skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> They provide insight to what some of the founders may have thought - but then there is reality which is what we have now.

The reality we have now is that the court has never functioned the way high school civics treatments of US government describe it. Its credibility is very important to its continued power and to our avoiding constitutional crises, which means that the popularity of its decisions and the perception that it's making fair, impartial rulings matter deeply. It is and always has been a political body, but its unique mix of weakly-accountable authoritarianism and impotence—designed that way on purpose, which is why I point you to Federalist 78 as a starting point—means it operates very differently from, expresses its political will differently than, and experiences the effects of politics differently from, the other two branches.

> That is simply not reality. It's populist, as-of late, due to some decisions that were unpopular but Constitutional.

As-of late? I've already pointed out that this has always been how it works. I'm not describing how I want it to work, I'm describing how it actually works. The court's reputation does matter. That's the only thing that keeps the other branches from ignoring it. If either party thinks they can get away with ignoring it and not lose seats, that's a terrifying place to be in as far as the health of the Republic, and that's not some idle concern. Members of government, founders, and members of the court have, variously, acknowledged this reality and acted accordingly.

> People are largely ignorant of government and the Constitution

I doubt I disagree with you about what the Constitution says on this matter, nor am I ignorant of it.
While this is true, it is also true that many people think "where there's smoke, there's fire".

Or, to put it another way, governments can make people disappear by publishing such lists and having the police be busy somewhere else when a mob happens.
> The conclusion on the mailing list was roughly: look, we're not here to find you guilty in a court of law, we're here to decide whether we trust you, and after all that we definitely don't.

They weren't untrusted just because of the behaviour. A really important dimension is that TrustCor certificates were only being used for very limited purpose. The actual decision is a a cost vs benefit analysis from the point of view of internet users. Because there's so little benefit, it takes only very little untrustworthiness before the best course of action is to distrust.
This isn't the first time Twitter has done this, 3rd party apps used to be massive maybe 10 years ago until they made an API policy change abruptly. IMO the ecosystem never fully recovered from this. One service I enjoyed was "FavStar" which would allow you to find the best/funniest tweets or reward people for tweeting something good.
Add that to the list of corporate doublespeak from Twitter, like ‘we don’t shadow ban’ or ‘we have no political bias’.
RPi2 is pokey enough that you really feel the limitations of the platform when you put Linux on it. Sure, you can run the kernel, but you are going to want to stop short of, say, any web browser that can function well on today’s web. Even a RPi4 isn’t a good daily driver for web browsing.

Part of the magic of these bare metal language environments is that you run against your own limits before you reach the limits of the hardware, especially in a hobby coding context. Linux makes it much easier to outstrip the CPU and RAM available in RPis.
The same happens in many developing nations.

The same happens in the US. We've just given authorities leeway to institutionalize stops and arrests and even convictions that would otherwise be considered illegal - especially if they were ever to be put under scrutiny and scrubbed of the blank check that is given to avoid gumming up the works with accountability. And these incidents do affect employability and eligibility for aid, at much lower levels than applying for a clearance or a visa. It's just something to keep in mind.
Excellent work nonetheless.
This is why we saw the huge push to https. Google developers being able to control who is allowed to issue a certificate might have worked well in 2004 but not now.
RSS? We had it until everyone ceded control to Google because it was convenient.
<Shrug>
the thread in question: https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/g/dev-security-polic...

really quite amazing to read

the whataboutism starts about 50% of the way down
Same way you learn nouns in German.

(Die/der/das are genders).
It's been a long time since I read 1984 but I thought everyone was generally impoverished. Like not starving but no real luxuries.
Stay away from windows, shards of glass flying at high speeds are a big factor in indoor deaths from blasts. Many embassies have breathable curtains with weights on the bottom, to catch any glass while letting air pass through
The release 3.0 is unusable on windows. When running pandoc —version, it spawns off many instances and won’t return the value. Anyone has encountered such an issue?
They can’t. The App Store head never had any mechanism for developers to initiate refunds in any way, let alone partial refunds.

You’re raging against these guys for not doing something that they have no ability to do. Hardly fair.
People are the product. If they are using the third-party apps they are producing content on the platform for others to engage with, which drives traffic to the site and allows for delivery of ads to others.
I think the final claim is amusing and thought provoking, but maybe not actually true: getting hellbanned by browsers is extremely visible, and I don’t think merely being critical of Google (even in disparaging language) would result in them risking their appearance of impartiality.
From the accompanying (and linked) Daily Dot article[1]:

> On the list were several notable figures, including the recently freed Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, alongside over 16 potential aliases for him.

> [...]

> Numerous names included aliases that were common misspellings or slightly altered versions of their names.

