skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sounds more like poor design.

Plenty of other devices such as outdoor cameras have replaceable batteries with no warnings.

Shavers have a water proofed interior shelled battery that although usually not replaceable, technically can be since all but 2 flat contacts are sealed.

Designing batteries for said water protection incurs extra cost, and is cheaper to just seal in, ensuring the financial burden of the design failure is on the consumer, this law helps end that practice.
>>An oversimplified example: your carpet shop has a rule: no shoes on in the shop. You come in with shoes, you get thrown out. A guy shows up with a shirt on that says "My value is to track as much mud on as many carpets as I can in my life." Do you let him in the door?

Is he wearing shoes?
Should persuasive speech* be outlawed?

* Speech that benefits me but does not necessarily benefit you.
Stop eating salads with dressings. Or just eat more raw veggies in general.

Not so much as a calories thing, but as a way to recalibrate your taste buds to veggies. It’s so much easier to add veggies to your diet when you enjoy them in any form.
It will be interesting to see how policy changes when oil prices do not drive so much of the economy
Have you already replaced Google with ChatGPT whole it's free? What are your Google usecases?
I loved my 440* chipset systems. I miss them, too, lol. My last one died due to a damn screw driver slip. sobs
I somewhat like the macOS dock. But eventually, on KDE, with all the freedom in the world, I realized that it just makes sense to have everything integrated.

Maybe they realized during a QA meeting that it was too good for their standards.
An injury to one is an injury to all – if you single out the T, you're no A.
I feel like you’re inserting an interpretation vs what’s actually written. komali2 raises all the problematic scenarios that I was thinking of (and more). Let’s take a hypothetical where I’m an MIT professor. Can I express my own personal view chatting with students after class where I say off hand “I think congress is making a huge mistake with copyright and IP as regards to computer science”? Or how about “I think the government’s role in Aaron Swartz’s suicide needs to have a formal inquiry” or “Aaron Swartz is a brave person and more need to follow his example about standing up to bad IP law”. A professor’s rule isn’t just to teach course material but to show students that everyone should think critically and try to form an opinion instead of deferring to experts all the time. Additionally, the best ones try to engage and connect with their students socially. That’s more difficult if they are aloof because of concerns of repercussions / being unable to voice your opinion.

The problem is the desire to somehow separate and anesthetize political speech as this separate thing. The problem is that all of life is political. You can’t just anesthetize a part of your humanity. You can try to regulate the conduct around it but then you get back into the problems that causes as is well documented by the position paper (which is why no campuses try to enforce that). This whole effort feels like a slippery slope and the position paper is trying to make a valiant effort at playing referee to try to prevent the slope from tilting too much in any direction. Still, I don’t feel like they’ve quite got it. At least not in terms of expressing it objectively vs trying to rule by selective enforcement. Btw I happen to think a good administrator can actually accomplish this and I think that objective rules don’t really help that much here vs general principles you try to uphold but also allow you to apply discretion to each case and a strong well-calibrated moral compass and good advisors from all facets of life and professions to keep you grounded. But bureaucracy abhors discretion.
Like I said, I'll take whatever upsides exist. Wildfire season this year was mercifully light, so that's good. Thanks to other goings on in the world I have a stockpile of N95 filtration masks, but California takes emissions so seriously that auto manufacturers make special versions of their cars to sell here, which has alleviated the LA smog problems from the 90's. But I don't know that air quality is something that most Californian's live in fear of. I was the outlier 3 years ago for wearing an N95 during wildfire season.
This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization
I'm a long-ish time fan of Dave's. I've been following his work on and off for the past ~decade or so. I've bought a number of his prints and have visited his shop in Asakusa.

I've been thinking about this for some time now, but I think the key to a number of artists successes has been the ability to combine what you've laid out here. Long term dedication to the work & with expressing the passion for that work — through a popular medium.

Having watched Dave's streams on Twitch, it seems to me that he has been able to adapt to the medium as they've come along through his career. Originally he appeared on broadcasts on Canadian television, moving on to YouTube in more recent times, and now has been consistently streaming on Twitch for a couple of years.

In all his output, you can see so clearly how passionate he is about Japanese printmaking. It's incredibly infectious. Commenters on his stream take on and share that passion, especially in his show-and-tell sections where you wait to see him reveal, discuss, and get very excited about new prints he has purchased (usually off of Yahoo).

