skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My thoughts on complexity are more in relation to large organisations having more areas of business, each with their own set of software in use. For a multinational company which frequently acquires other businesses, perhaps they end up with 10 of everything--10 HR systems, 10 finance systems, etc. And then on top of that a number of other systems for generating reports from the 10 finance systems, polling and searching data from the 10 logistics systems, etc. The DOD would be a nightmare of complexity and most likely the global leader in complexity.

Defense Logistics Agency in 2018 reported 264 applications in use, which was down from 1200 in 2013[1]. DLA only represent about 0.9% of the total DOD workforce[2] and it appears the application reduction could be due to consolidation of applications together, making application counts appear better but not doing much to reduce true complexity.

Given many systems have a single subject matter expert (or sometimes none), what is a cyber security analyst responsible for 100's of applications going to be able to reason about an event raised from a system with a name as vague as "DLA Action Item Tickler Report"? Was Bob OK to send the XY12 report via e-mail to Oscar? Who knows? It's likely no one has asked that type of question before and the only person who knows enough about the system to answer the question is the person who caused the event to be generated.

Some organisations are quite simple (despite having similar finances and employee counts) because they largely consist of simple repeatable processes performed by 1000's of employees using a single software product. Some organisations (particularly the DOD) are very complex because every employee is doing something unique across 100's of different software products.

[1] https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/News/News-Article-View/Article...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
No. I acknowledged the comment about the NYT, but it's not particularly relevant. We were discussing wikileaks. GP's point was that no one's opinion of wikileaks' could have been influenced by the conduct of wikileaks' because everything is hypocrisy period, no exceptions.

That's vapid, tldr edgelord nonsense. GP stands accused.

Hypocrisy exists therefore every narrative begins and ends there. By the same reasoning, you cannot have possibly been influenced by the details of 1619 fact checking or whatnot.

You have to live in the world that is. People lie. They have biases, agendas, etc. Knowing this doesn't give you the ability to see through the matrix. You still have to use judgement... and people do. People generally grow out of black pill mode by either moderating and backing out or eventually checking out, b/c even they are sick of listening to them. There isn't really a way forward.

I haven't read 1619 or taken an interest. Purely from the surrounding noise, it sounds like it's all coming from people brand new to critiquing history books or social theory.... Welcome to critical theory and enjoy trying to board the Titanic as it sinks.
Hey there thanks for your answer, know about this product, think you need to do better :-) Best of luck!
The problem is that it doesn't make money.

Otherwise, it works great :-) We love the hands-off usage mode because we cook a lot, so adding things to shopping lists or looking stuff up doesn't require cleaning hands in the middle of prep. Also the speakers are pretty darn good for the size and work well for music.

Doing complicated things is right out though. But the simple stuff works fine.
uh... the same freedom of speech that is currently wanting to skin assange alive for making public war crimes commited by americans and yet instead of taking action against the actual aggressors, the messenger is being charged. cool....

btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it.

Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side.

Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia"..

i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.
I loved this game and thanks for making it. It had a prayer-beads quality to it, and extending that metaphor, may I suggest you remove stats, but keep counter clock moves, where the mind gets trapped, and moves on to the next block, thereby helping the user focus on the task at hand.
Let me get this right.

A Soviet-made (pre-USSR) S-300 was fired from within Ukraine to outside of her border.

S-300 was (presumably from Internet-source) manufactured within Ukraine (during Soviet days).

So we should really be looking into:

- how was it hooked up the S-300 fire and control to the Internet, securely or unsecurely.

- who wrote the S-300 software

- who fired the weapon ... arguably remotely.

Of course, I assume that fire and control has "Internet" option for maximum military flexibility.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_missile_system

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Po...
Bring back the sling stones and atlatl too.

If I'm shooting for fun, give me a bow: the experience is much more involved and tactile and immediate. There's more room to learn, more room to have fun. Everything archery teaches you about handling your body and the ballistics of projectile weapons also transfers usefully to other activities.

If I need something to die, then I want the firearms. I'm glad to have my little .22 rifle whenever I need to eliminate varmints chasing chickens etc. When I forget to grab it and find myself facing something with nothing but a machete in my hand it's always ugly. And more effort and danger.
Some of the reason must include culture. Innovation, investment, risktaking are all subject to local acceptable values. Some places they thrive.

For instance bribe-taking, strong-man-rule, abuse of power (from dog-catcher to president) are not correlated with those things.
It's a combination of a lot of factors. Access to a rich market is one thing but protecting your own markets against much stronger competition is another.

