skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you think it’s ludicrous go ahead and show us the realistic path to avoiding the known and even more catastrophic outcomes of climate change. Not some comically pie in the sky eco idealism. A path that has a chance of actually happening in the real world. The real world where Russia thinks global warming will be good for them.

We’re a decade or more away from peak emissions with best efforts, and that date will be pushed deeper into the future if there is a global recession.

Stratospheric aerosol injection needs more research as it is one of the only viable ways we have to stave off global catastrophe.
Programmers will have immediate answers for you -- stated confidently as if to imply there is a spec somewhere when in fact no spec exists and the programmer you're talking to is peddling their own bullshit as gold.
> There is no objective correct standard.

People who study circadian rhythms (known as chronobiology) say otherwise:

* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07487304198541...

* https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dq2nv3/askscien...

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00950...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronobiology

* https://twitter.com/SRBR_Outreach

The position of various European societies:

* https://esrs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/To_the_EU_Commiss...
Not to mention most studies on Twitter bots define one as "fifty interactions per day". If you define "heavy Twitter users" and "bots" to be the same thing, of course Twitter is going to be full of 'bots'.
I think the issue is that you’ll always have one of those teammates who see this as an excuse to test the entire happy flow and all its effects in a single test case. I think what you want is reasonable, but how do you agree when it is no longer reasonable?
When bacteria eat things, unless you're very careful to keep things aerobic, you end up producing a lot of methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas.
Yeah, it's wild to me that no major browser vendor has moved to expand the permissions system to addons.

We already have the system in place for things like Camera, Mic, and Location access. Why not extend that to anything an addon can do?
> in a lecture by SPJ on parallel Haskell, where he says "This can only be done in a functional language.".

Can you provide a link?
Brilliant!! Let me know when BeerPass gets its series A round done and you're looking for senior engineers
The Hunt for the Kingpin Behind AlphaBay, Part 2: Pimp_Alex_91
From the point of view of domain reputation etc., it surely counts, no?
Taking what intelligence agency’s say at face value isn’t reporting, you’re just a state mouthpiece.
Are you getting too old for software engineering?
This is and will always be a terrible way to solve the problem. Should be in the same category as nuclear weapons. Abjectly terrible idea.

All the people pushing this idea truly dont understand the implications, think they are smarter than they are, and think this is the easy and obvious solution.
It's not just on the consumer, though. Policy makers need to get a grip. Yes, reducing meat, not flying, less heating, buying less crappy stuff, consume local food, etc. but we also need to allow people to move around in trains, put taxes on food imports, forbidding 2t SUVs, control birthrate, etc. We live in an extremely suboptimal society given our current constraints. All that can be enough for our population to live sustainably but that requires planning, not more time to procrastinate...
Unfortunately and from experience, far more seem to care about the how than the what when it comes to testing. This comment section alone is pretty telling: people spending their Saturday to write dogmatic rules.
Behold, one of the most dangerous and toxic forms of stupid: the LABCOAT-FLASHER. Do not fall for the verbal trickeries and hypotheticals - they are the syntactic sugar masking various POISONS:

1) There is no “you” that is meaningfully apart from “your brain”. This trickery is meant to dissociate you from your body and backdoor sneak-in the labcoat-flasher as a co-conspiritor against yourself. It is every bit as gaslighting as a mom saying “why your hands don’t want to clean your room”.

2) Crystal ball, aka “if you knew you wouldn’t get caught” or “if you knew a child would get harmed”. These are always bad faith, 100% or the time, no exceptions. Nobody has ever experienced a crystal ball like this. NO GOD, of ANY faith, has ever made guarantees like this. The only thing this trickery is meant to serve is for the labcoat-flasher to control the imaginary future via the imaginary crystal ball and PROSECUTE YOU NOW for transgressions in his imagination. This is the girlfriend mad you for cheating on her in her dream and demanding you grovel at her feet for an apology.

3) This one is harder, because it sounds good, but it is worth making explicit because it is used against you as a form of control: human egalitarianism. See, nobody actually believes this, not in the here and now among the living 7 billion humans let alone all the imaginary descendents for centuries to come. A true and complete belief in this would make you a LITERAL SLAVE, spending every second and every disposable income on sponsoring the mass of humanity unrelated to you. The labcoat-flasher himself doesn’t believe this either, but he hopes you won’t focus on him - no, he will start with your well-meaning and generous (if ultimately strictly-speaking untrue) belief that all humans should be equal and will take your benevolence, stretch it “to its logical conclusion” far beyond it was ever meant to go, wrap it up around your throat and CHOKE you with it. This is the girlfriend demanding you take a second job to buy her the $100,000 crocodile skin Hermes Birkin purse she wants because that is her love language and you said you cared about her- or do you not love her?

