skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I highly doubt that most people on HN are even involved with most immature technologies other than being an end-user of some aspect of it. Ergo, I doubt that an HN discussion would have any significant impact on the growth of any kind of technology.

Who needs courage when there's objectivity in facts?

Even so, people still rabidly defend the new shiny simply because it's new or something they're heavily invested in, so courage and facts aren't always the whole story either.
I fucking love ithkuil, in the same way I love marble machines and Rube Goldberg devices. Like as a concept, in practice, how it sounds actually spoken, the writing system. Every thing about it is just so extra. It has its goals and design criteria, and it just goes full send on them, fuck everything else, like ease of pronunciation, and I respect that.
Realistically though they don’t have to figure out the legal problems immediately, they could and likely would start in their own backyards and expand from there
Overreach is when antitrust laws are used to break up trusts?
Ambiguity between straight-eights and triplet-eights is the core of a huge swath of jazz and blues derived music. It's called swing and it's basically the rhythmic equivalent of the blue third, where the ambiguity is the point.

It's beyond common, not something Hanson would be singled out for.
I am talking about what the original article mentioned, which is that certain Spanish legislators are pushing for what sounds like a blanket ban on E2EE by service providers, including the dominant communication platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal. This, in and of itself, is a massive overreach.

> Nobody needed E2E encryption on Facebook in its first couple decades [...]

The reality is that "transport encryption" does absolutely nothing to protect you from a malicious, authoritarian state actor, which is why the state's asking for it in the first place and why there have always been activists pushing for adoption of E2EE on these platforms. I should know, I was and still am one of them, so it's a bit absurd to say "nobody needed it for decades" when the only reason it's being adopted in the first place is because there's clear demand. And because the state has steadily gained the ability for technologically feasible mass surveillance for the first time in history, which is also a new phenomenon.

> We sacrifice the ability to do anything about the CSAM influencers profiting on the platform.

I'll spell it out bluntly: I acknowledge it could have such an effect, and it's a sacrifice I am willing to make, and deem to be a net gain for society as a whole. People have throughout history engaged in despicable behaviour, and will continue to do so in the online world because it's a reflection of who we are as a species, both good and bad.

> I'm not even arguing for a blanket ban of E2EE. What I'm arguing for is that we don't allow VLOPs to use it.

So we lose the ability to *maybe* do *something* on *some platforms* using only the online communications of the perpetrators, whom probably represent single digit percentages in the population. Meanwhile, traditional policing continues to exist, and the ban would, in practice, affect almost everyone else (or else what's the point?). Except, of course, the technologically literate criminals who will as always find ways around it.

I'm assuming you're aware of the far-reaching potential for misuse of your proposal, and presumably that's a sacrifice you're willing to make, so our differences can be easily summarised: you place higher value on punishing a relatively limited number of individuals for crimes deemed particularly damaging and offensive over sacrificing the whole of society's right to private communication, I do the opposite. In fact, if you grant that this issue will likely never fully be resolved (as history suggests is the case), we merely disagree about what the tolerable level for this crime is in exchange for safeguarding societal freedom. Same with all other forms of criminal activity throughout history...

As we've already sacrificed much in the name of this very issue, I hope people living in democratic nations understand what's at stake here, and that there will never be an end to these authoritarian arguments. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Looks at the Americas - humans appeared there only 15 kyrs ago while in Africa the wildlife evolved to survive in the presence of our species.
No. Go on any other site with this story and read the comments and it's full of "Apple's crawling back to Broadcom with it's tail between it's legs, because it couldn't design it's own LTE chips", referring to it's relationship with another company, Qualcomm.
Yep. But this article is about a guy that wants to look 18. And he doesn’t, at all.
Unemployed is the lowest paying job possible.
Do you need to do aggregations/scans on the table as well or is it mostly direct row accesses?
I feel this way about the "David Bennett Piano" channel on YouTube. He discusses various music theory topics, illustrated with examples drawn from pop and rock songs. In particular, he often singles out Radiohead as being a source of music-theoretic innovation in rock music - it's quite clear he has considerable admiration for them. The thing is though...I'm not sure if it's always the case that Radiohead were consciously using a particular scale or meter on a given song, or whether it's simply that they were out of tune and played sloppily. Some of the rationalisation being presented on the channel feels like a stretch, particularly in Radiohead's case.
Is the one we have not better than the ones that came before it?

