skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If someone wants to cheat, they will cheat via blockchain.

If you want to know that the data is correct, you have to test it - for example by making stocktaking, or random spot checks. Otherwise, someone can write on blockchain that they sold 10000 hamburgers, while in reality they sold none.

As for your example of "10 restaurants" - it seems that you have very poor knowledge of ERP systems and concepts like MRP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_requirements_planning

Might as well start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_chain_management

Companies have been using databases to collect information about their resources since their inception. You have a very naive view when you think that "databases have to be moved to the cloud", when in reality companies have been using own servers that collected data from shops since the 1980s if not earlier.

If you really think that storing data in one database is some new concept, or you think that basic MRP for 10 restaurants is impossible.. then maybe read a bit about supply chain management. Those concepts are not new at all; tons of tools help with that, since last ~30 years, if not more.

Bitcoin is not even useful in this scenario; because if 1 restaurant fat fingers something into blockchain, then this error sits there forever, while in a classic database, someone can usually correct it in an easier way. And people make mistakes all the time.
The low-end consumer of content is more lucrative than the high-end producer of content, apparently

High-end desktops are in a weird niche

They're overkill for most uses, but also completely incapable of handling "big" problems (multi PB datasets, timely rendering of multi-hour 4k content, etc)....for that you still need to divide and conquer in the server room
Or the 1st suggestion (which you omitted): Hooked.
Never go full Sapir–Whorf
I don't agree, and you shouldn't force those of us who don't agree to die.
Socialism is an economic system where the central government owns and controls all production and all distribution of everything. There is no private ownership in that system. If you want choice, that’s capitalism.
Ukraine Conflict Has the World on a Renewable Energy Run, IEA Report Says
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_memory_access
https://archive.vn/YR4ET
California is cursed with an amazingly efficient agricultural industry and just went through a freak 100 year wet period that set people's expectations for normal rainfall and agricultural planning. The combination of long, sunny growing periods, and the illusion of reliable abundant water created an ideal growing climate.

Much like Silicon Valley, this is a productive ecosystem that arose in which farmers who are aware of best practices and have access to appropriate supplier, financing, and skilled/unskilled labor pools. It's really amazing how much more productive California is compared to agriculture east of the Mississippi.

This accounts for why so much agriculture is here even though it really shouldn't be, due to the water situation. California is a semi-arid climate that has had -- looking at tree ring data -- up to 200 year-long droughts, and should be used to raise reasonable-sized populations of free range grass fed cattle and sheep, rather than water intensive food crops. The latter should be limited to small plots of land that are regularly rotated. The previous 100 years in California - when the agricultural industry developed - were unusually wet, and this has set the baseline expectations, but that is most likely an outlier, and we should be prepared for a few hundred years of drought.

"“We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years,” said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. “We’re living in a dream world.”"[1]

[...]

"Stine, who has spent decades studying tree stumps in Mono Lake, Tenaya Lake, the Walker River and other parts of the Sierra Nevada, said that the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years."
[1]

* * *

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa...

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/369546a0
Surely this is not the case, otherwise I wouldn't hear the constant refrain of "opex > capex" over the past decade, as sung to argue SaaS is the best thing.
I've heard from a friend of a friend that mycologists soak their grow mediums for a day or two to give spores a chance to germinate before pressure-cooking the whole thing. But said friend never called it Tyndallization. That's the thing I learned today!
fleet-wide profiling revealed that 25-35% of all CPU time was spent just moving bytes around[...]If data movement were faster, more work could be done on the same processors.

Here's a different thought experiment: how much of that data movement is actually necessary? If data movement was taking up so much time, why not investigate why and if that's even necessary, instead of thinking it's the hardware that needs to be faster? As the old saying goes, "the fastest way to do something is to not do it at all." One style of code that seems to be particularly exacerbated by the widespread use of HLLs is making lots of unnecessary temporary copies of data. The biggest inefficiency isn't the hardware (unless your goal is to sell more hardware, but that's a different rant...) --- it's the insanely complex and bloated layers of software that gets layered on top of what is otherwise perfectly adequate hardware. From that perspective, faster hardware only leads to even more wasteful and inefficient software. Making memory copies faster will only cause software to make more unnecessary copies.

