skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not a fan of nudity in serious film or stage. There is no way to not be upstaged by your own body. No matter how well you portray your character, the audience is aware that they are looking at the actor's body, not the characters.

This scene in particular had been staged for hundreds of years without nudity. Yes, nudity is "true" to the scene, but it's inevitably going to disrupt the scene as well. Whatever you gain from visualizing the characters being naked and vulnerable to each other is lost by the fourth-wall breaking of naked actors.

There are scenes where that vulnerability is necessary to tell the story, but you have to ask whether that story is really worth telling. It may simply not be possible to tell the story you want to tell. Perhaps you want to do it with animation. Or you want to trot out the Hollywood L-shaped sheets -- the ones that are longer on the woman's side than on the man's. They're also distracting, but not as distracting as the audience wondering if they're allowed to be looking at a 16-year-old's breasts instead of listening to some of the greatest dialogue ever written.

It reminds me of the risks we take doing combat. If the audience is worried for my safety, then they're not watching the show. On stage, we deliberately avoid things that look too dangerous, even if they're safe, because I don't want the audience thinking about me. There are shows in which the combat is a deliberately stylized athletic event, and the audience is there to admire the athletic skill rather than the story, but this is a deliberate choice and incorporated into the overall entertainment.

Any nudity -- any romantic scene -- is inherently risky. Actors have been abused for decades, and they're starting to fight back. It's not that they don't do it, but they talk about it beforehand, and deliberately seek to make actors feel they can speak out when they're not comfortable.

This is on my mind right now: I've got an intimate scene to rehearse tonight. It's not much; it's likely just a kiss. I'm fairly certain my scene partner will feel safe with anything the director is likely to want from us. But it's important that we're making time for this and ensuring that it's OK, because for some people it isn't.

Reading the article, in which minors were rushed into a scene at the last minute despite promises otherwise -- that is the reason we have an intimacy choreographer helping us tonight.
It does, and it feels quite high effort to maintain. I'd rather simply disengage and find something else to do. The plus side of all this BS is it might force me back toward more interesting and worthwhile pasttimes than just bingewatching TV shows and films. From that point of view, I suppose, long may the suck multiplication continue.
Doesnt the fact that the Indian antitrust watchdog was able to copy-paste stuff from the EU ruling that Google is unable to present a compelling defense against only serve to strengthen the watchdog's claims?
Would now be a good time to buy Amazon stock? As others have noted on HN, this "recession" seems to exist mostly just in pplz heads
Musk said in a Q&A recently that Tesla will need to start its own mining and refining ops to support battery production

https://youtu.be/KeEmVxMFM4Q?t=3063
It's not really an investment as much as money laundering scheme which tend to be 'unprofitable on paper'.
I wouldn't call that "obvious".

For starters, it's incomplete. Yes, "some" people think humor itself is offensive. I would wager that there have always been some people like that, since humor itself was invented. How does that relate to what happened to Stack Overflow?

To make your answer complete, you have to connect the remaining dots, and there are multiple ways to do that. Thing is, none of those ways are "obvious".

For example, you could posit that the majority of people find humor offensive today, as opposed to 2014, but I don't see any evidence that's even true, much less obvious.

More likely, you're implying that the majority of people who have influence over Stack Overflow's tone consider the humor itself offensive. If that's obvious to you, it sure isn't to me.
That timeline correlates well with the corporatization of academic research timeline, which got started in the late 1970s, boomed in the 1980s and has steadily risen ever since. The emphasis in applied science is now on patents and return-on-investment, aka safe bets. This is certainly the direction that much of NIH fundings, as well as DOE funding, has taken. Part of this is that entrenched industries (natural gas and coal power, say), don't want federal funding going to disruptive competition (monocrystalline silicon PV development, say). This is reflected in how federal funds are distributed as well as what research programs are supported at the university level. For example, count the number of renewable energy departments in the USA academic system: miniscule funding -> no programs.

It can't all be blamed on corporatization, however. The control of funding agencies at the federal level by vested interests seems to be a major problem, i.e. innovative lines of research that threaten the status quo could threaten those cabals that control fund disbursement, so such efforts don't get funded. The stagnation of Alzheimer's research and the focus on the amyloid hypothesis seems to fall into this category. This kind of bureaucratic ossification is not new; the classic example is how Trofim Lysenko in the Soviet Union controlled the direction of agricultural research for about three decades, much to the detriment of the understanding of plant genetics and crop development research in the USSR over that period.

