skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Texas is almost twice the size of Japan and mostly flat. It’s also not full of medieval cities with their own vernacular architecture.
May be allow users to add review/ or load reviews from some game sites
I think that’s going to be true of any large-scale engineering problem that pushes boundaries.
> property ownership in cities becomes increasingly out of reach

Ironically maybe least true in Tokyo, where interest rates are extremely low, and houses are still sort of affordable as long as you can adjust your expectations (e.g. no 200sqm mansions).
DualShock4 Reverse Engineering
If they're self-sufficient, they could survive. Human population on Earth has bottlenecked to less than 100,000 in the past and we recovered.
A LEO satellite can be hit directly with relatively cheap surface to air missiles in a matter of minutes (e.g., RIM-161). Getting to space for the ASAT takes much less energy than putting something into orbit. On the other hand, MEO and GEO satellites take a long time, many orbits, to interact with.. would even have enough time to summon ambassadors and ask questions.

For these "proliferated LEO constellations" an adversary just needs to punch a hole in the mesh immediately before launching an attack.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/space-based-missile-defense...

The fact is, putting HAWC-style interceptors in space (that could also of course be used offensively) hovering over every country on Earth, is incredibly aggressive and provocative. Everything is accelerated and mistakes will be made on both sides. It's fundamentally destabilizing (as the link above concludes). We've been down this road before and collectively decided its a terrible idea (Brilliant Pebbles). Helping SDA means furthering a dangerous future.
Build and operate a cloud city right above your head for a couple of years without incident before you try and sell the idea of doing it a few tens of millions of miles a year on a planet that if you don't do it perfect, you get to drift down and get incinerated.
LUKS isn't rocket science, you're looking at the wrong guides. using the TPM to encrypt a partition is a few commands on the shell.
Because there is no benefit of sending a human rather than a robot. The article disuses this at length.

This quote is a reasonable summary, I think.

"The crew will not live in a Martian pueblo, but something resembling a level 4 biocontainment facility. And even there, they’ll have to do their lab work remotely, the same way it’s done today, raising the question of what exactly the hundreds of billions of dollars we’re spending to get to Mars are buying us."
Looks like Filmora have moved from "pay the man to be quiet" to "copyright striks his very popular channel to force him offline".

Good stuff team. Streisand effect.
Take your local development experience to the next level with Dev Containers
I've published this article past month, and it provoked quite the heated discussion on r/programming at the time.

I also want to hear HN opinion on this. Thank you!
>And I've seen firsthand how just getting a _little_ bit wrong with your free vs. premium tiers can result in some significant and unforeseen infra charges.

Can you elaborate?
> The problem is that reducing spacex’s cost doesn’t reduce the customer’s cost…

SpaceX launches are way cheaper than competitors already. More competition would drive costs further down but it very much already exists.

A SpaceX launch costs 5% per kg of what a space shuttle launch cost. A 95% discount is pretty far away from “doesn’t reduce customers cost”.
In what way is automated food production a solved problem? Last I checked we still need plenty of humans to grow food.
I know it's super taboo to consider especially in the current climate but is it possible that people who have high self control are more likely to become rich because of their ability to delay gratification and that therefore those genes will be passed on to their children?
Please don't use HN for ideological flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I can see how cheaper and easier can be viewed as 'not a reason not to' but the crux of the issue is that robots will do a better job than humans anyways.

Why spend more money and effort to do something less effective?
In a true full-time AWD system when applying any power, there's half the torque which means there's more capacity for the tire to handle side loads from cornering/turning.

However, AWD in vehicles without traction control recovery from a slide is more difficult due to there being two different thrust vectors.
You mean Mechanical watches, not Analog ones. There are lots of Analog quartz watches with 15s/month accuracy.
> We need better battery technology, improved drugs and mental health, better power generation (such as nuclear fusion), and much more

how do you know that work on going to mars doesn't improve any of those?

And from another perspective, people like researching exciting things, and would prefer it over an unexciting field. Could you imagine someone being told to work on anti-hydroplaning for the onramp of a highway? Imagine talking about it to family/friends at a party.

But space exploration is fancy - people would want to listen to it, and you gain appreciation from them. But the outcome of the research is _still_ applicable to other fields.

So funding space exploration gets people excited, which would allow them to put more effort and soul into said research. You can't imagine how boring it is doing fundamental research otherwise.
Much as I value a Robyn Hitchcock reference, please don't troll on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, the capturing is done by the closure and as far as I know capturing by reference is pretty standard for closures across languages. The forking system just runs the closure in a thread, agnostic to any capturing details.
Given that there have been multiple mass extinction events in Earth’s history, it seems reasonable to spend a small fraction of GDP on colonizing another planet. How about something roughly equivalent to the amount we spend on chapstick?
Only problem is the Biden admin decided to ignore Congress and say nah, forget about that requirement, we'll get to it later. And if you lease the car, just forget about it completely.
No one has to use it if they don't want to. Keep your money in whatever currency you want or your wealth in art or precious metal
It's a trivial lower bound.