For non-natively-Latin names, the US government is thorough to the point of hilarity in including every possible romanization and misspelling of one, and they list full names not their individual parts so combinatorics ahoy, as well. For example, if you know a bit of any Slavic language written in Cyrillic, browse the Russian sanction lists, it’s going to give you a chuckle.

In all seriousness, this actually makes perfect sense given the prospective consumers of the lists may not have any clue about the languages the targeted people speak. It’s just that the article makes 16 aliases sound vaguely sinister, whereas if you’re a Russian—or, for that matter, a Ukrainian or a Belarusian—that’s just a reasonably low estimate for how many romanizations of your name people may think up. (Not that Bout isn’t sinister as hell.)

[1] https://www.dailydot.com/debug/no-fly-list-us-tsa-unprotecte...
I don't understand the argument. Imply without data that 90% of a mailing list works for Google, and further imply that their involvement with an open standard is actually a ploy to secretly benefit their advertising business?

That doesn't seem very much like a "high road" to me.
"this is the largest group of people ever assembled in one place, the important thing you've proven to the world is that half-a-million kids can get together and have 3 days of fun and music, and have nothing but fun and music"

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young ~ Wooden Ships (Woodstock 1969)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr_7SBGDqBo
>All it did was reflect poorly on Australia

I'm not Australian, but did follow the story with some interest as I do like professional tennis.

I thought it reflected much more poorly on Djokovic than on Australia. They set the visa rules, Djokovic violated those rules (and not subtly either).

It was too bad that he was unable to play at the AO last year, but that was (AFAIK) specifically due to his actions in violation of Australian law.

Those actions being lying on visa forms. And he did so regarding something that could be easily checked and confirmed/debunked.

Had he not lied, he probably would have gotten his visa.
> This sounds great. Your VCS should fade into the background, rather than be front and center like git...Teams shouldn't be bikeshedding on merge vs rebase, many commits vs one commit, etc. They should just be coding.

you're being too hard on git. large teams sharing code in previous SCCS rcs's (haha) would frequently encounter locks and not be able to "just code" but would need to negotiate with teammates or complain to committees. The features of git allow you to "just code" in a group environment, but it moves conflicts to a different link in the chain. The interplay between changes sprinkled across a codebase need to be negotiated in any system, but git generally allows you to "just code" till it makes sense or is convenient to negotiate
Well said. Too often people say don’t build on others, but you always have to build on top of existing things. What you don’t want is to be building on something that you don’t have a contractual relationship with. Even better is if it’s clear how you both win financially or otherwise.
The network of streetcars and buses in the US hasn't been dismantled yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
Having followed these people for quite a number of years, it would surprise me if that’s the case. They seem to just want to move past this whole thing and not drag it out with a lawsuit, hence discontinuing the app.
Right, secret management schemes do have a tendency to feel like ‘but wait, who holds the keys to get hold of the key?’ - it has to be turtles all the way down, right?

Except it turns out not. Secret issuance schemes like this let you move trust boundaries around, they don’t absolutely require all powerful admin systems to exist, and they also let you layer secret schemes on top of more robust trust relationship systems like IAM.

One common pattern is that higher trust ‘control plane’ systems create ephemeral lower trust process instances (eg for autoscaling) - and so patterns like this allow those control planes to bootstrap the child systems with their own unique, cheap, minimally permissioned credentials.

Yes the control plane is a juicier higher priv target. But that’s already the case.
Not nearly as rarefied as many of the books cited here, for me it was John Saxon's excellent Algebra 1/2, Algebra 1, and Algebra 2. I didn't get a good enough grasp on basic Algebra in high-school. When I was in my early–mid 20s, a friend gave me these three algebra textbooks. In a marathon session lasting about two weeks, I went through all three books from end-to-end and really learned algebra. For whatever reasons, the Saxon books worked really well for me — better than any other learning I have ever gotten from a textbook. Although I was very motivated, I attribute a lot of my success learning algebra well to those three books. I still own them.
I love that the Superintendent's surname is Provost
I like writing commit messages. I find it helps me to think through and explain the change that I'm committing. personal quirk: for major commits I'll add fun ascii art, just as a treat
Why doesn't this post get more attention?
- Twitter could have turned the apps into a revenue opportunity (gate API access behind the paid Blue service for users, charge developers per user for API access)

- Twitter apps had the reputation at one point of being “UI playgrounds” — a good place for designers to experiment with different ideas around presentation of the feed; while Twitter didn’t directly benefit from it, these apps provided a massive amount of design iteration that enabled Twitter to steal the best ideas
Netflix’s Reed Hastings Will Cede Co-Chief Executive Role
Having worked with the same tech, I'd assume this is pretty inexpensive both to train and run. Probably in the low 1000s (maybe even mid 100s?) to train. knn search on 35k entries is pretty simple. The most expensive is probably the cross encoder (both to train and to run). Would also be interested to know
It's been a few years since I read the book but weren't there shortages of things as commonplace as boots? How are they going to have cars? (And they'll need rubber for the wheels, at least)
There's a scene with trucks:

