft tag on Tumblr and how it functioned as a social space and I only hope my username does not appear. :D
sl;kfjasdf;lkasjdefk

Okay, look. There's two universes here. Universe A is where split up the features of our product into tiers based on "value" -- some arbitrary groups based on how useful we think each feature is, how expensive they are, how long they took to develop, estimated person-hours saved, whatever. Sweet, it feels right. Now the free/low cost tiers are genuinely less useful than the higher tiers. Pay more for more. SSO probably still lives at the mid or enterprise tier for no other reason that it's a PITA, is the cause of like 20% of support requests, and our SSO vendor charges us per month per SSO connection.

Universe B is where the free/low cost tiers have every feature except for specifically the features and increased usage limits that get SMBs and Enterprise to pay us.

Both on the sales side and the user side I want to live in Universe B.

There is no magic universe where "just increase your value proposition to Enterprise customers" -- it's the same product just carved up differently and non-enterprise customers lose in Universe A.
> Excel is the world's most popular functional programming language.

It's not?
Ok, that's federal. How is that the same as state provided welfare benefits? That's essentially a negative income tax (Milton Friedman) and is in addition to state benefits provided. At least, I don't see where there is an exclusion for those who receive such benefits.

Reminds me of when ODB snagged his welfare payment. People far removed from poverty really don't understand how cash based system-scamming the poor really are.

https://rockthebells.com/articles/odb-food-stamps-mtv/
Probably less crushing of dissenting voices is the real remedy.

You can only publish this kind of thing in America because people are so ignorant of what is possible and what is already being done in other nations.
How the World's First Computer Images Were Created
One side anecdote: just last week there was someone on HN arguing that "younger people were less susceptible to manipulation because they've grown surrounded by ads", and he gave the example of "fake news" being targeted and passed around by older people.

Reading about how something "makes you feel" reminded me of that. It's like people don't care about what objectively affects them or even trying to keep a sense of perspective.

It doesn't matter that it makes ZERO sense for a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to risk their whole business by taking petty cash from donations or putting "fraudulent referral link" that could be discovered so easily.

It doesn't matter that Mozilla/Firefox depends on the dirty money from Google to do whatever they do, or that they shove "opt-out" products into their users and don't track back, and that their management is running the corporation to the ground.

It doesn't matter that Google is doing anything they can to make life hard for users of ad blockers, or that their "privacy features" protects their users from everyone but Google itself. It doesn't matter that Apple is only concerned about privacy as a selling point for their overpriced crap.

None of that matters... what matters is "how people feel about a story".

Is Brave perfect? No, of course not. If you browse /r/BATProject you will find me calling out them for selling out (they got a partnership with Solana , who paid handsomely to get integrated into the browser) instead of leveraging their user base to promote the decentralization with Ethereum. If they ever (deliberately) do anything against the users, then I'll be the first to join the opposition. But none of the things that people hold against them fits this bill. None of it is shady or unethical.
Not sure why so many people balk at the comparison of having a dog versus having a kid. You don't need some deep philosophical reason for either: humans have lived alongside dogs for thousands of years, and humans don't need a justification to reproduce any more than a dog would. We're animals, we make babies.
Maybe they think people who WFH are getting more value from WFH than they are contributing ans employees. yhey fearmonger about outsourcing rather than admitting (understandably) that they want to be on the winning end of the deal again.
Brave ads are shown as browser notifications, and are not inlined with content.
I think it’s basically that a lifetime of being told what to do with your time atrophied your ability to direct your time when you had control.

I have experienced similar things over shorter periods.
:) Thank you for the nice words! Yes it is super different, glad people get it... I wasn't sure if it would be liked and understood.
Maybe it worked both ways. Couples in a more positive state got stronger, couples in a more problematic/conflict state got worse.
I see a lot of micro aggressions in my day to day as a remote worker from some of my WFO colleagues. Part of management has become more bold in making remote workers feel terrible for not coming into the office for seemingly constant “meet your coworkers!” org meetings and “we highly recommend you come into the office to meet folks!” over and over again. It’s a constant stream of anxiety from these people and it’s all one way. I’m blown away by some of them being so excited to commute and return to a terrible open office plan, but hey to each their own I guess.