I mean, you could write it as "better to have X% units empty instead of lowering rents by Y%, given Y >= X + Z, where Z is positive number determined by several factors" if you like
There is also the issue that the average temperature on Mars is -60 celsius.

Keeping humans alive on Mars would require nuclear power sources much larger then any that have been flung into space so far.

If you are thinking of solar power then consider than the watts per square meter is about 40% of that on earth, that a big pile of batteries would be needed as well and how much work it would be to maintain a huge solar farm.
I disagree. Reading requires my full attention and dedication, while typing becomes almost an almost mechanical process very quickly.

With reading, I always find myself moving my eyes back a few sentences because I would think I missed some unimportant information, taking me a while before I actually got into it. Maybe it's just because technology hurt my attention span.
Last year I switched to the GWM5610 after a long search. It perfectly fit my needs - accurate all the time (syncs to atomic clock radio signals), never needs a charge (solar powered) and is indestructible. What more could a nerd want!
Reminds me of 2008 and that quote from the movie Margin Call.

And it's certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same.
The reason people want to colonize Mars is because it solves the problem of an extinction event on earth wiping out all of humanity (assuming the Mars colony eventually becomes self sustaining). Populating Antarctica doesn't solve that problem.

From what I can tell people are talking about two different things here. Group 1 is talking about how we prevent humans from going extinct in the long term by setting up a Mars colony. Group 2 is talking about doing something easier before we jump to something harder (Antarctica -> LEO -> Moon -> Mars). I don't know why these two groups always feel so at odds with each other online, as it seems like both philosophies end up in the same place.

Group 3 are the people who think we should save Earth INSTEAD of going to Mars, and I think they miss the point entirely.
Government spending dollars are zero sum, actually.
You don't go to Mars because it's easy. The biggest producer of technological advancements is pressure to solve hard problems. Not knowing is the whole point if you know how it's a worthless learning experience. It's always going to be hard to get a (the first?) human to Mars. It's 60 million of miles away. But one of the direct ways to solving this is to start working on them.

Plus Neil Degrassi Tyson has a great point on this in that robots can make discoveries and are low risk but they are way less inspiring. You know the Mars rovers names but the average person doesn't however the average person has a much higher chance of know Neil Armstrong because people inspire that.
For me the most concrete practical use of this kind of thinking is achieving "mind over matter" when dealing with physical pain. It seems to ease the emotional impact if you focus on the physical sensation of pain itself rather than the idea of pain, which carries so much more baggage that adds an extra dimension to the suffering that becomes counterproductive in non-survival scenarios like lifting heavy weight at the gym.
“They’d give her the finger. They swore at her and were generally rude.”

I couldn’t even imagine doing something like this. Even if I did, I would get slapped(20 years ago) and rightfully so. If you can’t respect the teachers, I’m not sure how well you’ll do in real life.
It's a quote from a song which satirizes this way of thinking.
If we discovered something quite valuable on the Balleny Islands, a viable colony would be established to exploit it very quickly.

Hard problems on Earth get solved regularly, but they only get solved when there is sufficient payback to justify the costs of finding those solutions.
Trump historically hasn’t been stupid, but that doesn’t mean much in the present. Age gets everyone and his frontal cortex doesn’t exactly seem in shape.

Beyond his usual behavior of believing the last thing anyone told him, when you let him in front of kids he tells them Santa isn’t real, he gave a bunch of Boy Scouts an unrehearsed speech mostly anecdotes about high society parties he went to as a kid in NYC… is that “smart”?

(Also, after he got hospitalized for covid, it was notable he kept bragging in public that he’d passed a dementia test.)
A lot of is my personal perspective on events, either things like travel or circumstances that have occurred to me which I thought were interesting. Below is a sample of an older newsletter about dentistry, a neighbor, and a long hike to Vancouver Island.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yerJQ3gLjUcahxyznkPHtwRQ...

I've been debating perhaps writing more of a public blog, but we'll see.
> You don't want to dictate the implementation, just the inputs and outputs

When programmers really embrace dependency injection like the parent comment, the implementation largely is the inputs, and your code expects them all to be implemented correctly (or mocked correctly by test code). I completely agree that mocks are overused, and their importance in 2008 were in my view a direct result of the popularity of dependency injection patterns.