"A long line of trucks, with wooden-faced guards armed with sub-machine
guns standing upright in each corner, was passing slowly down the street.
In the trucks little yellow men in shabby greenish uniforms were squatting,
jammed close together. Their sad, Mongolian faces gazed out over the sides
of the trucks utterly incurious. Occasionally when a truck jolted there
was a clank-clank of metal: all the prisoners were wearing leg-irons.
Truck-load after truck-load of the sad faces passed."

The reason there are no private cars in Orwell's dystopia is the same reason there are none in North Korea, for the same mix of ideological and economic factors.
It's the world's most useless and overrated cautionary tale about the future of Stalinist absurdism Orwell saw in the UK's future if Labour stayed in power. The man could write, that I grant you, but beyond a skillful prose style he's little of use to offer in general and especially here; Nineteen Eighty-four is not at all ahead of its time, but rather quite a bit behind it.

That said, it makes sense a Stalinist regime would permit its ordinary subjects neither the private ownership of property nor the liberty of physical movement embodied in having a car. As in the USSR, the nomenklatura would have limousines and drivers, and everyone else would take the train or walk.
Overpressure is no joke. That said the conclusions of the study encourage me to stand in front of a concrete wall as soon as I am aware of incoming ICBMs.

My sincere hope for my family and I in a mid-grade to all-out nuclear exchange is that we perish immediately. This would spare us exposure to subsequent famine and the loss of things like acetaminophen and central heating, not to mention civil society.

I do not subscribe to nuclear winter scare-theory. My greater concern is that the petrochemical supply and complex chemical chain will be largely destroyed in any kind of a material nuclear exchange. Without fossil fuel subsidies for agriculture mass starvation is certain.
To quote her home page "hello i am maia arson crimew (it/she)"
There are various approached you could take; CSS transition/animation, d3,...

Here is a quick dirty example of shuffling using CSS transition [1] on the left offset.
https://jsfiddle.net/h2urfsjb/

It puts each character of a word in its own absolutely positioned span tag and maps its left offset.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Transit...
Every OS has plenty of Assembly on them, even those written in C.

They never got the UNIX bug really, even with the reverse acquisition from NeXT, or the way A/UX was implemented, Steve Jobs opinion on traditional UNIXes is well known in the Apple community as there some infos on his USENIX session, and NeXTSTEP brainstorming sessions.
> You literally wrote a one sentence comment that compares a decision for website owners to choose between not using GA and convincing their government not to clamp down on law enforcement search powers.

Right, and note what I didn't say:

- Whether or not those things are a dichotomy or otherwise mutually exclusive

- Whether or not those things encompass the complete set of privacy violations or the mitigations thereof

Your assumption that I've made or even implied answers to either of those within the words "it's much easier to not use Google Analytics than it is to convince your government to clamp down on law enforcement search powers" - and then arguing against that assumption - is where you're putting words in my mouth. It's also what makes you accusing me of bad-faith argumentation or a lack of critical thinking or context hilariously ironic.

There's nothing for me to "walk back". You blew up at me for merely suggesting that businesses which should be valuing their customers' privacy can take very easy steps to actually signal that. Whether or not they're siphoning a bunch of data to third parties is a rather strong signal of whether or not they take their customers' privacy seriously, and the fact that you are not only incapable of understanding that concept but feel compelled to resort to unwarranted hostility and personal attacks in response to it speaks volumes.

> GA is completely orthogonal to the entire discussion.

GA is literally the context of the discussion. Just because there are other ways for others to violate your customers' privacy doesn't mean it's okay to willingly and deliberately violate your customers' privacy yourself. That you not only fail to understand this but are needlessly hostile to those who do understand this speaks volumes.

If you'd like to have an actually intelligent and civil discussion instead of angrily flinging insults at me, I'd be happy to oblige. Until then, have a nice day - hopefully better than whatever tragedy you're choosing to take out on me.
Though I don’t like the idea of it, I’m also not certain that I know better than people whose careers are in national defence. I’m not convinced that it’s a black and white thing. There are bad actors out there, and sometimes it’s clearly advantageous to hide information from them, which means hiding it from everyone.

Maybe there are reasons this is short sighted or I’m missing a greater point. I’d be interested to hear ideas in any case.
>>Remember the gatekeeper is now [...] unemployed [...] who "know lot's of things about cyber security" according to [its] main page. Seems likely a competent bad actor could easily impersonate a well-meaning reporter...