So it can be attributed to the rise of monopolistic corporatization on university campuses on one hand, and the growth of entrenched bureaucracies at the federal funding level on the other. Neither group wants the rug pulled out from under them by 'disruptive innovation'. There are many historical antecedents for this kind of situation, incidentally.
I use exactly two approaches. First is I buy movies (and sometimes TV shows) on iTunes. Second, I do pirate. But for me, I only pirate when the movie I'm looking for is not available. The moment I can buy it on iTunes, I do, and ditch the pirated copy that I have. So for me it is entirely about availability. And before anyone says that if I subscribed to a half dozen steaming services I'd have that availability, I'll say that most, if not all the movies that I have pirated are very obscure things that I have never seen on any service--Baby of Macon, Meet the Feebles, Underground, and (surprisingly) most recently Spider.
>I think Apple can make an even better car than Tesla if they build the hardware and software like their phones and computers.

OK but we don't even officially know if Apple is trying to make a car?

>The idea that Autopilot has some magic sauce that nobody else can replicate is laughable.

The idea that a very difficult, innovative software problem can't be just replicated by legacy auto manufacturers who lack software engineering expertise is not laughable at all. The legacy auto manufacturers will really have to prove themselves here and so far they have not.
You're doing a lot of personal attacking and not much explaining.

How is what I said "nonsense"? Do you not see that if the government decides to zone your land as conservation so you can't build on it that is one sided? Or if they use eminent domain. Even if it's in the best interest of society it's certainly one sided for the affected individual. And if they decide not to comply, you can bet the punishments will be much harsher than a non-compete.

You see, in this example society and company can be largely interchangeable - a group of people imposing something on an individual. Yeah, sure, most of the time society is acting in everyone's best interest. However, you have to remember that isn't always the case, such as with salvery or segregation. There are still injustices today.

If you reread my original comment, I never said those activities were good or bad, merely that many of our laws have their historic roots in feudalism. In many cases, those activies can be applied to either good or bad ends. There are examples of eminent domain being abused, and others which have provided benefits to society and generously compensated the owners. The important tie in to feudalism is that in either case the government is the one who owns the land while the "owner" holds the title of deed. You can hold the land as long as you abide by the rule of the government. Violate that rule (not paying taxes, use it for committing criminal activity, violate zoning) and they can take that land back, fine you, imprison you, etc.
AMD Shows Instinct MI300 Exascale APU with 146B Transistors
Yes. I noticed as well that, in my case, if I don't have a pushy teacher I make little to no progress studying alone.
> Also, COBOL is probably the easiest language to learn, is mostly Just English. /s

FTFY.
His interest in Substack is more likely centred around controlling the public conversation in a more direct way than on Twitter.

On Twitter, Musk gets dunked on daily, as do his $8/month boosters, all of whom are at the top of the replies (hence creating a larger dunk attack vector).

Substack is more 'buttoned-down', everybody there is trying to be a "thought leader", so it already skews more "rich guys know better", even without considering all the conservative op-ed writers that have paid gigs there.
The digestive system is a tube. You have a continuous hole from your mouth to anus. The human body is a meat tube.
My first computer was an IBM EduQuest 486 SX/50 (https://www.ardent-tool.com/EduQuest/EduQuest_55.jpg) - great memories of taking that apart and learning about how things worked (glad my parents didn't know what was going on after spending $2000 on a computer for 'school work')
I think it's more that technologists tend to underestimate the social factors, edge cases, general "stickiness" of this stuff. We see the destination and think "ah, well the technical problems have been solved, we can all start using the new thing right now and it's clearly superior, as everyone can see, so surely that will happen very quickly"

When in reality there's,

- People who aren't convinced yet

- People who don't want to be convinced (because of comfort, hubris, or livelihood)

- Human processes and skills that have to be adapted to a new way of doing things

- Material cost of making those transitions, which has to be justified to those making decisions

- Ecosystem support

Etc etc
When I talk about referential transparency in the context of FP, it's honestly of no consequence to me what the history of the term in philosophy is (mind you, I still find it interesting -- I didn't know this and it was nice learning about it -- but it doesn't significantly change my understanding of the term in the context of FP).

Technical terms can be overloaded, I don't think this is either surprising or problematic. Astrophysicists classify carbon as a metal; they're not wrong, it's just a peculiarity of the field that's almost always clear from context.

In the context of FP, the term "referential transparency" means that variables can be replaced with their definitions, and vice versa, without changing the semantics of the program. The term coincides with pureness, but IMO it emphasizes something different. "Pureness" is a negative definition, it the property of there not being any side effects. "Referential transparency" to me indicates what you can do with that purity: it allows you to reason algebraically about your program.