South Korea was a mercantilist nation and it protected its core industries in the early stages. That's why companies in traditional industries (construction,banking,insurance,food etc etc) in Korea are still mostly Korean when in Eastern Europe they are German,French,Italian etc etc
> This archive should aim for the same.

This archive of a project where the principal actors are currently awaiting extradition to the US for copyright infringement charges should work on making the user experience better?

Think they have bigger fish to fry like making sure the archive of the project survives which, incidentally, is what this is all about.
Not necessarily. You can design the sign up process by way of always ending with a message that says you will be notified.
> Unfortunately this assumes that there's no other way for an attacker to discover whether a username/email address is registered for a service. This assumption is incorrect.

> 99.9% of websites on the Internet will only let you create one account for each email address. So if you want to see if an email address has an account, try signing up for a new account with the same email address.

This point is undermined by the sign-up workflow informing of whether an account is registered under a given username.
Any mention of Yahoo Pipes always makes me think of Tom Scott's "This video has x views". Feels quite relevant to other comments people have been making here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxV14h0kFs0
Sure, but if we are talking about improving user experience, I don't see how this helps.
Whoops, I messed up the links. This is the drawing I got: https://matthewminer.name/assets/my_dwarf_fortress_crayon_dr...
Many services let you sign up with an existing email and just send a “you tried to sign up, but you seem to have an address already.” to the account owner. In that case it’s indistinguishable for the attacker.

Many services already require email confirmation to finalize the signup process so the extra effort is low.
Technology can shift the costs and mentality around record keeping. This is exciting and certainly part of the story.

A specific concern about distributed / decentralized storage and network technology —- it shifts. When it does, it is not as simple as one centralized org doing an upgrade or migration or transition. So WRT decentralized tech, what will it take to keep it accessible and maintained under realistic futures?

For long-term archival, technology choices are insufficient. They matter, like I said above, in the sense they shape the usage patterns and benefits and costs. But for permanence (or something approaching it), decades-long sustained support and resources are needed.

Some options include: a government program, a governmental funding stream, or some kind endowment. All can ensure a stream of resources into the future, with various tradeoffs. Are there better alternatives? (What exists now at the US federal level? / What combination of organizations might make an endowment happen?)

Volunteers are nice supplements to institutional support, but cannot be expected to be the backbone.

What is the Library of Congress doing in this area? The National Archives? Presidential libraries? Those old ’boring’ agencies and institutions tend to have a good number of folks that work towards better ways. It may be slow, but when the shift happens, it isn’t subject to the whims of capital markets or herd-following investors.
“also trying to get rid of that nondismissable login pop up after you scroll a little bit ugh these things ruin the Internet”. That would be a great improvement.
At least in part due to unavoidable scarcity.

The California coastline is a beautiful place. More people want to live there than can physically live there. Whoever gets to live there, by whatever means, has something that many people want. That's wealth, and it cannot be equally distributed.

If you were to start the world from scratch, give everyone $1000, hierarchies would still immediately develop. People have different affinities, skills, people encounter different ideas at different times, happen to meet people or live in a certain place during a certain movement. As long as people are free to exchange their resources, they will not end up equally distributed.

And even if we're talking about a post-scarcity Star Trek situation with replicators and holodecks, you still would never eliminate a hierarchy of value. Maybe everyone can live in on the California coastline in their holodeck, but the actual California coastline is still scarce, and people will still prize it. Or maybe Captain Picard hand carves a chair. It can be replicated exactly, but there will be a certain value to having the actual chair that he carved.

We're already seeing this phenomenon in a world with highly efficient and advanced manufacturing. We pay a premium for things that are hand made, simply for the fact that the process that produced the thing is inherently limited.

We'll never escape scarcity, and this is just one of the things that will always maintain a hierarchy of value.
> Voice recognition is basically a commodity now .. there are open source AI engines that can do it offline really well. So the recognition part is solved, you can just grab it from your distro's package manager.

This is potentially far from true, depending on how exactly you draw the line between "voice recognition" and "language". I've looked at quite a few transcription services, and they fail a lot of the time for most people - those who either have a non-native accent (even if very slight!) or those who do any amount of stammering or other vocal tics.
The more interesting question is "Why isn't the whole world poor?" Poverty is the natural state of society, wealth is an exception.
Or as it's lived in all of java culture (and beyond) that isn't infested by that very special thought universe that exists around the landmarks of j2ee, "beans" and the spring framework, "classes" are just namespaces for organising your code that may or may not also happen to identify the type of a struct. A good term for that mindset would be "post OOP". As someone from that group, all I could think reading that CLOS post was "cute, the author really believes in all those early OOP promises? Must be a time traveler from the 20th century!" Actually checked the date, but then on the other hand they didn't have blogs yet when OOP was the future.
It’s a factor and I think those that argue against it overshoot their case by completely dismissing it altogether.

