skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, for the Apple fans celebrating this "win" - pay attention: all of the metadata is still visible to Apple and that can reveal a lot more information than you'd think. You can build advertising off this data. Mail/Contact/Calendar is also still not secured, and that can contain a lot of information (as Google can attest).

I think, on top of all that, it's still an overall "win" for consumers. But don't treat Apple like the white knight it purports to be. Beware the 'nice guys'.

Remember, they say nothing of what happens when they receive the data for the first time. It may be enough that they scan and store this information upon the initial ingestion, then leave you with the keys.
FTX donated $13.9 million to them. Will they return this money to investors? [1] They can sell this estate to do so.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/business/ftx-effective-al...

"The second-largest grant, in the amount of $13.9 million, went to the Center for Effective Altruism."
There is a difference between regulations and compelled action. The government make your ability to do X conditional on you also doing Y, but it generally can't just make you do Y.

The exceptions are actually quite few outside of conscription, eminent domain sales, wartime powers.
Organ donations, transplants increase on days of largest motorcycle rallies
It is not effectuve altruism it is yen buddhism. https://wiki.lspace.org/Yen_Buddhism

Don't get fooled.
The statistics presented in the case were probably pretty flawed. The telepathy stuff also seems rediculous.

The part I don't understand is: if the proctor sees identical twins sitting near eachother, and suspects them of communicating, why not just separate them instead of waiting until the test is over and then accusing them of cheating? Why not just remove the possibility for them to cheat?
Off topic. Could you please update your website as promised (about three months ago) [1] on the pricing comparison and clarity for rsync.net?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32768182
I think you first need to be clear to yourself what your goals are for this project.

Is your goal to have lots of readers/users? Is your goal to make money? If the two goals collide which one wins?

Only by being clear on your goals can you make good decisions that move you toward those goals.

Sure, there is overlap, my goals are to make money, but I give a lot of time and energy away for free, because that's marketing (but the goal remains the goal.)

It's likely some mix of free and public will be the best combination. But I recommend starting both together, in other words be clear about your goals and motives from the start.
Let's wait for some more evidence before we convict him, shall we?
Possibly relevant: DePalma published in Scientific Reports (which is hosted on nature.com but is controversial [1]) while During's paper actually got published in Nature.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports
Thanks for reading my other comment. Yes, I removed it. It could have become a heated topic and I did not want to start such a discussion. Sorry if it got deleted while you were replying.

I agree with your thoughts. It is very important to understand context when offering parental advice (and especially judgement), just as it is important to understand what our kids do with technology.

In my opinion, a lot of bad parenting stems from not bothering to spend time and engage with one's children enough. That is why I don't engage in debates about quick fixes in parenting anymore. I think that the entire idea that off-the-shelf parenting advice works for complex problems is a bit toxic.
Like their iCloud for Windows client?

https://www.macrumors.com/2022/11/21/icloud-for-windows-corr...

Incidents like these make me wish Apple's software was Linux quality...
> There are also nuances if students could submit list after knowing their scores, because universities can approach top students in private and negotiate terms with them to lure them into putting the universities as first choice.

That seems unnecessary? I asked several students at 复旦大学 and 上海财经大学 how they got into those schools, and about half of them told me they'd gone through the normal process of "take the gaokao, apply to the school, and be admitted based on exceeding the 分数线".

Other responses:

- "I took 财大's own entrance exam, so I didn't need to take the gaokao."

- "I went to the high school affiliated with 复旦, and they recommended me to 复旦. I had a meeting with an admissions officer and he liked me, which meant that I could be admitted with a lower gaokao score [than would otherwise have been required]."

If admissions has this much leeway, I don't really see why they'd need to lure students into listing their school first. Surely the student who didn't bother taking the gaokao at all also didn't need to submit a ranked list of school preferences with the gaokao she didn't take?

> In a province where the universities are ordered, students with the same first choice are grouped together and the said university gets the result and admits top scores within quota. If there are more quota than students, university looks at students putting it as second choice AND not admitted by another university yet. Never figured out how unordered group works so I won't explain that.

I've heard about the rank ordering, but I wasn't able to understand how the system works. As I understand things, the first thing that happens in an admissions year is that the school publishes their 招生计划, the schedule of how many students they plan to admit from each province. Then, aspiring students take the gaokao for that year and submit their ranked school preferences. Then, each school looks at the students that picked them first, and admits them in top down order of score. Then, if they haven't filled out the 招生计划, they look at the students that picked them second, and so on...

