skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Okay, let's go with those — and we'll even assume that they're fully accurate and representative. Money laundering wasn't exactly impossible before so the two questions here are whether it was cost-effective for the users (someone in Nigeria has less capacity to soak up one of those speculative swings, after all) and safe to use.

That last part is significant because while the Bitcoin marketing team likes to talk about it being anonymous or “censorship resistant”, it's extremely risky for anyone to use when their threat model includes the government they live under. Yes, I'm sure someone has been able to transfer money to a Russian or Chinese dissident but once that becomes at all significant, consider the incredible risk that poses to the recipient. They can't make a transaction without making highly-distinctive network traffic, they can't use the funds locally without finding someone willing to take them which is risky to both parties since you're betting that the other party isn't compromised, and unlike regular currency transactions you're leaving an immutable public audit trail. If any party involved ever has records which the police obtain, they now have hard evidence to go after everyone they've ever transacted with rather than just the ones they observed after learning of that blackmarket activity. Better hope that you and everyone you ever do business with has perfect opsec…

This isn't some idle speculation, either — there have been a number of cases where Bitcoin provided key evidence linking people's activity and allowing the police to wrap up an entire group rather than the one guy they caught. Here's an example of where that was used for good:

https://www.wired.com/story/tracers-in-the-dark-welcome-to-v...

Now, I personally would not like to see political dissidents in China or Russia meet the same fate so I would not want to tell them Bitcoin is suitable for this task.
On what planet is it 'free' if it requires you to hand over some of your most abusable info?

The thing that really bothers me is the normalisation of 'hand over your credentials' which inevitably maps to data leaks and identity theft. For what, trying out a product that you may or may not use?
> Firing based on LoC will definitely get rid of a few great engineers

The average front end developer probably writes 10x the LOC of the best backend developers, so it may actually get rid of the majority of your best engineers.
You have Money types? Lucky, I still see people using floats...
That was exactly what I gathered from the title.
"Other duties as assigned."
I used to have a Chinese woman working for me.

I'm pretty sure she came from a privileged place, in Beijing.

Anyway, she told me that they always had tea plants around her house in China. She said they smelled great, and "cleaned the air."
if I was told by my boss to do something like deactivate X, change something to Y, or in this case, fire X% of people, do people really expect employees to not follow it?

The implication is that their instructions were much more detailed than "fire X% of people" and included using LoC as the metric, which nobody questioned.

(Any quantitative measurement of code quality will have too many outliers to be fair. LoC? Of course not. Number of closed PRs? You can't say much without knowing their complexity or severity. Etc. But they had to be quick, not fair.)
Does this list include controversial instances that have been defederated?
This is upside down.

First - that vulnerabilities are 'known' does not mean any specific instance of vulnerability is 'known'.

Second - that 'most attacks occur some other way' isn't hugely relevant. We don't 'not check the door locks' because most criminals 'go in through the window'.

Having a government entity knock on the doors and remind folks that they have a problem gives the issue impetus, and even legitimacy within the organization aka instead of 'powerless IT figure from sector 8G' saying we have a problem, now, it's the Government saying 'you should to fix this' thereby giving execs the mandate to spend on it.

This is exactly what the government should be doing - it's proportional, non-invasive, note hugely expensive or complicated, they're not making legal requirements here (because none are needed) etc..

Your litany of solutions is not comprehensive, moreover, item #5 'penalize those for not appropriately respond to bug bounty' is a bit glib - this would definitely be government overstepping their bounds. There are always bugs in software. Weighing the risk v. consequences is not something gov can do.
Should is rarely as important in these cases as what actually happens.

There was a recent case before the Supreme Court where a guy who was legally innocent was still in prison. As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals.

One of the Justices started asking if the government was concerned about the number of appeals should this be allowed. The court cares about such things because they are effectively above the rules and could do a great deal of damage.
Exactly. I've read that they might not reflect actual size but still roughly reflect the density and efficiency you'd expect with that size.
My framing is honest because we're not only talking about people who hate Jews here. We're talking about people who do not accept the "correct" narrative on things like the results of major elections, medical science and the involvement of large corporations therein, etc. In recent years there have been a lot of statements which have gotten people in trouble on Twitter (and, in some cases, real life) which have nothing to do race or religion.

I don't believe most of these arguments, but I still think people ought to be able to say them.
I wintered over at Palmer Station. Drinking increased heavily during the dark months.
In my recent job, I committed Jupyter notebooks to Git, and they tend to be giant JSON files. I had 10x SLOC of anyone who did not commit Jupyter notebooks.
Are you yourself a software engineer?
> Does anyone have any useful experience to share on working in a VR headset? Is it comfortable for longer periods of time? How is it on the eyes?