It's popular to look things like the gold standard through rose tinted glasses, but economic numbers don't support it.
There are many cases where it's better to know you don't have something correctly than think you have something incorrectly. Security is certainly one.
Unless crypto is backed actual economies, as fiat currency is, that will propably not happen anytime soon.
So why isnt every single FBI prosecuted Defendant getting off due to this abuse? That would teach them to play by the rules.
Exactly our intent :) some people just like to hate
> How an OIDC identity is obtained and secured is not treated. It brings useful organization to PKI, but the problem remains. You have to delegate trust to identity providers: Google, GitHub, etc.

Yes, this is a fundamental (and, IMO, reasonable) assumption in Sigstore. The trust argument for large IdPs is that they (1) have the institutional ability and resources (like incident response) to maintain their service, (2) have strong incentives to maintain and improve the overall security of their providers (billions of accounts on the Internet are bound to SSO via Google, etc.), and (3) that any failures in those providers are already catastrophic, so reducing the number of moving and potentially failing parts is a net win in terms of security.
The psychiatrist who treated syphilis with malaria – and won a Nobel Prize
This is so critical, especially in warfare — retaining the ability to function when fragile systems are degraded. And we see examples every day where GPS is rendered locally/regionally unusable and/or spoofed, nevermind the likely warfare scenario where GPS satellites are directly attacked.

I have no clue why you are getting downvoted. Evidently some are just so enamored of stuff they have on their phones they cannot imagine it going away. In any attack or general failure, they'll be the most lost!
> I cant imagine how that pisses off a lot of people with very expensive music degrees.

This is not limited to punk bands, it's common to nearly all folk music. I think anyone with a music theory would probably be very aware that the analysis tools are mostly only useful for certain styles.

edit: Here's someone who "get's it" - academic analysis, but clearly understands that it was likely arrived at organically https://www.youtube.com/@metalmusictheory5401
Ageism does not suit you well.
Yep, and it refused to run if your phone was rooted. A game refusing to run. And of course with no internet connection it wouldn't work so you couldn't play while you were camping even though the entire gameplay was offline. And the moment a new version was released you had to download/install it otherhwise the game would refuse to run, even if you were on wifi 5 minutes earlier and now on mobile data which is super expensive.

They let their extreme love for DRM and proprietariness completely overwhelm the user experience. But instead of asking themselves if that's why it didn't sell well, they of course conclude that they weren't making money because they weren't being scummy enough.

I bought Mario Run and even with the absurd restrictions I enjoyed it and probably would have bought more of their games if they'd continued. Quite the disapointment.
The assumptions here are:

1. USD fails

2. All the other currencies are "dying"

3. (let's say) Monero exists and is not dying

So yes in the scenario you've constructed where everything but a cryptocurrency dies or is dying, crypto is more successful.
Actually ChatGPT-4 explains it way better than I do:

The author is trying to convey that the situation with corporations and human labor doesn't have to be an extreme of either using human labor or not using it at all. They argue that corporations are gradually relying less on human labor, but that doesn't mean it has to drop to zero for negative consequences to occur within society.

They also bring up the stock market as an example of a system that focuses on optimizing for profit (paperclips) rather than human welfare. The author implies that many wealthy individuals primarily focus on accumulating more wealth (paperclips) and may only contribute a small portion (guilt tax) to alleviate any sense of responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions on society.
Nah, it's definitely possible to point out failings in systems even before they're implemented, without having to prove that a better solution exists. It might not exist! You might just have to put up with an inadequate solution if it's better than nothing.
By association. What do you think FTX is associated with? (It wasn't associated with traditional banking...)

By volume traditional banking had more fraud and mismanagement, but it hasn't had literally years of massive headlines. (See "rotten herring") And in the end it doesn't build any confidence, because all of our money is literally based in trust. Even the value of gold is plain trust in it's value(see Mansa Musa's gold devaluation "pre fiat currency").

I don't remember a single year, without some massive cryptocurrency related headline... Even SVB and CreditSuisse failures were managed out better, than FTX.
It is on the other poster, the one making the claim, to provide a citation.
A lot of people say this but also start kevitching when parking spots get removed. I'll believe it when I see it.
> whereas a marketer is barely over a 100 years old

This suggests you may be off by a few millenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_marketing

I lean towards the "people have been people since there were people" side of the debate and assume there has been marketing since at least the invention of agriculture and its resultant ability to allow humans to make a living doing something other than calorie acquisition.
Maybe. Fixing the culture in that way is not obviously the company's biggest priority. We can agree that it's an ideal, but it also takes resources away from other things and may involve other tradeoffs (even firing some people) that could be worse for the business and employees overall. It's not the kind of decision that can just be made in a vacuum.
"the orange website" negative sentiment is there from a lot of demographics, not just young-skewing, and sometimes it's easy to see why when discussions not infrequently devolve into ad hominems and ass-pull anecdata as a lot of people aren't equipped to deal with the idea of multiple points of view being valid, or x not being so binary as good or bad.
It's pick your poison, like choosing a startup vs BigCorp. My observations pertain to organic chemistry specifically, I'm less familiar with other fields.