Finally, the school publishes their 分数线 for each province (and major) that year, the lowest score that resulted in being admitted from that province in that major.

The thing I don't understand is that the 分数线 appears to be fully discretionary. I am not aware of a rule that tells the school when to stop looking at students that ranked it first and start looking at students that ranked it second. How is that decision made? It will always be possible to scrape the bottom of the first-choice barrel a little harder, so that you have more first-choice students and a lower 分数线, or to maintain a higher standard, reject the first-choice student with a terrible score, and move on to the second-choice group, where you can start over from the top scorer in that group. That will be good for your 分数线. Why not do it?

(The other problem is that the first set of students you're looking at is well-defined, but the second set is not - they might be admitted by their first-choice school. Do you know how the system handles this? When can a school learn what their second-choice students look like?)
Can you please not create accounts to break the site guidelines? Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote… Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."

The thing that makes that quote so incredible is that it's from Albert Michelson in 1903. The same Michelson of the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] that was completed in 1887. The experiment he performed 16 years prior set the stage for the period of exponential and revolutionary progress that was about to be discovered by some unknown guy writing scientific papers while working as a low level inspector at a patent office [2] because no university was willing to take him on board.

Humanity, at any snapshot in time, believes they are on the bleeding edge of human progress, and that's because they are! Yet invariably we look back marveling at how little they knew. There's zero reason to think this trend has ended, or that we're even near the end of time where knowledge can be simply 'thought up', especially given the vast free resources available to all. The problem is that 'thinking it up' is extremely difficult.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
This is "common knowledge", yes. But what does it derive from, and what is the purpose of opposite sex romance/companionship exactly if the children are out of question?
> Then a bunch get torn down (usually the lowest effort versions) and people adaptively re-use the best ones and everyone remembers the original intent of the style and falls in love with it again.

Then why hasn't that happened with brutalism? It was hated in the '90s, '00s, and '10s, and it's still hated now. And why is the "international style" so much better regarded despite being the same age?
Has no one read the article?

>"Technology that detects CSAM before it is sent from a child’s device can prevent that child from being a victim of sextortion or other sexual abuse, and can help identify children who are currently being exploited,” says Erin Earp, interim vice president of public policy at the anti-sexual violence organization RAINN. “Additionally, because the minor is typically sending newly or recently created images, it is unlikely that such images would be detected by other technology, such as Photo DNA. While the vast majority of online CSAM is created by someone in the victim’s circle of trust, which may not be captured by the type of scanning mentioned, combatting the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children requires technology companies to innovate and create new tools. Scanning for CSAM before the material is sent by a child’s device is one of these such tools and can help limit the scope of the problem.”

I see so many top level comments about how they're stopping on-device scanning of any photo which is more intrusive. This is not true. It appears the opt-in is limited to receiving alerts and blocking sending harmful images, but the implications here is that Apple is moving iCloud scanning of media onto the device.

If anyone is going to vote on this comment or respond, please atleast go to your iPhone settings -> Accessibility -> Hearing -> Sound Recognition. Those are on device ML models working on an audio buffer that is ALWAYS ON. The idea is to do the same for visual media. Any images you take or potentially even hit the image buffer of your device could potentially be classified by increasingly powerful ML models.

It doesn't matter if the actual content is then end to end encrypted, because the knowledge of the content is now available to Apple. This is DANGEROUS.
If you're going to hold a lot of events I can definitely believe it's more efficient to buy space than rent it.
I assume that since you think that desiring anonymity is criminal that you wouldn't mind replying with your full legal name.
Oh, I'm not making a value judgement. I think that these government agencies should absolutely try to get people into Apple adding secret undetectable backdoors that help them catch criminals. I also think Apple is completely within their rights to make them work for it.

Basically, I totally agree with pretty much everyone that people who abuse children and upload pictures of it to iCloud should burn in hell. But I don't think that Apple should be compelled to add hell to iOS 17 if that makes any sense. If the NSA wants to hire double agents that pass the Apple interview process and add sneaky undetectable code that reports those people to them, I think that's great.

I think I just like the chaos of it all. That's why nobody votes for me when I run for Congress or whatever.
It is laughably absurd.

Despite this, someone in the future will write their dissertation on this topic in the affirmative. They will be considered one of the great visionaries of their time in certain circles, despite being totally wrong.
Less than there used to be.

There are a lot of tools and frameworks that work on simple Java classes, you can write one with a few fields, then write another class that has a method tagged with some annotations like @𝙿𝙾𝚂𝚃, @𝙶𝙴𝚃 and @𝙿𝙰𝚃𝙷.