Mendacious to its core, this kind of manipulative gaslighting rhetoric they boldly call “research” is the parochial pastime of labcoat-flashers like this Sangil “Arthur” Lee. It is a step in their vain chase for tenure or funding or some Young Researcher Award (TM). It never did and it never will have anything to do with reality or truth or any honest pursuit of such.
That's an unrelated problem, that's outside the scope of model presented. Remember the physicists adage: All models are wrong, some are useful.

You can have your name change as well, or your calendar can change, or etc.

Does that mean we stringly type everything? No. You model changes either via a separate field(s) or some kind of change table.
This attitude really bothers me. I have no affiliation with Womp, but from the looks of it, it's a cool product made by a small team. And they are giving it out for free - literally for free. But free still isn't enough. Even the notion to get some contact data in the hope that some subset of subscribers might be willing to pay for it in the future is somehow insulting to you. Instead, you want the transaction to be completely one sided: "give me stuff and get nothing back".

"But if they had confidence in their product, they would just make it open and people would try it out. And if they like it, they might buy it later!" - Right? Wrong!

People have increasingly short memories. Even if they like it now, by the time it makes it out of alpha, they'll long be chasing the next, shiny thing. So you have to keep the link alive to follow up on it. That's just good business.

So how about you have some sympathy for the talented people who put this together and give them the chance to follow up in a few months on the off chance that this is something you might be willing to use properly?
I don't think most individuals (sober or drunk) are typically wearing clothing that keeps them at an appropriate temperature outside for multiple hours while sitting still, since that's not what they usually plan on doing.

I suspect if these circumstances occur, as the article describes, people are venturing outside drunk and feeling the cold as they normally would expect but caring less about its consequences and then just passing out.
There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of papers that get removed, including comments that suggest sub-optimal experiment design, overreach in conclusions, or statistical issues (which are usually present in the hard-hitting, catchy studies that make it to r/science). Normally, these are part of healthy scientific discourse.

When the moderators of r/science particularly agree with a post or it is politically charged, almost any discussion of the actual science involved is purged (unless it is praise or an "explanation" that includes a lot of praise). When the mods don't agree, you can see some discussion of gaps in papers, but you must take the conclusion of the paper as 100% true, which is not how science works.
No, no sales pitch needed. You either already love your community and your country or you don't. No one should force themselves or others to love or hate it.
mobile hostile how ? I found tor browser on android pretty lean (quite surprisingly so)
The cited article quotes Kropotkin talking about ants and how they cooperate. It says if an ant does not cooperate by sharing food, they are treated as an enemy.

This is what he meant by mutual aid.

> Kropotkin was fascinated by how ant cheaters (those who refuse to dispense aid) are dealt with: “If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be treated as an enemy, or even worse. If the refusal has been made while its kinsfolk were fighting with some other species, they will fall back upon the greedy individual with greater vehemence than even upon the enemies themselves.”

A 19th century Russian prince that became a socialist perhaps thinks of something different when he thinks of "beaurocracy" or "government" than a 21st century HN reader does.
> I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic.

No, it really is not.

You might as well state that truth is decided by committee and that individuals cannot or should not decide what is true for themselves.

Democracy is a tool, not an inherent virtue. If science was inherently democratic, The Science would be "settled"; such is a state of things that has been demonstrated time and again to discredit consent. Just because a bunch of people, no matter the number or expertise, decide that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Conclusions on science are opinions, and always will be.

By the way, nothing about the scientific method involves review by committee. Science is just having a hypothesis, doing tests, and reporting observations. Everything else is overloading the term "science."
It's also an area where the costs are a lot less significant either: a cortex m4 and below often doesn't have a cache (at least for RAM: flash often has a cache and predictive lookup, but the perfomance difference is small enough that the cache can basically render executing code from flash as identical to RAM), and the RAM is about as fast as the processor, so random access and sequential access are pretty similar performance wise. (And with the speed of modern microcontroller cores the size of the data is rarely even an issue: most STM32s can iterate through their entire RAM in under a millisecond).

That said, in my embedded work I still rarely find a linked list to be a useful data structure (but I know FreeRTOS, which I use a lot, uses them extremely heavily internally).
Sure, I grew up with a moral system which teaches, all world is your family. Of course, you will feel closer to the ones you live with, just like any big family.
OTR is inherently 1 on 1. Any idea how you can make it work for group discussions?
If it doesn't fit somewhere that it didn't fit before (e.g. a pocket) when folded, I don't really see the point.
Automoderator can be manually configured to perform actions on posts and comments that fit certain criteria, though as far as I know, it's not as extensive as, say, a bot that one would program themselves and tailor the needs of their own subreddit.