Having recently read Van Gogh's letters, I saw a similar thing. His popularity really stems from his sister in law, Johanna, making them available after his death. He exuded passion (to the extreme!) about art and was tenacious in expressing that to his Brother in letters. However, he also made a clear decision point in his life (At ~27/28 years old) that art was going to be his primary focus.

I think that dedication combined with sharing that passion with others is what really makes some artists stand out. Ideally, doing both while still alive so you don't have to depend on your brother the whole time!

I think that's what make's Dave special. He has certainly mastered this.

(I'm sure he would hate being compared to Van Gogh though, so I apologise to him for that)
Do you have a source on the claim about tires? Genuinely curious.
King Williams College Quiz 2022
177 Questions in Quiz
At first scan I have one answer.
Hangs head in shame.
> Super is dedicated only to the window manager and nothing else.

This is the thing I miss most from X vs MacOS. On Mac, the command key is the primary shortcut modifier both for apps and for the OS / "window manager".
Somewhere I have a photocopy of a letter from Al Gore thanking the team at NCSA for their work, particularly on the projects that got funding via the NSF, which Al considered himself to be instrumental in allocating, and which paid Bina's and Andreesen's (and a whole bunch of other people's) salaries.

If memory serves they also picked up some of the funding for NCSA Telnet, which for many people, in particular Mac and DOS users, was the Telnet program they used for more than a decade.

If you're going to go from Van Jacobsen to Tim Berners Lee in one breath, I think the creators and maintainers of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCSA_Telnet deserve a tip of the hat somewhere in there, as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCSA_HTTPd, which begat Apache.
that was my first thought, too
This is a good comment that is being suppressed :-)

>> Is that not the very definition of democracy? Majority rule easily and frequently overrides and marginalizes minorities. Its kinda the point.

Yes, so much this. And it's not even a bad thing. We need norms to be able to coexist, even if those norms are somewhat arbitrary and have space for improvement. Finding those norms through consensus and a majority is not the worst way to go.
>"Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others."

Nope, that is trivially wrong with the obvious counter examples being slander and libel.
Clearly universities have "personality" (as do all business's) and that factors a lot in which university I choose to attend. I expect a different world-view in say Alabama compared to say California.

I might steer clear of Berkley as being too hippy, and choose Alabama or Mississippi instead.

But I also expect that a business in the business of sharing ideas is open to new ideas. If I want to discuss a gun-free society at Alabama State, then i might be in the minority. As a professor my students won't appreciate it in my physics lecture, but I might form a student group against guns etc.

So yes a university is a business, but the business of ideas, and censoring some ideas seems like that makes it a bad business.
Consume less energy than you burn.

Works for me for decades, my BMI is around 20.0. If it starts going up I just limit the intake (obviously I use for reference my weight in kg from my scale, instead calculating BMI each time).

Other than that I am eating whatever I want/like.

I am always amazed by people expecting some miracle diet to lose weight instead just either eat less or burn more or both, but they think they can cheat simple physics.
> > If, for example, Dwight Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System," he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway.

But Gore didn't say "the National Research Network", he said "the Internet". So a closer analogy would be if Dwight Eisenhower had said "I took the initiative in creating highways". It's sort of true, but it's also a outsized, boastful claim.
Story about how the ukrainian army puts all information in one map system.
I think the less favorable (and more accurate) metric would be carbon elisions amortized over productive lifetime: a trainset can last for half a century, while an ordinary consumer in the developed world might go through 4-5 new cars in that period. Making new cars (even and especially EVs) is carbon intensive and should probably be factored in.
Some of my fav. works include

Bittorrent and Bitcoin
Some replies are saying this is only for "as-scale/FAANG".

It may only be absolutely necessary there, but it's helpful even for smaller folks.

Over the years, even Debian LTS goes out of support and new features and software should be installed. There's moving systems, doing restores, things breaking and wanting to "reset" to a known working state. Any time you can do something simple with docker or even just (short) step-by-step build scripts, that's a huge win.

I have playbooks for deploying a system, but with npm installs, bower installs, secrets to be hand copied from multiple places, etc, it feels more like pets and it's NOT simple to deploy.
Yeah it went through the joint and I got a call the next day telling me it was broken. The PA told me to get splint and to give it a rest for a week.
Any property access could be a getter function, and TypeScript doesn't know which properties are getters and which aren't [0]. Similarly for Proxies, anything could be a proxy and the design goal of Proxies is that they cannot be differentiated from regular values.