> most languages without macros are referentially transparent

I don't think so. In most languages, you cannot syntactically replace a variable with its definition and expect the semantics of your program to remain unchanged. For instance, in Python, given the following shared prefix:

state = 0
def f():
nonlocal state
state += 1
return state

x = f()

The programs

x + x

and

f() + f()

do not yield the same result, which is what you'd expect if referential transparency holds.
I mean if you read the full quote:

> When synchronous is NORMAL (1), the SQLite database engine will still sync at the most critical moments, but less often than in FULL mode. There is a very small (though non-zero) chance that a power failure at just the wrong time could corrupt the database in journal_mode=DELETE on an older filesystem. WAL mode is safe from corruption with synchronous=NORMAL, and probably DELETE mode is safe too on modern filesystems. WAL mode is always consistent with synchronous=NORMAL, but WAL mode does lose durability. A transaction committed in WAL mode with synchronous=NORMAL might roll back following a power loss or system crash. Transactions are durable across application crashes regardless of the synchronous setting or journal mode. The synchronous=NORMAL setting is a good choice for most applications running in WAL mode.

It seems extremely reasonable to use WAL with synchronous=NORMAL
SEC intervenes on Binance US bid to buy assets of bankrupt crypto lender
As someone who has beat the market (S&P500) for the past 17 years, I agree that there is a problem with people not understanding markets/technologies. But a bigger issue is that A LOT of people are looking for short term gains. Just look at crypto, even the most serious/nonscammy people in the space believe it will take many years to reach it's true potential, but if you look that the message boards and twitter, they are full of people talking about daily/monthly or even hourly gains.

These people don't actually care if PLTR hits 500B in revenue in 2035, they just want their stock price to go up 10x this year.
this is being discussed here too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34256592
Since Russia has its very own clone of the American-operated GPS, I’m having a hard time believing they don’t have a massive stockpile of the parts required to use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS
I believe that the state should act prudently to promote and defend the common good. I'm not sure if that would be described as paternalistic under your definition, though I'm wary of arguing about words.

> Should we also ban sports cars, alcohol and trashy romance novels?

Vehicles are heavily regulated. Various safety standards are put in place, seat belts are required, and you have to provide identification in order to drive. A license is required to use a vehicle that you own, you often have to pay for insurance. This is all to use something that you own, pornography typically isn't even purchased and owned, I see no reason to avoid regulating it. Alcohol is also regulated heavily, you need to be 21 in the United States and provide identification, consumption is then restricted in various ways (public consumption, driving, etc). Is that paternalistic? I don't think so, I think there are reasonable regulations of such things, I think we should apply this to other harmful elements.
My standard poodle and I befriended a doe in the woods next to a nearby lake.

She was pretty bold to begin with. My poodle was of course very excited the first time we met, but she was also well behaved, and when I asked her to sit down and quiet down, she did. I sat next to her and the doe calmed down and browsed foliage gradually nearer and nearer, coming to within about ten or fifteen yards before we moved on.

We encountered her many more times over the next several years. I was able to recognize her because she had a distinctive deformity in one ear. My poodle always got quite excited, but also always remembered that the thing to do was to settle down and be patient and allow the deer to approach.

I never touched her, though she did eventually take to coming close enough that I or my dog could have touched her if we wished. The poodle was not always able to contain her excitement enough to keep from spooking the doe. She would sometimes make a frustrated sound or wriggle enough to spook the doe, and she'd be off, but would approach us again on our next visit.

One year she had two fawns. I thought it interesting that although the doe approached us calmly even with fawns, the fawns fled and hid when they saw us. Very sensible of them.

My poodle passed away about a year ago and I haven't been back to those woods to visit since.
FSD has missed, and will continue to miss delivery by much longer. Cybertruck is a child's drawing of a cool truck. Frito-Lay doesn't seem to believe the full load range for the Semi. <cough>Roadster</cough>. Teslabot? Any recent sightings?

Elon's "genius" is that he pushes companies to take bigger than normal risks. But then he gets lost in survivorship bias. Not an uncommon trajectory in business.
looks like its some form of Markdown
> I also doubt the quality of the optics in Russian satellites.

Uh, why? I can understand doubting the electronics in their satellites, but the mirrors? Why do you think Russia can't polish mirrors?
When a comment seems ridiculous, it's usually worth looking at the posting history to see if the account should be taken seriously.
AUTOMATIC1111's Stable Diffusion was banned for sharing NSFW embeddings
The buried lede of these is that they have asymmetric L3 cache. One CCD gets the 3D V-cache stacked on top, the other doesn't. That's almost certainly how AMD managed to solve the thermal and clock issues of the 5800X3D - they didn't. The 3D CCD will run hot (at low power) with lower clocks and the non-3D CCD is responsible for reaching the advertised boost clocks.

Note how the 7800X3D, a single CCD SKU, has an advertised maximum clock of 5 GHz, compared to the 5.6/5.7 of the two dual CCD SKUs (the 7700X below it advertises 5.4 GHz). Don't expect the 3D cached-cores to exceed 5 GHz on those other parts.