Following that logic, the best way to remove mocks from your tests is to minimize dependency injection, relegating it all to a single place in the code wherever possible, and implementing all other domain logic as pure functions of input to output. How to test that code which touches other systems? Integration tests (or multi-system tests or whatever you like to call them).
I usually point out Paul Walker's gas Porsche bursting into flames immediately on impact, one of worst-looking EV crashes I've seen was Richard Hammond, who rolled down a hill in a questionably built car, but was still pulled out prior to the flames. Anecdotal, but gasoline cars on fire are basically bombs.
Any time I come across Fodor guides, I think of the old Carmen Sandiego games. They used to include a Fodor guide, and the copy protection would be questions like "what is the third word on page 96". They were always enjoyable to read in the same way Guiness World Record books were, to me.
NASA did a program/simulation of a Mars base on the Maura Loa volcano in Hawaii where they had a crew live for an extended period of time. There has been a lot of great writing about it as well as a good podcast (The Habitat)
> Trips will require fast chargers but people often stop for food or bathroom so there's an overlap in time

This right here. I'm no stranger to 6+-hour car rides, and my planning guideline has always been to assume 30 minutes of stops for every three hours driven. And even current battery and charging tech is good enough to satisfy that time budget.
Now build all that into a teddy bear.

First, though, read "I Always Do what Teddy Says", by Harry Harrison.
I have a CS degree from a top university and I didn’t learn any of the above in college (except for perhaps debugging), including an internship.

Actually 10 years later I’m a senior engineer at a FAANG (mobile specialty) and I still don’t know most of the things you listed. Except for debugging - I got that down!
Parenthood is the Matrix. Nobody can tell you what it is, you have to experience it for yourself.
This is an excellent defense of space exploration. But the point I make in the article is that we should stop identifying the project of sending people to Mars with space exploration. There are other ways to do it that lead to cooler spinoff technologies and better science.
Is Wlaschins still reasonable (readable?) if you're not an F# developer (yet?) - but are familiar with FP generally?
Drove from Houston to San Diego, using Electrify America chargers. My EV6 supports the fastest charging speeds, so most stops were less than 20 minutes.
If you're keeping all your savings in crypto, I don't think a fire is your biggest risk. /s

In all seriousness, I completely agree. I'm not in crypto and this is part of the reason. There would be a huge influx of people like me if there weren't such a risk of theft (by individuals or platforms).
You're saying that if I didn't regularly read technical materials after working hours, I'd have lost value after 10+ years of industry experience compared with my 25 year-old self?

It seems very narrow minded to think that newer technologies could be "read" by any classical understanding of the word. I mostly learn new tech by cloning github projects and tinkering with them; or pick some interesting subjects and follow whatever scattered pieces of documentation I could find. You're not going to catch any seasoned engineer reading Machine Learning for Dummies.

It would be a much more straightforward question if you just asked the candidates what they learned recently.
I think assuming any white guy living in Thailand is a sex tourist was pretty common up through the 2000s. It’s like the kind of joke you’d expect South Park to make.
Wild life have quite aware of self via mirror. They can see reflection in water and ice themselves, why human using mirrors to test?
> Let's figure out how to house and sustain, say, 20K people in Antarctica for 100 years before we even dream about doing the same on Mars.

Why? We established a colony there in the 50s and by now the population of Antarctica ranges from 1K to 5K people depending on the season. We could build nuclear reactors and mining facilities and indoor vertical farms and a whole bunch of other industry to make the continent self sufficient and import more people but... why? We really won't learn much more there than we can from the ISS agriculture experiments, McMurdo's existing research, how Saudi Arabia and the other rich states grow and survive in extreme environments, and so on. And you want to delay everything while we twiddle our thumbs for another century?

We need to aim higher to create the kind of cross disciplinary projects and environments that lead to real "innovation." We need to go into space - not Mars yet because there really is nothing to do there until we get our non-robotic space-footing closer to home - but we need to move on to a less pedestrian approach that pushes the boundaries.

We need near Earth asteroid mining to understand the complexities of resource extraction in space, we need lunar colonies to study the day to day realities/psychology/etc of space colonization, we need orbital manufacturing so we can start adapting the lessons and tools of the industrial revolution to zero-G and convection-less environments, we need to continue nuclear rocketry research to improve our ISP and get real SSTO to solve the recovery problem once and for all, and so on. We're not going to make any progress on those problems in Antarctica and Mars will always be two decades away just like fusion.
No, it could be saying "here's our humble contribution to the contest for the wildest and most absurd predictions." Which... yeah, if that's the intent, I'd say he did pretty well...
This argument comes up in these discussions quite frequently.