A web server like Jetty will automatically generate the code to serialize JSON and other objects so you can write API endpoints in a style very much like Sinatra with a minimum of boilerplate code.

Dependency inversion frameworks like Spring and Guava (particularly big these days) manage to break the
𝙵𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢𝙵𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢𝙵𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢𝙵𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚘𝚛𝚢 recursion by creating one super factory that initializes your application based on a map of which part goes where.

People are learning that Java is a great language for DSLs. Sometimes type erasure gets in the way but it is possible to implement very complex APIs with pretty good type checking, see

https://www.jooq.org/

This feature is a huge amount of fun

https://openjdk.org/jeps/433

although it is still in preview. They are making small changes in each revision which is annoying on some level but it means they are tweaking it to work really well, together with

https://openjdk.org/jeps/432

you can do a lot of what you'd do with destructuring assignments in languages like Python and Javascript.
Yeah your land lord is some big conglomerate I’m sure they have very strict rules on what to can/can’t do. But since you don’t care you do the bare minimum as you should
That's fair enough. But I'm still having trouble seeing how this would pass the scrutiny of EA's philosophy on good charity other than for the fact its in house.

Like there are already hundreds of universities with the abilities to do this or hose a workshop on it. And there's also no special reason to think that the assortment of people they will bring in will do good instead of talk in circles or come to the wrong conclusion. Like - it seems similar to the same thinking a large church does by bringing in religious leaders to talk about stuff?
You mean “infamous” as in what every other platform does - including Google and the console makers? The console makers even force game developers to pay a royalty on every physical game sold.
The last paragraph of the story literally says that they're using it as an alternative to the icloud scanning plan.
I like this comment. I do believe the global logistics industry will adapt to a low carbon future, rather than dismantle itself (and the world economy). In short, it is a death sentence for their business. And no business wants to go bankrupt, so they will adapt -- at least: try to.

Do you think ammonia or hydrogen is more likely to be used for ships? At this time, I am leaning towards ammonia because storage and infrastructure is simpler.

Funny side note: While writing this post, I was doing a bunch of Google searches about ammonia, hydrogen, and blue vs green. Every single search returned a single ad from Saudi Aramco touting their blue ammonia and hydrogen capabilities. Incredibly depressing. The non-petro states need to hurry up and cover the center 80% of Australia with solar panels (Chilean Andes and North Africa too) to produce whatever green industrial inputs we need from "thin air". Maybe we can run a bunch of carbon sequestration machines too. In parallel, we can drive up carbon taxes.
If you're okay with a GUI, I think that's how baobab works. I think it only shows the intermediate updates if the disk is slow enough, as I remember it doing that in the past, but checking my SSD just now it didn't.
Which no one does and when even Epic tried it it was an abysmal failure.
Or to put it another way, the only way you are able to defend the ludicrous idea that an OS should be lying to programs about their allocations is to claim it is impossible and get all demanding and pissy to the first person who comes by to contradict you.

Which is ridiculous, because plenty of programs will stop and tell you they have run out of memory for an operation. It's the easy way to handle allocation failure you're so hell bent on me showing you.

Here's one: https://knowledge.ni.com/servlet/rtaImage?eid=ka03q0000012W2...

You can do that kind of thing when the OS doesn't lie to you. Depending on circumstances you can do other things.

But hell, even if you think that's stupid and I'm stupid for saying that this is better than crashing, I still can't fathom why you think the status quo on Linux is the best possible idea. Hey, I know, let's pretend we can't run out of disk space either and just randomly delete files when the disk starts to fill up.
To believe that how good a building looks is 100% objective is dumb, but to believe that it's 100% subjective is even dumber.
The existence of life in the universe is clearly a non-0 probability event. Same for “intelligent” life. Although arguably almost all life on earth is intelligent so I’m assuming you mean human-level intelligence. Well, in which case we probably have a few contenders for at least getting fairly close if not matching given we have trouble defining intelligence (elephants, octopus, dolphin, some primates, crows etc). Let’s say life that can build technology and shape the world around them then.

If the universe is mathematically infinite, then it’s guaranteed we’re not the only ones because any low probability event will still happen infinitely many times in that case. So let’s say the universe is very very large but not mathematically infinite.