This means that the performance profile of the two CCDs is very different. Not "P vs E core" different, but still significant. If you run (most) games, you want to put all their threads on the first CCD. If you run (most other) lightly threaded workloads, you'd often want the other, non-3D CCD.

This seems like a rather significant scheduling nightmare to me.
HBO is removing many: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/westworld-hbo-max-the-never...

Apparently to make them available on other ad supported networks: https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/23513277/westworld-hbo-...
Yet I don’t have that problem with AirPlay even with my $40 Roku sticks.
> Most of them were probably manufactured in Asia just for american companies.

Again, do you have an actual source for this?
"scale" is a problem. It is not the same problem as "bad devs".

All the indicators point to "scale". Having worked in games for almost two decades and having seen anything from solo dev to teams of hundreds, and the growth in between, my experience leads me to say "scale" as well.

Do you have any indicators for the "bad devs" problem? So far, you're just stating it as if it were categorical truth.
This looks like a tool for generating images of underage cartoon children?

Even right now you can see some of the example images are generated with a hand on the breast through a bikini top.
Not sure which people you're referring to by "they", but if you mean me:

Internet porn is the exception because of privacy reasons. For some of those examples they don't store records (voting, buying alcohol, etc), and in the case where they do (gambling websites, renting) that's not something that's a huge privacy concern.

It's like the difference between having security cameras in a lobby vs a bathroom stall. They would both prevent crimes, but the invasion of privacy isn't worth it.
Yes, mostly.

Though I'm a bit curious what the links are, since I have been using their repo for a few months and don't recall ever seeing a link to actual porn. There was an external site that had a bunch of generated anime girls with the expected anatomical proportions.
Those numbers were from multiple business magazines not that long ago (well not as high as op above used but very high still)

eg:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2015/01/21/top-1...

> Women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchasing, through a combination of their buying power and influence. Influence means that even when a woman isn’t paying for something herself, she is often the influence or veto vote behind someone else’s purchase.

Also this https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy

> Women make the decision in the purchases of 94% of home furnishings…92% of vacations…91% of homes… 60% of automobiles…51% of consumer electronics
We get around this in part by not understanding (or at least remembering our understanding of) many of the basics. Such as this guy who looked things up in a textbook: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34236889

A bunch of blind people could theoretically construct a model of an elephant, if they work together well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
I wouldn't want to look at a printout of Revue's source code either.
Now and Then: The History of Portrait USA (2015)
The problem of procurement is about access to Lithium and Nickel ores. Telsa has a joint partnership with a Nickel mine in New Caledonia and rights on mining Lithium in Nevada. GM, Ford don't and there is a global shortage, so I don't see them succeeding in battery production long term. If they source batteries from Panasonic, they're buying an inferior battery. If they source from Tesla, that's obviously positive for Tesla.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56288781
I work in technical due diligence, but principally for private equity, who have a different priority from VC. They want to see healthy businesses over growth at all costs. I see lots of very successful small teams. I'm firmly convinced now after 60+ diligences that a small team of the best devs money can buy is the way to go, unless you are chasing VC money and need to show team growth for the optics.
No, they are lost forever... Humm... Wait I have an idea:

Prompt: How can entropy be reversed?

Reply: There is no single answer to this question as entropy is a thermodynamic property and therefore its reversal depends on the specific system under consideration. In general, however, entropy can be reversed by either increasing the temperature of the system (thus increasing the average kinetic energy of the particles) or by decreasing the volume of the system (thus increasing the number of collisions between particles).
How this code can enter the "if (0)" part?
I’ve been using Elm for over five years on personal projects, but it isn’t a replacement for Javascript as a language, just some client side projects and ones where its async ffi is sufficient.

I think you are falling into a trap of thinking there is a “best” in engineering when that’s basically never the case. Ask experienced developers why they prefer Javascript if you want to get a more nuanced view. I almost always reach for Javascript first, especially for server applications.
I think you mean, Google Mini's dominating -- Alexa speakers were the OG and they've just been slowly floundering in existence since who knows when.

Totally agree with the rest though.
Yowsa! Thanks for pointing this new hazard out! As someone who spends a fair amount of time on a bike in the city, I too depend on reading the body language of cars/drivers. You've given me something new and disturbing to think about...
A couple of hours of rabbit hole burrowing later, this has to be the most interesting thing on Hackernews in a very long time.
Lucid sold 6000 cars last year. They are going to go bankrupt in 2023 or at the very least, common shareholders are going to get wiped out by debtholders.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, https://goaccess.io is probably best for simple analytics on log files.

If you want to write more complicated queries, lnav exposes log data through SQLite vtables[1]. So, you can do a SQL query and get a simple bar chart visualization.

[1] - https://docs.lnav.org/en/latest/sqlext.html#sqlite-interface