skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You should take care of yourself. If you are in a vehicle or crime accident, good luck with justice.

How do you want to prove anything?

I have seen it in the case of accidents. If there is no well portioned camera, you can’t say much. Even if there is one, it can still be difficult to prove someone’s fault. In most cases the evidence is weak. And if you succeed, there could be some hurdles for the other side but nothing will replace your health.
Harari seems to really like the flip in perspective of the “selfish” gene and has applied that to every situation. Some patterns are effective and used widely; I’m not sure it’s always very relevant to apply the idea of selfish preservation or evolution to it. Not when there’s a social construct around it, at least.
A C64 in 1983 cost the equivalent of ~$900 today.
Thank you! I messed the wording, and now I thought twice on what's best to say at that bullet, and I decided to rephrase it completely:

4. Skim through [Toby W. Rush's overview](https://tobyrush.com/theorypages/pdf/en-us/the-whole-enchila...) to see how many moving parts does a classical theory have

His guide is great!
There is a conda app that can be installed on macos
Oh nice, iirc it used to only have the smaller models there. Thanks for the pointer.
I would argue there are enough companies that have continued creating these cash cow chemicals even after there was sufficient evidence of substantial harm that additional testing would be useless, except to class action lawsuit plaintiffs to prove what the defendants already know.

Movies that cover this topic: Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, Dark Waters. More recently the talc powder lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.

Hell, the Bay Area is littered with EPA Superfund Sites where all of the old chipmakers and their suppliers were. Good luck to Chandler, AZ (where the new American chip fans are being built). I hope you learn at least a little something from the SF peninsula’s mistakes of the 1960s-1990s.

A former naval base in my area has been decommissioned for years but still hasn’t cleaned up the firefighting chemical runoff that has seeped into the ground. Sometimes there simply isn’t a healthier substitute for a chemical or there is no legal method to prevent an organization from screwing up the environment (good luck suing the Navy for something they did 50 years ago before the harm was known).

I would agree that better testing and health trials could have identified these health risks before the companies started using these chemicals, but companies don’t have emotions or ethics. They are sociopaths seeking maximum returns and will turn a blind eye (or worse) if their profits are threatened. There is a ton of motivated reasoning within and around companies that produce and use harmful chemicals, especially if they are the only industry in a region.
He confirmed that he provided texts to the singers and coached them in singing them, but said he filed the texts away and then lost them.
Citizenship maybe not. But amplifying russian propaganda and lies changes it significantly.
I suggest not to do it. It is really painful in the orchestra when the orchestra has gotten sharper than what you are comfortable with and you have to play a minor third. I remember playing Mahler 2. The hall was hot as hell and the orchestra had risen from A441 to what must have been A445. I had to play a major sixth and it was borderline revolting.

I stopped practicing it after some experiences like that. Knowing what note to play by some absolute measure is only useful if you are playing alone. What you play in an ensemble is relative to a lot of other people.
YoutUbe?
Are you sure it was about this ticket? This ticket only starts on 1 May.
I think it is important to understand Harari's rhetorical style. He likes to "flip the script", tell long stories (without necessarily dotting every i) and end in a punchline.

So, for example, in his book _Sapiens_ he got a warm reception to a "zinger": Humans did not tame wheat - wheat tamed humans! It's essentially a "punch line" to a long, analytical story he develops. There are several other such punch lines in that book.

So, when he concludes AI has done anything, keep in mind that he thinks that because we are (mostly) addicted to carbohydrates and this is not great for our lifestyle that a plant with no ability to cognate has "tamed" our species.

A funnier example of this is a Usenix Keynote delivered by Van Jacobson in - I think 1996. He tells an involved story about language acquisition in humans and Unix and networks and ends with a "conclusion" that using Windows makes you literally brain damaged. I wish I could find an online video of that talk, if anyone knows of one. (I'm not sure it was even recorded.)
Julian assange is a hypocritical scam artist - says a bunch of nice sounding words about democracy, abuse of power and war and yet his actions, speaking louder than words, increased all of those.
> Storytelling computers will change the course of human history

I realize that everyone thinks this is now THE moment, but I remember reading niche stories about this or that storytelling program changing the world back in 1994. Not much has changed, although the stories are more realistic and the teller seems to pass the Turing test. Fine, but let’s get to work solving real world problems that have been festering unabated for centuries. Still waiting.
just don't use passwords :)

using decent cryptography correctly, you've just made the problem nearly untractable compared to brute force passwords (which also should be doing things like delays etc.)
Yes, I’ve watched a bunch of them since I first saw one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3eFHyryopQ) a few weeks ago looking for TempleOS material.