There is also the "approved users" feature [1], but it requires manual intervention for every particular user, and I am not sure whether it practically serves any purpose in public subreddits. Reddit claims it does, but when we tested it a few years ago, it did not work correctly. In any case, I do not recommend it for public subreddits with more than 1k daily users.

[1] https://mods.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009164452
It is often faster to re-fetch data over the network than to pull from disk
The big difference in my opinion is that your ad-hoc servers using static binaries, with all the outside stuff specific to your organization, are non-standard.

For some miraculous reason K8S is ubiquitous and everybody uses it. Standardization is a boon.

People complain about git using similar arguments, and yet having a vast majority of the tech world on it is a boon for tooling.

Both those technologies are excellent but take some time to master (you don't have to be an expert though).

I can get on a project using git, kubernetes and say RoR and understand it very quickly without help. It is well bounded. It takes a git account and a kubeconfig. All set.

A custom python codebase deployed on custom servers running in big enterprise-y network, not so much.
When all you have is plain text, sure, you can get creative with that text.

Space Jam website it won't be https://www.spacejam.com/1996/
Yes, poor poor Elon, if only the powerful progressives weren't in control of public opinion, no one would have a problem with any of his actions.
Z-Library domains are seized and pirate book site is dead
Online soccer game MonkeyLeague announced the signing of AS Roma striker Paulo Dybala as a new brand ambassador.
I don't think there's necessarily a need to fact check every tweet. If fact checks are maintained in a list, and one can navigate from a user account to their position in the list which also shows their past history of fact checked falsehoods/untruthfulness/lying, it could make a difference.

I think the general public is intelligent enough to start to come up with strategies to target the most influential people (politicians, journalists, activists, celebrities, etc) and work down from there.

Of course, fact checking is a complicated skill, but people can learn new skills. The public learning new skills on social media on an ongoing basis may be problematic for some people, but it could be very healthy for the overall ecosystem.
> If someone thinks biological sex is binary, that shows they're uninformed. Like gender, it is essentially a point cloud in n-dimensional space - largely bimodal, but with a few other notable clusters.

Not really though - if someone has carefully considered this topic and still regards the sex binary as the most appropriate model to apply, it's more likely to indicate they are considering function over form in their reasoning. In particular, reproductive function - i.e. why we all have sexed bodies in the first place.

With this model, sex isn't just an assortment of bodily features, but is based on the reproductive function around which several related aspects of our bodies have evolved, with male and female being the two types of anatomical pattern appropriate to each reproductive role.

However, I do understand that to those who want to believe that sex can be changed through pharmaceutical and surgical interventions, this view of sex as a functional biological system isn't as compelling as the 'point cloud' model, which comes with the implication that if these points can be changed somehow, then sex is too.
The US government has some similar efforts but they’re mostly focused on government agencies and what they consider critical infrastructure (e.g. the power company can ask for help, a donut shop is probably going to be told to buy a private service). It doesn’t make the news as much but domestic security is legally part of the mission for agencies like DHS and Commerce.

https://www.cisa.gov/cyber-hygiene-web-application-scanning
that's the spirit!
Protecting Your Castle with a Data Moat
They need to try a lot harder. They presented to us some 10+ years ago when they had a go at this market previously. The meeting was a waste of time. Their IP was non-existent, we didn't even do the follow up to hear about packaging. They had no idea what was required.
I didn't intend for my comment to be interpreted that way, I don't think most people are. But you are right, I could have phrased it better.

There has been a lot of rumour and speculation about the moderation teams being sacked. I don't know what's true, but it does sound like they may have had fewer redundancies than in other departments. But what we do know is this "birdwatch" initiative isn't related to it if it has happened.

The post has been made with an editorialised title implying that this is new. Nowhere on the linked page does it say it is new. In the context of this week, and the rumours, it would imply that they are connected. They are not.

The post smells a little like someone generating clickbait for karma.
This looks really nice and people interested in mathematical computing should try it out. I certainly will.

Apparently many commenters here do not understand the word "alternative", which means "a thing that you can choose to do or have out of two or more possibilities", and instead take it as "equal in every respect".
No, all-cash buyouts are also a thing.
2000 square dollars? If I'm choosing between ways to spend capital so as to improve the efficiency of a process, and that process currently produces five widgets per dollar, then the quantity I'm comparing to choose between my courses of action can be measured in widgets per square dollar.

Hiring a better engineer for more money may create an efficiency improvement of 1 widget per dollar, with an outlay of $1k extra for the better engineer, giving a total gain of 0.001 widgets per square dollar; hiring a worse engineer for much cheaper may represent an improvement of 0.1 widgets per dollar, at an outlay of $1, giving 0.1 widgets per square dollar.