But imagine that TypeScript, in addition to pure functions, also allows you to tag objects as "POD objects" or "JavaScript objects". The POD ("plain old data") objects can't be proxies or have impure getter methods, and the "pure" keyword actually means "pure if all arguments are POD objects" (this is to avoid having to write N purity overloads for an N-ary function).

You want to call a pure method from your impure method, and pass it one of your arguments. Your arguments now need to be declared to be POD objects, which means they are incompatible with the rest of your code base. This has to go all the way up... it's basically "colored functions" except it's colored objects this time, and the colors are completely incompatible (async functions can call sync functions, but impure functions can't call pure functions with impure arguments, and pure functions can't call impure functions at all).

[0] https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?#code/C4TwDgpgBAkgYgewVA...
live and still functioning doesn't sound too bad to package up... just copy down all the configs
I'm guessing the latter. Which is why shitting on it may actually still change it!
> how it would arise that two medical experts could be looking at data that contradicts each other so strongly that one could believe the other's treatment is suboptimal to fatal lengths

It's happening right now (has been for 2 years) with COVID vaccines. Also permanent gender surgery performed on minors -- doctors performing them say they are saving lives, opponents say they are mutilating children below the age of consent.
I've done nine days on water only and it was fantastic. It reset my tastebuds and simple foods tasted great again. Not to mention the weight loss.
Perhaps if you do everything in your power to make freedom of expression difficult, you don't really believe in freedom of expression.
Charging is what happens BEFORE a court proceeding, it's done by a prosecutor, not a judge

Also I'm pretty sure that when a court finds that something is libellous it's deemed to have always been libellous from the moment it was done (may depend on what country you're in)
Many codes of conduct and various other speech codes do, in fact, violate freedom of speech and have often been struck down as violations of freedom of expression. Appeals to "courtesy" and "civility" tend to be used selectively. I agree that it would be ideal if people debated courteously, but "civility" is far too often only desired in one direction (and employed as such in practice).

There are plenty of ways for an outnumbered group to still have its voice heard, from speaking at public meetings to writing opinion columns to being active on social media. Or in academia, they can start their own journals, organize their own conferences, etc. Dissenting opinions in court rulings are excellent examples of including the minority opinion as well.

If anything, supporting freedom of speech and expression protects those who are in the minority more than adding more restrictions on speech (since, as other comments have pointed out, who gets to decide what speech to censor? it's those with the power on campus).
In case you failed to notice: the last 8 years have been a very serious departure from the last 200 years as a baseline.

Note that the parties that are arguing hardest for free speech are exactly the ones that are the subject of discussion. You might wonder if they have a stake in the outcome of that debate. Personally, I'm not at all concerned that 'the state' will meaningfully abridge my speech (in part because there is no history of them doing that without a very good reason and in part because NL never had absolute free speech to begin with though we do have the concept of 'freedom of opinion'). But I am concerned with the speed with which wannabe Nazi groups and actual Nazi groups are able to convert people en masse to their cause, including voting them into public office where they are already doing damage. If you haven't noticed that then you're forgiven but realize that in many countries this is not just a theoretical debate but harsh reality.
> When powering up an AP that uses a DFS channel, you will see that the 2.4GHz radio becomes available as soon as the AP has completed its boot sequence, but the 5Ghz radio may not available for another minute. This is due to the AP performing its channel availability check, if the AP is trying to use a DFS-impacted 5GHz channel.

This always baffled me. Mystery solved!
I would expect he would have an interesting idea on the link between language acquisition and the brain. It is rather easy to understand how the way we interact would be linked to the structure of our brain.
It's interesting that some groups want free speech when their opinions are unpopular... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

...but then don't want free speech after similar groups have control of the institutions.

It doesn't seem to be based on principle, but what is good for promoting their own ideology at the time. Which of course is something discussed in the book Rules for Radicals and similar, that one specifically arguing against principles and to pay attention only to achieving the ends.
Within the United States, there are at least ten protected classes, including race, sex, and old age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Couldn't "psychological harm/turmoil" fit somewhere in there aswell? Verbal abuse etc.
Is this the strongest claim the author can make? Is the rise in prices affecting _demand_ of such cars significantly? Are people in the EU actually buying fewer EVs, or has it simply gotten more expensive for them?