It’s my favourite stream at the moment.
One thing all these comments bringing up "so are CDs" miss is the open physicality of vinyl. The above poster is talking about mixing vinyl records, which with CDs all becomes digital. With vinyl, you're physically placing a needle on top of a section of the disc, changing the physical speed of the rotations, etc.
> It's actually probably worse to rock the boat and try to save a failing project, not only do you take it on yourself if it fails (which it likely will anyway, because they won't listen/the project is too far gone) but even if it succeeds you've stuck your head up and shown yourself to not be a yes-man.

This is really bad career advice. There are certain situations where it makes sense to rock the boat, situations where it doesn't matter, and situations where it'll fuck you over

This rule that you've come up with seems really overgeneralized. If I disagree with someone or someone disagrees with me, we reach consensus. If someone disagrees with me instead of just nodding at everything, it makes it easier to form a mental picture of what that person actually knows. Someone who just agrees with everything has something to hide

This type of attitude is self perpetuating and creates an unproductive and political work culture
Social media is still causing issues and the issues are caused by AI / recommendation algorithms ?
Ask HN: What is Substack doing with HN data?
After I posted a link to my website to HN I noticed this in my logs:

44.195.67.189 - - [30/Apr/2023:20:38:44 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 11321 "-" "SubstackContentFetch/1.0 (https://substack.com/)"

I've never seen this before.
That only works if you have some way to justify it to begin with and is rather transphobic to make other people the sole arbiters of one's identity.
"We can't even say 'Merry Christmas ' anymore" is not persecution.

Especially when it's other Christians who popularized "Happy Holidays" as they felt Christmas was being overly commercialized.
> All "orbits" are in reality, spirals. Away, or toward things they're orbiting.

What are you basing this on? In Newtonian gravity, which is the model used by the article in question, it's false.
> I suppose the fancy business with printf is flexing, but I suspect the majority of people scanning documents like this would prefer to have examples with echo "${variable%%string_modifier}"

POSIX itself contains some interesting notes about `echo` and `printf`, e.g. from the `printf` page:

"The printf utility was added to provide functionality that has historically been provided by echo. However, due to irreconcilable differences in the various versions of echo extant, the version has few special features, leaving those to this new printf utility, which is based on one in the Ninth Edition system."

The behaviour of `echo` is especially inconsistent for escape sequences. Often, `echo -e` is used to enable escape sequences for it but this is not POSIX compliant.

For any "standards-perferring" shell scripting pages I'd thus think `printf` is the right way to present it if only to advertise that this builtin exists.

> should likely be done with external tools just because people understand "oh, awk or sed -- I know this!" instead of "what the hell is this line noise?"

I am not actually sure about this "I know this" part. I think many users of AWK only ever use it to do some sort of "access the n-th column of input" as in `echo a b c | awk '{ print $2 }'`. Similar for `sed` which is often only known and used for "replace string a by string b in input" use cases.

> If you're writing performance optimized shell, well, probably put the keyboard down

There is some difference between performance optimized and "hugely inefficient" that can make the difference between a task taking minutes vs. a few seconds. It may not seem much but shell scripts are often integrated into automated processes (think of build environments or system startup tasks) and there, seconds quickly accumulate. Whether this is relevant to your use case, only you can know.

I found this "Pure Sh Bible" to be highly interesting, but there are some places where it has some rough edges and it may not show the "best practices" for standard use cases. Still a very useful resource.
Great but personally I am interested in locally runnable LLM models instead of sending data to the cloud service like chatGPT.
That's still by chance.
I was on the jury for a simple drunk driving case where the cop, the only witness testifying, with no other evidence presented, was caught lying about being "run off the road." Lost a lot of faith in mankind that day.
That article doesn’t mention any number, and I was curious how that compared to suicides and road deaths. There are 7.8 homicides per 100,000 people, so about 26k per year. That’s staggering.

There were 46,412 suicides among adults in 2021.

37,461 people were killed on the roads. Given how frequent are hit-and-runs with accidents, I expected it to be more common in deadly situations, but it seems to be the opposite: 2,049 fatalities that resulted from hit-and-run crashes in 2016.

Finally, in 2021, a record 106,699 lives were lost to overdoses.
It seemed cool to twitter people. But to normal people it didn’t matter.

I never heard anyone talk about their blue check mark who didn’t sound like a tool.

I don’t need a blue check mark to know who the real Howard Stern is. I think the old blue check mark was a way for non-famous people to pretend they are as famous as famous people because they both had a blue check.

People should not trust an old blue check mark because it just meant that someone at twitter thought the person was reputable, but that’s not very useful. The new blue check isn’t that great either as all it means is someone paid $8. So at least they can be sued because they have an identity paying somewhere, or are more likely to be sued.
Usually because of lack of resources, perhaps. But that's not what's happening here with cops. It's deliberate.
As a ML engineer / back end type of dev, I really like the idea that I can build everything in Python. Really tempted to buy it but I am a bit scared about support.