Perhaps not the most intuitive unit, but it's not impossible. (Though since you can even measure it in dollar-sterling if you like, I suppose that doesn't make it a counterexample to "stop multiplying dollars by sterling".)
Isn't this ... science for everyday things?

I'm fascinated by the idea that we have enabled everyone to talk to everyone else and now have to find ways to agree on, what are and are not facts, what is and is not "acceptable".

Eons ago we old buffers dreamed of a new world online - a virtual world. And we built it. And it has the same problems and we are trying to find almost the same solutions - but they fit differently.

And there is opportunity- to share wealth and knowledge and spread out power.

It should be a more democratic world. Virtually.
Or perhaps you have but didn’t notice it?
Authenticators, Ceremonies, and WebAuthn, oh my
> But that first iteration would never pass code review either because it does nothing and thus is a waste of effort.)

That first iteration would not be subject to code review. The author is using TDD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
This doesn't even seem like a financial regulation issue. More like a "I'm paying you to store my stuff so please store my stuff" issue. If I paid for a storage unit and the company running it sold all the stuff in it while promising "don't worry, when you want your stuff back we'll buy it back for you", I'd be pretty peeved.
Any risks of that within 70ly?
I think if you think that was strange or hypocritical you need to take a deep think.
The same as multiplying 100 radishes by 20 radishes.
The Death Artist
> Also, no-one can hear 1hz

True, except for those cursed with subsonic hearing that can hear frequencies below 8Hz down to sub Hz frequencies, and which is painful for them even at low sound pressures and from great distances, bizarre because these waves can be over 34,000x the diameter of the human ear drum.
I always imagined working in Antarctica to be like working on an oil rig. Alcohol is generally completely banned on such facilities.
Well I've tried to set up a basic lab in an academic environment twice now. It took months every time and took ages to get tiny amounts of money, at big (European) universities. One out of the two times I did get money ... from a pharma company (and attention from several of their senior employees, which was even more useful than the money).

So please, can the public ... well ... pay for drugs once?
> Every time I see people advocate for less moderation its really freedom to lie through their damn teeth.

The freedom to publish statements that the establishment (aka Ministry of Truth) deems as false.

It's also called lying.

You might think it's obvious what's true and false, but if that's the case you clearly haven't done enough philosophy...
It seems like helicopters coupled with drones and ground forces could play a role in a rapid advance. They’re probably DOA for urban environments though, just based on what we’re seeing in Ukraine.
Maybe the public should take a stake in the company for their financing? This is the rational way to do it for all other investors.
>A string value is not a great type to convey a user's email address or their country of origin.

I can argue whatever type you use in place of a string will similarly be "not a great type". This can be argued in perpetuity because no type/map actually matches the reality it's encapsulating.

Type systems require you to build a Pretty Good Theory of your problem space so that your types can overlap with reality/actual usage as much as possible.

The problem is at planning/design time, you'll have a Pretty Crappy Theory of your problem space and can only get a Pretty Good one after having wrestled with it for a while.

A dynamic, more forgiving language, allows you to build what you can today with the theory you have, and then change it in the future when your theory gets disproven.
Wouldn’t all the bars in Antarctica be cool?
This is nonsensical in that the original meaning of the lettuce is totally lost to most. You have to go back to the early 90s to understand the historical context of this whole backstory. Right now this type of thing is totally missing what it actually means.
We Pay an Ugly Cost for Ads on Twitter
There is an important difference between types and objects: types are basic building blocks. An email is not a basic building block nor is money. In the mature ecosystem of Java there are libs and standard libraries that handles these problems some are even in the standard library (timestamp with timezone, url...)

It would be nice to have stuff for these in the standard libraries but currencies are a moving target and needs constant update to handle the quirks of the real world. For the same reason it's extremely hard to create an "Address" class that handles every possible scenario.

In my book the string is a great way to store a country of origin because everything else depends on the usage of that information.
> The United Kingdom spans from ~8 degrees west to ~2 degrees east, making UTC+0 its natural (local mean solar) time zone.

Not only is it "natural" it was the basis of timezone in the first place.

We now use UTC, but not too far back, and originally, it was called GMT. The definition of 12h00 GMT was when the sun reached its zenith at the Prime Meridian, which cuts through… Greenwich.
Is the alternative to sweep it under the rug? In a stringly-typed world, what happens - do you just hope for the best? In a typed world, the problem ("the real world has ceased to conform to the model") is at least made plain so that you can decide what to do with it, because the model is actually… modelled.
I've spent some time testing and thinking about testing. I think the universal guidance that should be followed is this...

Do whatever you need/want to that makes your software successful. The rules are meant to be broken if it means you shipping.
If both values are decimals? 2000.