I bought the entry level Quest 2 to evaluate the feasibility of this about a year ago. These are some of my insights (that might not apply 100% to Quest Pro):

- The resolution was too poor to comfortably read anything on two displays arranged about the same way as two horizontal 27" monitors side by side. This ultimately killed the whole effort.

- Without good passthrough, using a keyboard and mouse is a bit difficult.

- There is finger tracking, but I found the controllers to be more accurate. So I needed to keep the controllers on my desk.

- There is a bit of motion sickness that either goes away after a few days of use or reduces a bit. For me, I could never get over the motion sickness. But it wasn't very bad after a couple days of use.

- The screen door effect was very noticeable for me on Quest 2.

- It was possible to up the resolution and refresh rate of Quest 2 using developer options on the PC with some third-party software. With that, the headset might become uncomfortably warm to wear.

- The WiFi 6 wireless VR was surprisingly much better than expected. But it will definitely not be a good experience with typical hotel Wifi - not even close.

I was pretty happy to spend about £300 on a Quest 2 to try it for work. I then sold it for about £250. £50 to try this work mode for a few weeks was worth it. I chose not to go with VR for work at the time. I would suggest trying it yourself in some way similar to this. Perhaps not buying it but borrowing someone's VR headset for a bit, or going to one of the VR venues and just seeing how comfortable it is and what kind of resolution you might get?
What if those employees have gained the hatred of well over half the nation; and set up a system where they can do nothing but drink wine and attend yoga classes for half the day?

This is a long-awaited reckoning.
I meant Tailscale, thanks for that. I use both but I think one has a dominant weight in my autocorrect, lol. Check back here and I'll dump my docker-compose. That pretty much contains everything except the actual agent installation, which is a very minimal step.
Deduping 28M Strings Using JavaScript
Can you explain more about what it does? The website is a bit vague but it looks like you're encoding S-expressions on a blockchain, so my first question would be what this gives us that traditional PKI would not.
Roark66 described it as "moderately annoying", not "insulting", so let's please not start an escalating chain of reactions to stuff that hasn't actually been expressed.

But I'm on the same "mildly annoyed" page, because with the large majority of "it looks cool" new products or services I try out, I know within 5 minutes that it doesn't actually meet my needs and I know I'm _not_ interested in it, but I still have to trust that this organization both today and in perpetuity (or as long as I keep that address) will be well-behaved and technically competent in using my information.

Recently on vacation I bought tickets to a museum in a country I was visiting, and in the process shared my email in order to receive a QR code for entry. They have a legitimate use case which involves sending something to me; fine. To my knowledge the ticket sales service involved does not operate in my region, and I would really prefer never to hear from them again after this one useful interaction. Only a couple of weeks later, in the space of 30 minutes I receive _dozens_ of marketing messages from them, each in a different language I do not speak, all promoting the same 10% off sale _for something I cannot make use of_. I assume some bug didn't associate a specific language with my record so they decided to send me messages in all of them. Their "unsubscribe" link was broken, perhaps for related lack-of-competence reasons. There's literally no way for me to tell them I am not in a position to buy anything further from them. But we've totally normalized online interactions that require (potential) customers to trust that an unfamiliar organization with be both well-intentioned and skillful in their handling of your contact info.

Imagine if receiving a free sample at a grocery store of a new product that might be appealing to you but might be entirely not to your taste required you to first give the company your contact info. Or if trying on a garment in a department store required the same trust. In a non-online context, this behavior would be creepy and intrusive. And you know that you might realize in seconds that you hate the mouthfeel of their product, or that the cut of those pants just doesn't work for your body, and no you won't be buying their product -- but you can't claw back your email.

I think in online contexts we should normalize at least one of two other patterns:

- Let people try it for k minutes/actions/new objects without a sign-up, after which the UI is blocked by a modal asking them to create an account. The customer gets to establish whether they actually want to use the product, and the company still gets info about people who are actually interested.

- Rather than relying on _emails_ specifically, account setup could rely on _revocable_ access to any other service that allows sending/receiving messages.
> It's not just someone else's opinion, it's agreed upon opinion

Q: Agreed upon by whom?

I'm reminded of this quotation:

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

which The Big Short (2015) says is Twain but I gather probably isn't.
You are right. Year ago was release with WhatsApp backup encrypted.

https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/end-to-end-encrypt-whatsapp...
Based on the casing JsonValue is an object, not a primitive, so there's no reason that interface wouldn't work. It would just by a different subtype depending on what type the value is, and lists/dicts would also implement the Map<string, JsonValue> interface.
This can be a path where things do go bad. Let's say thus test pattern is a success and then is replicated for many tests. Now, the schema or migration changes. A small change there now breaks the entire test suite. At this point the number of failing tests only indicates how many hours you will be fixing assertions.