Can you share what's the plan? I buy it now, do I get updates? What happens if you stop working on it?
How do I make sure the code is of "high-quality" and not glued together?
Another thing that's different is the concentration of compute within a few big vendors like AWS, Azure, GCP. That makes it easier to introduce new server chips, as you don't have to convince as many different customers. And the big 3 can abstract away some of the work.
Yes because the US allows drug companies to charge outrageous prices for drugs that they then sell to other countries cheaply.

Opposite anecdote as far as the EU. They are the first to regulate tech and no major tech company has come out of Europe.
I think it detects a couple things:

1. Are you internally motivated and excited by coding? Lots of false negative potential, but if you did code early and kept with it then that's a good sign. But with all the STEM education and stuff now, I wouldn't necessarily trust that. I.e., this signal quality is falling.

2. Were you able to progress independently? Children tend to be less supported, including less supported by their own discipline, so there's some indication that early success implies some kind of natural talent. But it only really matters if you get some sense of what they mean by "started coding". It would be classic imposter syndrome for some groups of people to set a higher bar for "starting".

3. Did you have access? Help, equipment, someone to guide you in a direction that would be fun and motivating? We'd all like to think this is a false signal, but the challenge of privilege is that it might not be: privilege is often used to nurture actual skill and talent. That is even expected of parents! But it's also a problematic metric of course.

If the question was useless then we wouldn't be having this conversation. That it's useful but problematic puts us in a jam. But it's also easy not to ask, and to put in the work to get the signals you care about with a less problematic question.
Chernobyl safety -> "During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces subsequently captured Chernobyl. While there is an increase in radiation in the area, this is due to Russian forces disturbing the soil in the Red Forest and releasing radioactive dust and not from the reactor 4 itself. The New Safe Confinement is reportedly unharmed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement...

Atmospheric fallout -> "Because all people in the United States who were alive since 1951 received some radiation exposure from fallout, some people may have an increased risk of cancer from this exposure, in particular, thyroid cancer. " https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/RF-GWT_home.htm
Recommendation algorithms are absolutely not what is meant by "AI" in the current lay understanding.

You can still have very problematic recommendation systems that do not contain a single neuron.
Correct, you probably should know SQL.

In my experience though it is often a significant time saver if I only have to review the output of the AI vs. coming up with everything myself.

Re: ambiguities: You are right, the AI won't always be able to infer the correct fields to use. In such cases though it is often enough to help the AI out a little. E.g. by saying "information X is stored in field Y of table Z".

Even if you have to do that, you can still save time and more importantly mental effort by letting AI help you, compared to writing all the SQL yourself.

Re: iterative process: You can simply send a follow up message saying "You did X wrong". It is usually happy to correct itself.
> I got off the rails a bit staring at the diagram. A circle is of course a very specific case of an ellipse — seems off-topic to even include that specificity except for the fact that everyone does include it in a conic section diagram.

Circles are mathematically special and horrible and can cause real singularities in the mathematics. Normally you measure Keplerian elements relative to the Periapsis which is the closest approach of the orbit. A perfectly circular orbit has no closest approach, it is all closest.

Circular, equatorial, polar and parabolic orbits often need to be treated specially. For any algorithm those are often corner cases, they definitely need testing.

I've found division by zero errors in a professionally written implementation of Shepperd's method of orbit propagation in a circular retrograde orbit.

That same method of orbit propagation has fairly horrible problems with near-parabolic orbits, intrinsically.
> In ancient India Buddhist and Hindu sages pointed out that all humans lived trapped inside Maya—the world of illusions. What we normally take to be reality is often just fictions in our own minds. People may wage entire wars, killing others and willing to be killed themselves, because of their belief in this or that illusion.

A point of note: Hinduism (specifically Sanatana Dharma) does not only talk about Maya (which for some reason the Western scholars who study Hinduism are fascinated with). This is just one branch of Vedanta (specifically Advaita Vedanta/Monism). However, two other branches do not agree with the concept of the Creation being an Illusion/Maya (Vishishtadvaita/Qualified Monism as well as Dvaita/Tattvavada/Dualism). So can't really generalize and say that "Hindu sages pointed out that all humans lived trapped inside Maya-the world of illusions". An equal number (if not more) opposed the idea.
Exactly this ^^^^
kindle scribe. I'd buy an onyx for the full android experience, but I don't trust the shady chinese servers / software you would need to use with one of those.
He first went to Hong Kong, then like Korea (we’re not sure), then Russia.