Article's paywalled, so I cannot see what the actual claims are. But I'd actually be much more interested to know if quantity demanded _isn't_ being affected as much by rising prices - that's an exciting sign for adoption of EVs.
Usually because the participants in these debates are not from countries where communism is right now a major issue. Though if that were the case I'm pretty sure they'd be worried about that too. And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive either.
Any SaaS company that that has trusted automated testing on the backend, big enough to have a platform team so that there's a continuous deployment (CD) system should be able to do that. It's less about the actual cadence and more about the fact that, given a bug or request for a new feature, developers are empowered to go and do a release.
please no. my work does this and the events are completely untraceable. you have no idea what's listening to what or where it will be caught or prevented
I wasn’t making a serious comparison. But it is a critical problem for modern geopolitics for which Navy’s play a major role in.

Paramilitia Fishing boats are like the local insurgents in Afghani/Iraqi cities. They are still there when big expensive American boats leave the other 99% of the year. They don’t provide real military prowess but they blend in with the locals (meaning hard to permanently bully out of neighbourhoods) and constantly apply pressure tactics and surveillance resources that benefit the parent resistance org.

It also critical keeps their flags waving 24/7.
> There’s no evidence anything can stop Nazism.

Oh, we have plenty of evidence that some things can stop Nazism. The question is if you want to dedicate another couple of 10's of thousands of acres to war graves.
It looks to me as if they’re stating their own view of a point you brought up, not reformulating what you stated. If you want good faith discussions the best way would probably be to apply the principle of charity[1] and allow for the other person to engage in the discussion by also adding their own thoughts on the topic, not just sticking to your points slavishly - that would hardly allow for either refutation nor insight. It’s not all about you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
"pure" in the context of functional programming often means "without side effects", so writing a log file, interacting with a database and so on would also make the function not pure
I think the main strength of this activist movement in academia is that it operates through fear. In an environment where much depends on word of mouth and personal reputation, people could lose their entire careers for violating new, rapidly transforming cultural mores. So, they self-censor, and some voice support for the activists to avoid becoming a target themselves. (Cue the 60-year-old professors who have never used Twitter putting pronouns in their email signatures and adding '#BLM' messages on their personal websites.[1]) The overall effect is that a minority can extract the obedience of a majority.

Public statements like this will have little effect unless they are actively enforced. This means that violators must be officially sanctioned by administrators, who are often their peers. It's clear to me that most academics (including myself, I'm ashamed to admit) are cowards who will bend their public positions, even on academic matters, in favor of whoever wields the greatest power. Not until activists are met with stern opposition and loss of prestige will people stop currying favor with them.

If, though, I am wrong in my assessment and most academics and students, rather than a dominant minority, wholly believe that offensive utterances must be punished and unsavory research banned, I think there isn't much left to do. Any official action, let alone the posted public statement, will only galvanize people to seek out more aggressive policies and oust those that oppose them.

There are real stakes in this conflict, and right now, activists in academia (hard sciences) are pushing in my view really significant policy proposals.

From MIT geophysical sciences department:

1. Penalize (during peer review) research that doesn't cite black authors.

2. Implement diversity boards that have final say in hiring and tenure decisions. (They need not have field expertise.)

From several Broad Institute faculty and post-docs:

1. Restrict publication of genetic research in white populations until genetic sampling of other populations around the world reach parity.

2. Ban white researchers from conducting genetic research in populations in non-white countries.

3. Ban genetic research that can be stigmatizing to designated vulnerable populations (e.g. genetic component of educational attainment, the genetic architecture of autism, etc.).

[1] For clarity, these two relate to first-hand examples of professors making statements solely out of fear of not being able to attract students their labs/departments.
Half your portions then you can eat twice as much :)
What is a concrete example?

When I think of persuasive speech, I think of A intending to convince B that C is proper policy — but this benefits both A and B, insofar as it should involve enlarging B's understanding of C, and is an attempt by A to uncover the truth of whether or not C is desirable. That is clearly protectable.

If benefits A but does not necessarily benefit B means "A is trolling"[0], then that speech, while possibly entertaining[1], does not sound at all useful. Protection of trolls would have to rest under some other heading than "enlarging understanding" and "uncovering truth", as neither are true of them.

Does that distinction make sense? Is it at all related to what you had in mind?

[0] indeed, at this point the notion of "persuasive" becomes arguable, if A is the only person who might possibly defend their argument as plausible.

[1] depending upon how it uncovers the truth that A is a jerk?
Please tell me the “remit” of “law enforcement”.
I don't live that far from Giverny. I went here once, with my mother, and it happened to be garden replanting day. Everyone was shocked. There were busloads of tourists from far away. We all just stood there looking at patches of soil. Luckily there are other thing. The ponds, the house, etc.