Another failure mode is when test scaffolding builds up. Imagine that migrate up part becoming multiple schemas, or services. It then fails, now finding exactly where to fix the test scaffolding becomes a multi-hit exercise.

I'm not saying the example is bad, but it can put you on a path where if you constantly build on top of it, it can bad (eg, developers that don't care for tests nor test code quality, or just want to go home, and they just add a few assertions, add some scaffolding, copy-paste it all and mutate some assertions for a different table & rinse-wash-repeat across 4 people, 40 hours a week for 3 years...)
I don't get how hung up on the LOC firing people got.

If you want to fire 3500 people you obviously don't care that much about false negatives.

I would not be surprised if it turned out that it's much more economical to fire based on LOC and then rehire a few good people than to go through thousands of conversations and try to do it "the right way". Especially since Elon can be sure most of the Twitter workforce is hostile to him anyway.
So you're doubting that LOC was used but also completely happy for LOC to be used as the criteria for firing?
Pothos are easy to grow and easy to propagate. One pothos could turn into 30 without a huge amount of effort.

I kinda like the idea of living in a space with 30 pothos plants.

I guess the engineered one would also be easy to propagate? Which raises an interesting question, after I buy one, can I just give away dozens of clones? Are there IP restrictions? Does the plant die without the special sauce bacteria?
Meaning is use. And people neither think in definitions nor learn language through definitions (there is a reason dictionaries usually provide examples and use cases), it is an entirely artificial construct with limited use.
Academic Freedom Conference Opening Statement
Absolutely. Simple, but a whole lot of hard work.
NASA had studies on plants to clean air, I have a copy of Bill Wolverton’s book.

Although no plants…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study
I'd probably go with "anachronistic" - RS232 predates TTL logic!

Interesting that the bit-level protocol is still very widely used today, even if the signalling is now more likely to be 5v or 3v3 TTL signalling bridged to USB.
Blender isn't hard to use … It's hard to learn. Important difference. Once learned, you can do amazing things with it that many other similar 3D software is either incapable of, or far more complex to accomplish the same task. As to Blender being "intimidating", that much is absolutely true. It's also "overwhelming" at first. It helps to focus on smaller tasks when first learning, because it's easy to get sidetracked by all the many buttons and that is where "overwhelmed" and "intimidating" begin.

I highly recommend Blender Guru on YouTube as one of several great places to start for anyone interested in learning Blender. He's got a couple beginner tutorials there that'll get one up and rolling in no time at all. It's well worth the effort to learn for those who have an interest in 3D graphics or game development. Having said all that, I'm always in favor of more new tools / toys appearing in this space, and I thank you for adding to the mix.
Would you be able to give any examples of quantum resistant encryption algorithms? I'm not familiar with the field and my most recent knowledge is a post on hn saying that some post quantum candidates had been broken by old laptops.
Reveddit is where I go when I need to remind myself why I appreciate the Reddit mods.
Which case are you referring to? I haven’t heard anything about it.
Quantum algorithms are nonlinear. If someone is saying "quantum mechanics is a linear theory" as a counterargument to anything QC related. Then that person has no idea what they are talking about. Because they likely never cared to learn event the basics of QC.
Your replies aren't harsh they're just off topic, and I think you're trolling me for laughs, trying to get me or someone else mixed up. For example,

> As you've stated in this thread, an involuntary contract between the government, the media company, and the user are not optimal

I said no such thing, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Good one, I'm sure you thoroughly confused a few people.
Who knew Supreme Court briefs were so funny? Definitely don’t read this while eating. I almost choked to death from trying to eat while laughing so hard.
These folks do a fantastic job of explaining how things work at a level of detail I think folks here will appreciate.

If you enjoyed this video, you'll probably also like these:

How SSDs use Quantum Mechanics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f2xOxRGKqk

Inside the Engineering of SSDs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-SivgEpA1Q
Does it not seem ironic to anyone else that all these scoops and news about Twitter are communicated using... Twitter? Is there really no other way besides Twitter to publish and communicate news and information? Maybe others are bought into Twitter, but I'd really like to stop consuming information on the Twitter platform, especially if it's about... Twitter. I know it's passe to complain about Twitter threads as a means of communicating, but there's a reason why people complain - it's a truly awful way of consuming content that requires any amount of depth. I hope the industry can find a better way to complain about Twitter and communicate other valuable information without using Twitter.
I assume it's something like this: Musk asks Tesla if Tesla would be willing to contract out some employees to Twitter to help with some stuff. Tesla says yes because nobody wants to get fired for telling the CEO "no, that's stupid". Some shareholders think it's a stupid idea but by and large won't do anything because if you are a Tesla shareholder you own Tesla stock fully knowing that "Musk occasionally does stupid things" is just what happens. If some decide to sue it's going to maybe lead to some small-ish settlement and don't actually change anything.
"where institutions can sign up to using a federal DNS service provided through the domain registrar..."