But after reading the whole thing, I can say that this is certainly a very strange article. It's written by someone who is presumably quite knowledgeable about hardware, yet seems completely oblivious to the fact that x86 has had a dedicated instruction for this since the 8086, and 16 bytes per cycle was already achievable with the P6 (1996) "fast strings" enhancement:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33902068/what-setup-does...
Yeah - that one at least makes sense (in terms of conveying the intended meaning) but it's arguable more casual than 'addict' so I'm really not sure whose feelings we're trying to preserve here.
It amazes me that Dolan the relatively successful hockey team owner and Dolan the bad basketball team owner are the same guy.
https://archive.ph/pMxnz
Intel Released OneAPI 2023 Supporting Acceleration on Multiarchitectures
Intel announced the oneAPI 2023 tools release. OneAPI 2023 can run across Intel's spectrum of hardware as well as that of other vendors. The 2023 release supports for upcoming Intel Sapphire Rapids CPUs, including the Xeon CPU Max Series, and initial AMX support.

The toolkits include a plug-in model developed with Codeplay that supports Intel products but is open so that it is more accessible for developers using other accelerator architectures. With oneAPI, Intel will support its CPUs/GPUs, and Codeplay will sell support for Nvidia and AMD. This would benefit heterogeneous computing so that the developers will no longer need to deal with various different toolchains.
committed suicide -> died by suicide: even in death we are removing their agency.
You have a problem. So you decide to use micro-services. Now you have N problems and M times as many failure scenarios.

The worst unmaintainable WTF OMG software I have ever seen in my 30+ years career is a 20 years old micro-services system.

The best most maintainable highly scalable software I have seen in my 30+ years career were all monoliths.
Honestly, echoing some of mancerayder's sentiment here - I actually think there's a ton of mileage one can get from a not particularly extensively trained listening partner - I think there are cases where you genuinely need a highly qualified therapist, I think there are situations where an under-qualified individual can do a great deal of harm when dealing with someone with particular types of mental issues, but I think there's also a huge amount of therapy that can be done by someone a whole lot closer to an RN or a PA than an MD.

I also suspect that the broad lack of coverage for therapy and other kinds of mental care in most medical plans, as well as a "treatment/cure"-type paradigm when it IS covered ("we expect your 40 years of accumulated neurosis to be adequately addressed within 6 months, otherwise we're not going to pay anymore") is part of why this is out of reach for many people.

(I also suspect providing the population with broad access to mental health care would almost immediately pay for itself in terms of better physical health outcomes, improvements in the crime rate, and better economic outcomes, but that's the kind of second- and third-order thinking we're pretty notoriously bad at in this country, policy-wise)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2706

> Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.

I suppose depending on how cynical you feel like being "FBI follows the law" is a big scoop.

(Also, "to Censor the Hunter Biden Laptop Story" is submitter's spin, and not at all supported by the thread; the email cites "since October 2019", i.e. starting a year prior to that story.)
It's badly written. They are saying that you shouldn't use the term "addicted" for anything except actual addiction. They object to, for instance, saying you are addicted to a TV show.
Perhaps for very small sizes (just use a mov directly) and very large ones (that fall out of your cache, so you’d probably want non-temporal stores). I think it would be difficult to cover all cases.
Has anyone integrated this with airplay successfully? I would love to be able to use spotify connect to stream to my airplay speakers without leaving a phone or laptop engaged
Similar arguments were/are made about the use of calculators.

It will go the same way. You need to understand the basics (to various degrees depending on the direction of your education), then learn how to use the new tools we are creating.

Honestly, I'd prefer we treat this as an opportunity to introduce tight feedback loops into essay writing the way we do with programming. Then evaluate the end result as a whole rather than a way to nitpick grammar rules.
Many of the examples appear to be ignorant and even outright offensive-- but in that case I believe it's suggesting an alternative usage for non-addiction contexts.