...and it has a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maia_arson_crimew), and has demonstrated in other cases (cf. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/feelyou-mental-health-app-dat...) that it has at least a reasonable grasp on what to leak and what not to leak.
And incidentally some of it is entirely illegal but sense she is already facing extradition for a federal indictment - in for a penny, in for a pound.
Yes, it came from there.
My point is that even the original financial times article did not seem to cite sources as to the fact that Thiel sold his bitcoin in the middle of 2022.
PTAs are primarily/only a thing in grade school.
"Not everybody is like me" would be the number 1, number 2 and number 3 advice I would give to anyone who's trying to start an online business. Like in a "How about you do that as a mantra for 10 hours a day" kind of way, because it's truly astonishing how many people don't get that.

So if you want to cut costs on sales and marketing in your startup, internalize that, because customer acquisition costs are directly related to your not understanding of that principle.

Good thing such a high profile influencer will hammer that point home!
My eyes glossed over those, good catch.
The earliest i94 I could find is from perhaps 2004 [1], and it doesn’t ask about membership of a communist party. It’s funny, I feel like I remember answering that question, and my first trip was 2002. it’s not an easy thing to search for nowadays when Google doesn’t quite work anymore and the old web is very hidden.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040708201659/http://immihelp.c...
Yeah, the Switch never happened.
If someone was on a no fly list and they wanted the general public to know, they could just put it out there themselves. No? This seems more likely to be used as a form of public shaming than a way to expose injustice.
I think you may not be reading the parent comment correctly. They're saying that those on the list have a right to privacy, therefore outright leaking the list is wrong. Being able to find out whether or not you are on the list is not incompatible with maintaining others' right to privacy.
it doesnt touch on the "infinite context in theory and very short context in reality" piece which is what i was asking about
Right, everything in the book is shoddy and second-rate. Access to high-quality luxuries like good tobacco and coffee is reserved for the Inner Party and is a major perk of membership.
some sort of quasi-fascist screed by a Futurist artist or writer from the 30s about a marvelous "race-automobile" or something

Yep that sounds exactly like the Futurist movement[0]. It basically was Fascist (or at least, intentionally intended to be highly compatible with Fascism). Fillipo Marinetti wrote both the Manifesto of Futurism and the Fadcist Manifesto and wanted Futurism to be the official art style of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy (though Mussolini really didn’t care much for art in general and Fascist Germany was far more interested in “traditional” German and “classical” art than Futurism). The Futurist Manifesto states:

“We affirm that the beauty of the world has been enriched by a new form of beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing car . . . is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.”

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism
Thanks for this submission. I hadn't seen it. A somewhat-related recent study is this National Academies report on simulation-guided discovery systems:

https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/realizing-opportu...

OP is a long read and suffers from being something of a catalog of promising ideas -- so it's hard to digest. But from all the examples given, you do get the feeling there's something really powerful and new coming into being that combines the large datasets you can obtain from simulation with machine learning/stats tools to build models, find posteriors, etc.

In science applications of remote sensing, my group at NASA/JPL has obtained huge speedups from replacing computationally-expensive physics-based forward models with emulators based on ANNs or GPs. In terms of OP, this is "Motif 2" (surrogates/emulators) combined with fitting based on "Motif 7" (differentiable programming).

You build a training set using selected runs of the physics-based forward model, and train an emulator that links (say) at-sensor radiances with ground or atmosphere conditions. Roughly a 400-variable to 400-variable function emulator.

Then you use the emulator for (say) each 30m x 30m pixel of a global satellite dataset, instead of running the forward model for each such pixel. Replacing the expensive forward model can reduce workload for a NASA science mission by factors of 10 or more.

This capability really didn't exist 10 years ago, even though a lot of the algorithms were almost there, and the computational capacity was almost there. It's some kind of capacity-building thing where you have to have competence across several kinds of "data science" in order to make a system that's effective.
If you wanna experience the other way around, work with normal people using computers.

They usually struggle and get by through habits but they understand nothing (which is normal, computers are anti-pedagogic), while developers can see through the fabric. Things that are obvious for us are non existant or merely a huge stack of blurry artefacts with no clear order.
Here's an indictment from 2019 for similar activities. It's a crime in the U.S., thus prosecutable in the U.S. The question is whether Swiss authorities cooperate, not the jurisdiction.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/swiss-hacker-indicted-c...
Relatively off-topic, but I absolutely love the 90s/early 2000s vibes I get from this. I can't remember the last time I saw a webring, much less one with animated logos.
I saw that too and I highly doubt Google bought the company for their SuperPoke routine but rather for their suite of products like the Pets and the data that comes along with it. Those 3 API calls may have put them on the map but that's probably not what made them valuable.
Markovian Model
The plan to follow the OS/2 footsteps, turned out great.