It’s a little suspicious eh? I thought the american people deserved to know the things he released…

But it might have been less innocent than one guy being a whistleblower. Other peer powers accommodated him in their interests.
Realtors are independent laborers, it's like putting yourself on a law office ad or a TV spot for a car dealership. They don't need to put a picture of the house on it because the house is right there, and contact info is usually right below it. People see it as an opportunity for free marketing, and take it.
```bash
lstrip() {
# Usage: lstrip "string" "pattern"
printf '%s\n' "${1##$2}"
}
```

Got me right at the start. I look this up about once a week. Time to put it .bashrc already.
Fancy Ultramarathons Vex Traditionalists with $11k Entry Fees AndPrivate Butlers
Yes, I read the explanation. The actual explanation has no racial component. The sign, and NPR prominently featuring the sign, implies that the explanation does have a racial component, even though it does not. Hence my complaint.
What the Battle in Bakhmut Has Done for Ukraine
https://archive.ph/gQqYK
I agree. And in real life, when the deceased is at least somewhat known, and there is a clear motive, a suspect is usually identified.

When a nobody is gunned down on a dark street corner in the middle of the night, for no apparent reason, and nobody in the area will talk to the cops, there isn't much that will lead to any suspects.
> Everyone complains about professional lobbying that they don’t like.

I think you picked the laziest understanding of both the issue and my answer, and made my point in the process.

I'm not talking about you paying someone to represent your ideas to lawmakers, regulators, judges, etc. but about paying those people to directly enact your interests. They're both big problems in their own way. Straight up buying laws or legal decisions happens even if the incentives move from the interest groups to the decision factors through so many lobbying laundromats that they look completely clean and disconnected.

The other problem is not better. As you confirm, real representation in democracy is not with your vote but your donation power. Even when your chosen lobbyist isn't buying anything directly, just having a voice and representation takes money rather than a vote. The EFF or Louis Rossmann have to struggle so much to be heard because other people pay more to be louder. If you have problems being heard for money, imagine the people hoping to be heard for free.

The large majority of people can only spend one vote every few years to choose a representation that a small minority will spend a lot of money to hijack: either drown out everyone else's voice, or directly purchase exactly what they want. If you can't see why "everyone complains" maybe you're too disconnected from the problem to even understand it.
I guess I can offer a data point here. I started programming in C at around age 12. For a long period after that, I didn't know much about software engineering, I was writing really poor quality code, but I was tinkering with programming for years. Then I started learning it seriously in my late 20s and got to a senior role in a large tech company within about 3 years. It was easy for me to learn a lot quickly as I would intuitively "get" a lot of concepts.

That is the main advantage in my case over many others who didn't start so early. Programming concepts are easier to understand, I can learn codebases quicker, and similar. But I can attest to being a very, very bad programmer for about 15 years before I started learning coding seriously. You shouldn't have hired me over a fresh grad when I was 22. Now, maybe I bring more to the table than some other engineers with formal education only. But then again, the advantage is so small that things like personality have a bigger influence on coding ability, I think.

The question about when a candidate started coding can be a nice conversation starter. But starting early doesn't guarantee competency. In fact, a kid will almost definitely not follow great SWE practices for many years. So those years of experience aren't worth a lot, in my opinion.

As others have said, the age at which someone starts programming might be a better predictor for their wealth and similar. I was the only kid in my neighbourhood in the 90s with a personal computer to code on. But what good does that do in describing me today as a professional, a software engineer, or a person?
Sure, and that was part of my point.

Not everyone will have the same circumstances growing up. And the only thing it'll really affect is how much experience you have at say age 20. And as I said, experience is only part of what makes a productive programmer.

That being said, our first computer was paid for by ny dad's work when we had to move, so he could part time remote (no modem tho, so floppys and paper back and forth).
Under the table is good. The IRS will have something to say about it.

The engineer example doesn't follow. Its also not a pay cut.

Take for example 300k comp for your avg. eng 300k avg last 5 years avg comp. Goes to Gov. High cap is set at 300k. Gets a salary of 120k while with govt. He can leave govt, and go back to earn 300k. No problem.

He can even earn the gap between 120 and 300 also during his govt job. So he can maintain his QoL

This is really not a problem at all.

It doesnt punish success before govt.

It punishes sucess after govt. (Speaker fees anyone?)

The problem currently is that govt attracts people that want to make a career (and profit) out of it. I posit, thats exactly the people you dont want in govt.
Ok, so at least I‘m not the only one using simply that way
So what? You already have electricity. If you don't have a gas line to your house, you aren't going to get one for a gas stove. Again, gas stoves are secondary to having gas in the first place, focusing on them is nonsense whether someone wants gas or not.
Twitter could have attempted a true reputation system that would help me (I want to see people who people I follow have endorsed, that would be useful).

Instead they did something that was kind of confusing and not helpful. Twitter didn’t have a systematic way of being “significant” so it would just kind of be haphazardly applied.

Lebron James is famous, but he is known already so doesn’t need a blue check. (Just have an ama verification image somewhere in profile) It was all the other seemingly random people that had blue check marks that meant nothing to me.
We all want better mobile coverage, but is the trade-off our dark night sky?