E.g. Don't say that you're addicted to CheezePuffs(tm) say you're ... devoted. Uh well not the best but you get my point. The motivation for that one is to avoid conflating something someone likes a lot with heroin like addiction.
WorldCup on Twitter: The G.O.A.T
In the last century you (as in “you over there,” not you) made Iceland default on its loans rather than help them out causing them to suffer both as a country and as a people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_fi...

In the last decade you failed to offer help to hundreds of thousands of refugees because nobody could figure out who owed who. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_European_migrant_crisis

In the last year you failed to aid Ukraine in their war against Russia, failing to even provide weapons that you’d agreed to provide (but only agreeing after terms had been reached to make sure you got paid something). https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/16/ukraine-slams-germany-for-fa...

In the last month you failed to provide public transportation because you couldn’t agree on wages. https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/italy-national-general-str...

And that’s just on the continent in the last 20 years. If we were to go back to say around 1945 I’m sure we could find a couple more instances of Europeans being not so helpful.
I suppose what I didn’t reveal is that I spent a lot of time before medicine trying to coax cells whether in a culture or some other medium to grow in the way I wanted it to grow. And it was hard. It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature. I think at some subconscious level, I interpreted this as nature’s way of expressing that is how things are designed to be.

I don’t do life science anymore, but deal with computers now. And it’s a whole lot more predictable and malleable. (Heck, it’s easy if I were to compare it to running gels or prepping cell lines.)

But I would be ecstatic if I could witness some science fiction level advancement in this field in my lifetime. I doubt it, but I would be amazed should it happen.
My point is that over that distance, any train is impractical?

Like sure China has fast trains in a small area, but west of Chengdu, they don’t, so saying “China is a country nearly as large as the US with a robust train network” is a red herring.

The US is much more spread out than China or Russia, even if land areas are of similar scale.

This supports the original point that it’s hard for large countries to have robust train networks, which was the idea that was being challenged.

Did you not read the whole thread?
Good points! Yes, public blockchains are often not suitable for private or confidential transactions. That being said, anonymization tools do exist, which can solve this problem for many use cases.

Also, I agree that blockchains only work in the context of a functioning legal system, in that the link between on-chain assets and physical assets must be enforced via some legal or governmental mechanism. This should be possible using contracts under current law, however, and such contracts could be limited to establishing this linkage, avoiding more complex issues that might otherwise come into play if it were not for the use of a blockchain for record-keeping, transfers and settlement.
I believe it is wrong to make people feel bad about themselves with insensitive or culturally offensive language but with every article I see like this I become less and less interested in thinking about what I say. Also why do all articles like this have the same art style? How do people get paid to make these kind of articles and how much do they get paid?
dang, the original link in the above HN discussion is not available anymore. People can not see what the discussion is about. Is there any way to address this?
I have seen exactly what he complains about, many times.

Most recently, the very first reaction was to label him racist. Then he was "dangerous" to The Children.

The fact is, he is wrong in his interpretations, but they are based on evidence. Instead of calling him "dangerous", why not engage with the evidence? Among few places I have seen that done is the "Scientists Against Myths" YT channel, https://youtube.com/@ScientistsAgainstMyths/videos. It is rather off-putting: they forget they are addressing the audience, not the promoters of bad interpretations. You have to endure that to get to the end, each time.

On the other side, we have Ancient Architecture, with a relentlessly empirical bent: https://youtube.com/@AncientArchitecture/videos

Shows like Graham Hancock's evoke wonder that seems beyond scientists to match. That feeling of wonder is where the next generation of scientists comes from.

It is critically important that scientists say when they don't know something. They should seek out opportunities to mention them, instead of trying to cover them up. Hancock has been right, and historical consensus dead wrong, too many times. He was an early promoter of humans in the Americas before 15kya, and of the comet strike in North America, near (maybe after) the start of the Younger Dryas cold spell, that wiped out mammoths, mastodons, horses, camels, dire wolves, cheetahs, giant beavers, giant sloths, and the Clovis culture; and about megalithic construction dating that far back. There are lessons here on science's ability, and often failure, to self-correct. All of these had evidence "scientists" rejected outright, not because of anything about the evidence, but just because.