Yet to argue that it’s a large factor you have to explain all the many cases of genetically almost identical populations with vastly different outcomes across either space or time.

By time I mean historically. Europe was a lot poorer than much of the Muslim world and the Orient until the enlightenment and the industrial age. Did Europeans suddenly mutate into a higher intelligence population?

Russia has been in steady decline since probably 1980 or so. Their ethnic makeup has not changed to any significant degree.

China exploded in the past 30 years. Probably even less genetic change there.

North and South Korea from space is the most dramatic example. That has an obvious political cause but the genes are about identical.

The variance in societal scale outcome just does not map well to human genetics, revealing it as a minor rather than a major factor.
What's the "explain it like I'm 5 years old" (ELI5) for tree-sitter? Why should I, an emacs user but not lisp hacker, care about it?
> Todoist started out great and had promise but blocked a bunch of features behind premium.

This is a good thing. We should pay (with money) for the things that are valuable to us. If the features are good but you’re frustrated you have to pay for them, then I guess the features weren’t that good.

I love todoist. I pay like $30 a year and get a great app with actual people doing support.
I feel like too many people struggle in the same way. Some level of organization is actually required if you don't consider notes as temporary, but as a knowledge base that you'll expand for decades. That being said, organization can be as simple as having 1-3 folders or even less. And tools don't matter that much, as long as they don't lock you in.

Trying to find the perfect organization system is just another form of procrastination.
It does, but not elegantly: when a non-slice move is made, you have to rotate the 3x3 group at the center. You see it in the animation.
You are exhausted, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why is J. Mearsheimer's reasoning incorrect, but yours is correct? He is a political scientist with decades of experience.

Here is one more from CATO Institute : https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-uk...

So, you are telling me all these people are "fucking dumb" (using your terminology) and all of that is Russian propaganda?
Okay and? Look at Samsung phones. They so good!
Not only am I not numb to this, Oracle is now renewing investment on the client. But client side programming does have a clear winner -- JS. Not only Java, but everyone else lost. But whatever Java does, it's clear that no single language is currently on a path to dominance across multiple domains. Java is dominant on the server, JS on the client, and Python in ML and smaller programs. When we compare Java to its historically anomalous dominance in the early oughts, its position today is no doubt worse. But when we compare it to how other languages are doing, no one else seems to be doing much better, and most are doing significantly worse.
Are You a Solar Deity?
> on HN.

Really? Because Amazon is on pace to lose $10B this year
This sounds terrible. I'd love to get more background on what led to this. Is Foxconn in trouble financially?
> people from rich countries will use flaws in the political structures of certain other countries to install corrupt politicians

> it's vitally important to live in a country which has reliable, honest politicians

Exactly. But the corrupt politicians do not get installed by other countries. They get installed by a culture of corruption within a country.
I wonder though - this growth has been largely taken out of ignoring an externality: the environment. We are living a global extinction event which will show up in the fossil record.
> Check submitted passwords against a dictionary of common passwords (123456, monkey, etc) and ban that traffic extra hard.

> Give guidance to users about creating strong passwords

Yeah, if I just want to talk about a propane with some folks I would eagerly wait to be lectured about IT security, scolded at my passwords of choice, go out of my way to appease site administrator's password policy...
Galaxxies: A tron-themed dream-like pacman game-demo
You can make the whole world not poor (and quite a few people not as rich as they are). Solution is simple - allow free movement of goods, services AND people. Perhaps also follow-up with allowing anyone to buy any piece of land anywhere so that rich can also buy up cheaper land (fair deal?). A lot of reasons for conflict (and need to organize around nation states) will stop remaining so important. I guess, one can dream...
Rent seeking may be zero sum, but the economy as a whole not. If we banned rent seeking the economy would likely grow faster. You could argue that's changing the game, but the economy is a weird one in that changing the game is part of the game.
This was in the rate me page.

Yea it definitely took way more than 10 seconds.

Nice peoject tho! I'm interested in how it'd rate me.
I dunno, replacing all instances of defclass with defdefinition makes programs seem a bit silly.
That's 138,345 metric tons for those people who've chosen to stop using British Imperial units.
I have to remark how peculiar it was to see this article being almost immediately throttled of the front page despite trending votes and low comment ratio. The idea that consequentialism might not be the moral high ground it’s claimed to be might cause some in Silicon Valley to bristle.
I'm with you on this.. There can only be rich countries if there are poor countries.. Otherwise there would just be.. countries..