So then the question is a) what percentage of planets develop life b) what percentage of life develops a species capable of building technology c) what is the likelihood that species has access to resources on the planet to build that technology. We don’t know what a) is (just non-0) but using your equivalent argument for that of “we haven’t found any” I can counter by saying well, as far as we know b and c are 100% as the only planet we know to have life developed a intelligent technology-building species and the likelihood that that just happened by luck seems astronomically low (ie you’d need life to be extremely common and intelligent life not so but the odds seem against you if life is rare AND intelligent life is rarer still). I would argue that when life develops intelligent life is almost assured because pf evolutionary pressures. Now whether the right circumstances exist for them to evolve from basic tools to space ships, who knows. But that’s secondary.

So does life exist? Given the size of the universe it would be hard to bet against the argument that life has evolved somewhere out there in the universe. And given that it has, what are the odds that intelligent life came about? Again I’d say high because the same evolutionary pressures would exist to fill in niches that intelligence wins at.

So I don’t think it’s all that heavy a lift. Note that I’m not claiming they are space faring, have developed advanced mathematics, can communicate in any way that we’d understand each other or anything like that. I’m simply noting there’s multiple species even here on Earth who at a minimum come close to humans, which means the probability seems quite good unless our Earth is a magical place in the universe that is particularly special somehow at generating sentience. Thus the odds of there being intelligent sentient life out there seems to be the same as whether or not there’s any life out there. And since we know that’s non-0 and the universe is very very big, then it stands to reason there’s very likely intelligent life out there. Note even the observable universe itself is big enough that there’s likely other intelligent life within it. The total universe is much much larger than that and we’d never ever see evidence of life from there because we’ll never see anything from it because it’s forever outside of the expansion of the universe.
Hey, could you please stop breaking the site guidelines, such as by calling names ("stupid"), or posting unsubstantive or flamebait comments? You've been doing this repeatedly, and we eventually have to ban such accounts. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
I can't say more, NDAs and all that.

I encourage you to read up on the topic of interactions between the DoS and the Intel Community. Fascinating reading.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/08/06/internal-memo-at-...
guess riders should wear helmets to avoid shock trauma
It worked out pretty well but they gave in. So why do you think it worked out pretty well if they came crawling back?
Sure, but if people only focus on bandwidth and ignore latency, as they usually do, my solution is easily done with off-the-shelf technology.
Fermilab/CERN recommendation for Linux distribution
Show HN: I Made a Histogram Maker
Could you link to some of those papers? I would be interested in learning more about the frontier of Fortran development. I recently learned about the LFortran project and while I think it's an interesting project, I feared it would be too late for the language.
Reference Librarians still exist, and google is not going to do a reference interview and help you access licensed resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_interview
I've seen parts of southern Iowa where there is zero top soil left. There are many hilly areas around there and resulted in the exposed top soil from "traditional" row crop farming easily washing away in heavy rains. It should never have been farmed to begin with. Once it became unusable for row crop farming they just put cattle on it which causes even more erosion. Because the ground is mostly only clay now any rain easily causes flooding. The best part is where a lot of the farmers there dump all their trash in the ravines (tires, appliances, household garbage, etc) that are formed from all the erosion to create some form of "erosion control".
Strictly speaking, many of the Tech4's problems in the Fiero were related to the shallow oil sump, necessary for packaging, that had it always effectively running a quart low.

I can't say I had heard of one losing teeth on the timing gear-but I don't doubt it either. My biggest gripe was that during the design phase, balance shafts were left out for cost reasons-it feels and sounds far too industrial for a small car engine, relative to its output.
I read the top reply. What, exactly, about it do you find persuasive? To me, it seems like a pretty great illustration of one of the major critiques of EA: it introduces a set of vague axioms that are then used to build arguments for all sorts of silly, compromised arguments, like "we should buy a ￡15MM estate" or "we should divert money from the poor to AI research".
You can't attack others like this on HN, and we ban accounts that do. I'm not going to ban you right now, because you've also posted good things, but if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it. We've had to ask you this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27185545.
> I don't believe Apple produces 30% of value when someone (hypothetically) signs up for Netflix on an iPhone

And neither did Netflix and they haven’t allowed in app purchases for years and are still doing quite well.
You've conveniently omitted the independent third-parties that had seen the data. It's a messy world. Unexpected things happen. How do these third-parties factor in to Occam's razor? You need to add more parameters to your explanation as to why the third-parties would verify the existence of non-existent data.

Here's another possibility: During goes to DePalma to collaborate and asks if DePalma still has the data. DePalma says he doesn't. During sees this an an opportunity to claim credit for the work.

It's impossible to tell which scenario is more likely. Are you really willing to ruin someone's career over purely circumstantial evidence provided by a biased witness?