There is plenty of evidence that stone bowls were "turned" to grind them into shape, but the first depictions of it we know of show up thousands of years later. What is the history of "turning"? Somebody might make progress on the question someday, but only if they know there is much unknown.
You are speaking to the core of the issue.

In Facebook's hands, they won't want to compete in the businesses where there are actual use cases today. Because of their size, they have the resources to try to invent a whole new market (walled garden), and only then find consumers for it.
Bill Browser's Red Notice and then Freezing Order.

They read like fiction and gave me a whole new appreciation for how Russia works, plus international politics and investing.
You’re giving China credit for being huge while talking about what goes on in 1/3 of its land area.

The US is populated end to end
Sorry, leftover bourbon?
If Tesla is an "own-the-libs" brand, what do libs who want to drive an upscale electric car do? Does Musk have them where he wants them? Or do they all bail for Lucid now?
They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language:

I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bike from speeding cars on my street. Language isn't going to fill the dams in a drier and drier California. Language isn't going to do jackshit about 400+ ppm CO2 levels. And on and on.

These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.

How do we close this Pandora's box? How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?

https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...

"EHLI Scans
In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.

Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:

Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately
Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence
Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results
For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
I've been playing it in DOSBox for some time. This is quite a magnificent rework. Mouse look is game changing!
You realize if we did that, dang would have to ban this person? There's no guideline about age afaik, but HN is in the United States & is bound by COPPA.

I think that would be a needlessly bad outcome.
The corporate memphis art and the content warning is just the cherry on top of this steaming pile of crap.

Projects like this are doomed, because they fundamentally ignore how language works, how language evolves, and how humans work.

My favourite example is "idiot". Once upon a time it was a clinical diagnosis used by physicians to describe people. This word of course turned into a slur, so the diagnosis word had to be changed, and people at that time chose "retard". ...Which promptly became a slur, forcing people to yet again pick a new word. Is "mentally handicapped" ok these days? This list suggest "people who have a cognitive disability", that sure rolls easily off the tongue.

But it's interesting to note that even though this list calls out "retard", it doesn't call out "idiot". Because the time that word was replaced by its politically correct replacement is so long ago that the people who made this list aren't aware of it and therefore think it has always been a slur, and that it's therefore, somehow, magically not disparaging towards the cognitively disabled.

Another great example of idiocy (!) from this list is "basket case". They're claiming you shouldn't use it because it's offensive to quadriplegics, because that's what it originally meant.

WHEN?!? IN THE 1800's?!? That expression hasn't meant or referenced quadriplegics in a long, long time. But apparently someone with a stick up their ass dug up the etymology of it and decided to include it in the list. But forgot about "idiot".

This is white-knighting feel-good slacktivism at its finest. You haven't accomplished anything by putting together this list.
> It’s been a while, but if I could recall correctly, cells tended to have a finiteness in their very nature.

This is known: https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Hayflick_limit
Closely monitoring household energy data can unleash their solar outputs
Ha, interesting. I just tried asking my go-to interview question. It started out writing a correct but way too long solution, so I asked if it could make the solution shorter, and it figured out the concise way to do it. Which is exactly what happened 80% of the time when I asked the same question in dozens of real interviews. It thinks so much like a human, it's uncanny.
This actually reminds me of something I was thinking about a couple days ago. You know how people can be resuscitated after hours with their hearts stopped, if they were in near-freezing conditions? Like people who have drowned in frozen lakes and then been brought back hours later? Someone coined the phrase, "You're not dead until you're warm and dead." Well, I wonder if that could be done long term. I'm guessing all the body's processes would be dramatically slowed in such a scenario, giving similar benefits to cryopreservation. Presumably it would come with many new problems (I doubt the brain would survive long term like that without at least some circulation of oxygenated blood for starters), but it's at least conceivable those would be easier to solve than the problem of freezing and thawing a body without irreversible damage.
Yes! I’m glad to see so much love for my favorite book on here. It is truly an epic read.