The domain registrar is CIRA, and has only one of twelve board members having a federal government affiliation. See cira.ca for the facts. Their Canadian Shield services uses data from Akamai, Mozilla, and CCCS.

It is not "federal".

Sigh. Another comment from someone's memory that takes only 2 minutes to fact-check and discover to be incorrect.
I don't know where you got "twice" when the article we are discussing has 3 instances, and those are only instances of political messaging in rust release logs, not any of the other myriad references to politics that appear around the Rust community.

One of the three - the police brutality statement from release 1.44 - is US-centric and very much controversial in the US. That statement was issued in June 2020, when about 40% of the US disagreed with the reference (which was a reference to a specific instance of police violence). The other two statements had about 75% support at the time they were issued (25% disagreed).

One of the problems of political messaging in evergreen things like programming languages is that you can make popular statements at the time and they can become unpopular. At this point, a majority of US residents would not support the fact that the 1.44 release had that message, and a majority may be upset with all the support for Ukraine (a recent poll said that 57% of US residents thought it was time for peace in Ukraine).

An echo chamber is a community in which people who agree with each other echo each others' views, thereby causing people in the echo chamber to believe that their views are more popular than they are. Many tech employees live in an echo chamber where US progressive politics (pushed by the US media) is the dominant view, despite being unpopular in the US and around the world.

I don't think there's any evidence of state collusion. There is a lot of evidence that the community of Rust maintainers and power-users is unfortunately insular (an echo chamber), and follows the views of US media a lot more than a healthy community probably should.
On iPad, I can’t drag logic blocks out of the corral on the left into the working area.
It is fair to call Elon Musk a grifter.

I’d invite you to take a look at the what he has promised with Hyperloop. Just from an engineering perspective, his plans are completely infeasible. He sold the public (including governments) on fancy sci-fi renderings.
Honestly I would trust a test performed by Waymo way more than a test performed by Dan O’Dowd.
It seems to me that few would underestimate how hard the problem is as the difficulty would be obvious to those who develop such software.

There are at least two issues here, the first is that there isn't any agreed typographical standard that would make OCR more reliable, and second, there's no consistent or uniform way OCR algorithms are applied. To use your example, the OCR software ought to be able to recognize 'a dot-product dot from a dot intended as multiplication' from its useage context, and where ambiguities or doubts exist the item or aspect of the converted text should be flagged and dropped into an editor that would provide easy access to a choice of selectable options to choose from.

In the absence of accurate AI/ML, having ready access to a flexible mathematically-aware editor so as humans can easily make corrections seems an absolute necessity (especially so when OCRed text originates from source material that has not been typeset with OCR in mind).

It seems odd that mathematicians and programmers haven't yet agreed on standards and protocols around the OCR of mathematical formulae given that the problem has been with us since the outset OCR.
People are getting lost about your example as they don't see the analogy as it sounds like validation of input. The point is still there if people are willing to look past the confusion, that making a type hierarchy requires you clearly know upfront what different subsets of the data you deal with actually look like and this will change at different stages of the project. This is the reason people ditched c++ and java in 2000 and started hacking in python and js, at least at the beginning although things are shifting.

The thing is a lot of things are reversed here, the reality is the way evolution is more sensible is to "generalize" from the bottom up, unless you are very sure from the start that certain types categories make sense for your problem. That's how things should always be, you can only generalize once you've worked through a problem and realized certain aspects are actually common in someway and can be connected somehow, and thus you can take a subset of data you have in your program and organize it into a type. The thing is I feel like that is even harder than thinking top-down (which I feel like is where the pendulum is swinging now) because that takes time.

The reason top-downers still do their thing is they feel their method is better is selective thinking (sorry, I know this is harsh) because they honestly discount the anger and fury people from the outside have dealing with their code and they ignore the amount of refactoring they need to do when their designs break. In fact, they love the churn really or at least merely accept it as a "part of development."
An engineer who writes a lot of code and contributes nothing of value is an outlier.

An engineer who writes no code but contributes a lot of value is an outlier.

So yes, you will miss these two outliers if you go by LoC, but sometimes that is acceptable as long as you are handling the majority correctly.
Is believing in both of those things is somehow a contradiction?
"I haven't seen a good proof that he fired based on LOCs and even if he did that would not be stupid anyway"?