One of the reasons that the standard of living is so high in rich countries, is because we're paying poor countries to do the work + pollution, if they had as much money as rich countries, they'd be unwilling to do that work/polution for that price, and the "true" price of the work would reveal itself..

In Denmark, the vast majority of what's consumed is not produced in Denmark, that'd be too expensive and nobody would afford it.. Being rich is not about how much money you have.. it's about how much MORE money you have than someone else.
I have a handful of services, some in Warp and some in Rocket, and I dislike both of those frameworks. I've been looking into axum so this is a nice read.

Honestly I don't think that Axum is right either. So for example, this:

async fn create_user(
Json(payload): Json<CreateUser>,
) -> impl IntoResponse {
let user = User {
id: 1337,
username: payload.username,
};
(StatusCode::CREATED, Json(user))
}

For context, if you haven't checked out Axum, this is from the Axum docs.

Rocket has a similar thing with its request guards, it has a similar json type that you put into the signature of a handler function and it automatically plucks the value from the body and parses it as json.

What's weird to me is that it's coupling the request and response format to the logic. What if a client wants to post this as a form body? Write a separate endpoint? What if some old clients put the arguments in the query string? When I see this snippet as one of the intro examples for Axum, it feels like a red flag to me.
One sounds like an actual product and the other sounds like an add-on to something else.

"Yahoo Pipes! $7.99 a month with a generous free tier!"

"Mashup Editor included with every Google Cloud subscription above $5/month."

You never want a product to sound like an add-on: Add-ons are low-value and generally used to rent seek off of people who are already locked in. Naming something in a way that it feels like its own standalone product will inspire consumer confidence.

Generic word + descriptor is an easy way to sound like an add-on.

"Video Editor" could be for anything, but is certainly not an independent product.

"Pachi Video Editor" sounds a bit more like its own thing.

"Pachi Cutting Room" is closer to the mark, despite being two words and a company name.
Riches are the result of unrealized social interaction. Meaning that something of value has been given, but something of equal value has not yet been returned. Holding someone's promise to return on that value later is what makes someone rich.

Language barriers, political barriers, geographic barriers, etc. often prevent people from establishing the necessary social connections.

We've made tremendous strides in reducing those barriers but they have not been eliminated.
Doesn’t FaceID stand an example of this not being the case? I can log into pretty much all of my apps and make purchases with my face. Never once worried about my face being stolen or lost. Until that Mission Impossible tech exists I’m not worried that someone is gonna be able to impersonate me.

Biometric auth isn’t “I send a picture of my face over the network and that auths me” but a device a prioiri trusted by the service or the user takes a reading and releases a key.

Nobody says that “your hardware configuration is just a username” when taking about TPM security but when it’s wetware suddenly it’s a huge issue.
True, but I think that also needs us getting used to it.

For example Twitter can be very public or quite tight knit depending on how you use it, and you can move between spheres pretty much by accident. Respond to the wrong person, use a popular #tag, and suddenly you went from talking to your 10 friends to the entire world.

Or even somebody else can do that to you, if some well connected person thinks your take was hilarious and retweets it.
... would bring us less extensive conflicts. It would decrease the number of people in a given population who could become effective soldiers

I first assumed this would be about criminality and/or war, but the first part of the article surprised me pleasantly. However, it did go into this in the end.

Remember that replacing something involves removing the existing thing, and then adding the new thing.

This would involve DEweaponizing criminal and/or war-able factions, and then arming them with the likes of bows and arrows.

I would argue that we are unable to reach even the first step. In fact, if we could do that, there wouldn't be any need of arming people with bows and arrows. Problem solved!
OPSEC and user experience are completely unrelated things.

If you have something to hide (from anyone at all), you have to employ opsec measures. Using an email account that can't be immediately linked back to you is the most basic of them (and would be perfectly sufficient in the scenario described).

It wouldn't even matter if the website didn't leak in any way that an email is registered with them, because data breaches happen, and should one happen, you'd be fucked from that perspective anyway. Remember the Ashley Madison leak?
It's not as simple as that. Building domestic industries takes time and you can never be sure about the outcome (especially if you believe everyone around you is corrupt as was believed in the countries behind the Iron Curtain). The easy money from foreign investors is hard to resist.
Tesla stock analysts resist harsh market reality
This might need (2014) in the title