Yes, some of the research done for purpose A ends up being able to be re-used for purpose B.

It is not a compelling argument because:

1. We have no way of predicting how much or what technologies will be the useful ones or what they will be useful for

2. Any other scientific or engineering endeavor we do instead of sending humans into space, including a massive increase in building/sending robots into space, will have the same potential side effects
What's a situation where Earth is destroyed and Mars is habitable? It isn't climate change, since we could just use whatever Terraforming Magic Technology we used on Mars to fix Earth. It isn't an alien attack, since they'd notice us on Mars too. It isn't war, since landing people on Mars also means we could send weapons. What exactly are we solving for here?
Lessons from Tony Fadell
Buttercup[1] is a highly usable password manager that supports multiple storage backbends.

It has clients for desktop on Linux, Mac, and Windows, and it's got Apple and Android mobile clients. There's also a browser plugin. I've had a great experience so far.

I also use KeepassX, though it's a lot less usable / portable.

References:
1: https://buttercup.pw
There you go. I knew they Cayenne was fast, but it’s not exactly affordable.

I know my car, the Mach E, is one of the slowest. And it’s not terrible.

So it goes.

The bigger problem right now seems to be charger maintenance/reliability. But as more people use them and more stations get installed I’m hoping it will improve.
What was heated about it?
yes but colloquially we take 'inventor' to mean whoever invented it next after guass
Chicxulub.
I suppose the knives have come out to "debunk" the meaning of the word "depressingly."

Personally, I did the math on a Tesla purchase in 2020 given my own climate (very cold), driving patterns (90% high-efficiency highway driving), and energy mix. The end result was somewhere between 50k-100k miles to break even compared to a small, fuel-efficient Honda.

Keep in mind that a Tesla is a comparatively big car, and if you don't want to haul around that much car, you don't have to - estimates in the literature tend to compare cars of a similar "class," when your personal alternatives may be outside that class.

Also, the Reuters folks (and the EPA) are a bit optimistic and fall on the low end of published estimates I have seen for the carbon footprints of electric cars.

However, keep in mind that there's a huge variance here and many of the factors swing both ways: comparing a Tesla model X to a Honda pilot in SoCal (warm climate and tons of green energy) for a commuter (mostly city driving in traffic) may break even at 5000 miles or less.
So how do you go about reading these articles?

Looks like its behind a paywall that does a server check before letting you read more than the title and that appears to be based on IP.

I haven't read a Reuters article in years, and yet it still pops up with the you have 0 reads available for the month. Probably because my ISP (as most) rotate their IPv4 addresses.

I'd appreciate if anyone could tell me how I can see this news article. I shouldn't have to sign up to read public news.
Being in an address book or on a flight is not going to be able to convict anyone.

The large number of CDs and hard drives recovered from the 2019 raid on his New York apartment seems a much more likely source of usable evidence.
Blogging/Authoring functionality needs to be built into the browser, as per the original vision for hypertext transfer.

Browsers becoming read-only reduced web authoring to those that had the time and the means to learn HTML. Of course by 2005 blog software was common, so blogging was available to anyone who was computer literate.

18 years on, we are at another inflexion point now. At least a billion more people have been onboarded to the internet since 2005, and their first device was a smartphone. Computer literacy works entirely differently between the generation that grew up with mice and keyboards, and those that grew up with the peripheral-free UI of touch OSes. We could look under the hood of our computers, and often had no other choice. Smartphones on the other hand are so locked down, people can't even access a developer console on a browser.
> dangerous thoughts

It's getting awful tough to separate the serious from the satire nowadays.
You're still being just a 4chan troll. It's the classic "touch grass" response whenever someone calls them on their games.

These words aren't for you, it's for others who read it so they can see the obvious patterns.

The troll playbook is thin.
>the usual janky, smudgy, sometimes nightmare-inducing details

I usually don't notice those. It's only when someone mentions it.
Mars is more habitable than Earth would be during an extinction event. After the event the wiped out Earth would certainly be more habitable, but if there aren't any humans available to repopulate...
The most exciting news about C++ would not be added features, but removed features. That is what everyone in their heart is waiting for.
Yeah that sneak edit was real nice.
> Thing is, we do know what humans need. We need better battery technology, improved drugs

You just demonstrated that you don't know - we dont need batteries spesifically, we need zero carbon power for vehicles, which can be done by fuel cells or plutonium or maybe something we haven't considered.

Same way before you would have asked for a faster oven, because you didn't even know a microwave is a possible concept

Research is not a restraurant menu, you dont get to choose what you will discover and how much it will cost
The government's $80 billion dollar extreme sports program.