With an assistant prof you will be asked to do unreasonably long hours on ideas that haven't been fully validated, but you get a lot of face-time with the PI (for better or worse) and have a chance to get on the ground floor of a potentially great research program. Your boss has a lot more invested in your success because their career depends more on you. It can be exciting.

With a more established prof you are more likely be plugged into the n-th iteration of an established research program. You're more expendable because the prof has more options to hire your replacement; you can get lost in the crowd; the prof won't be in the lab as much (travel, service responsibilities) so it's more sink or swim. Lots can go wrong in this environment. As the group gets larger, internal politics can create frictions, especially if the supervisor is away a lot.

I see A) as better than B) but that is just me.
Complicated World in Which Cells Seek to Repair Damaged DNA
That isn't isolating them from their peers.
This is literally Ableton Live, an actual DAW, in a box.
Aha, it makes sense now, thanks.
If you're talking about the recent bank failures, that was in fact covered by other banks, no? It was not paid for by tax payers.

While the recent losses were in big part because of bonds and currency rate risk, so not a particularly abstract or difficult to understand instrument.

Not that being hard to understand is a bad thing. Something can be complex and still valuable.
I don't think its particularly reasonable to expect "emergency powers" to be anything other than nigh blanket authorization because, well, in such a situation they'll do it anyway and this is at least honest about it.

"Oh shit a journalist is leaking our military's <sensitive data> which might actually affect the war -- track them down, you have full operational discretion."

No government official is even going to consider the minutia of the law before issuing an order.
I'm pretty sure elephants can communicate with each other and coordinate, at least to some degree. As do many social species.

For me, a really interesting question is: why did humans evolve to build huge civilizations and spent so much energy on technology, when others species haven't?

I've heard several podcasts, some claim it's because humans think (much more) about the future. Others say it's because we use counterfactual reasoning. Others again say it's because we think about the future. Yet others say it's our curiosity, that seem to be much more pronounced than in other species.

None of these really convinced me. I kinda think that if we didn't encroach on other species' ecosystems and waited just a few million (or a few tens of million) years, some other species might develop and dominate similar to how humans do now.

Of course, that's not really practical, so now I wonder if there could be a way to simulate that.
All of your examples, like drunk driving and indoor smoking bans, exist because those activities are likely to harm others.
Nearly all Marine Sanctuaries aren’t
They could have released DLCs that added more levels for increasing somewhat recurring revenue. I would have gladly jumped at that.
It's a good question, and a very good thing to think about. It turns out shipping is actually surprisingly low on the list of contributors to carbon emissions. All global shipping together contributes about 1.7% of global emissions. That's in comparison to, say, industrial energy usage (24.2%) or passenger cars (11.9%) or residential buildings (10.9%) or animals raised for food (5.8%). Should carbon emissions of shipping be a factor in decisions like this? Unquestionably, yes. But at worst it's going to be a small tick in the negative column, and could actually come out ahead depending on other factors like local emissions regulations, etc.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/09/Emissions-by-sect...
What is that?

He must have died while typing it.

Oh, come on!

That's what it says.

Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to type "to write a post like this". He'd just say it.

That's what's typed into the form.

Perhaps he was dictating it.

Oh, shut up!

Does it say anything else?

No. Just "to write a post like this."
I know it's not fundamentally that different from the running arbitrary code we have right now, but something about the idea of indiscriminately running binaries invisibly downloaded over the WWW rubs me the wrong way.

Edit: read the first half of my sentence again.
their empire is measured in budgets and bonuses; headcount is often tangential to that
There's a story in the Jungle Book about just that. That said, wild pigs are frightening, they are armed and brave.
Yes, I think Nintendo believed they really needed to compete in the mobile space but also didn't want to cannibalize game purchases on their console platforms. Software is their profit center but exclusivity to their hardware gives them much greater control. It also let's them act as a toll collector for anyone else who wants to publish on their platform.

None of this is new information, but a precursor to this point: Nintendo, strategically, couldn't afford (or at least wasn't willing to risk) to develop mobile content on par with the quality of their proprietary hw platforms. Super Mario Run had to be a sub-par experience compared to what was obtainable on their own platform to avoid this risk. Yet they still released a sub-par experience at what, for mobile, was a high premium price of $10. It was doomed to fail from the outset.

They might have maximized the popularity of Mario Run by coming out with a $2-$3 price tag and marketing campaign that essentially gave the message of "Hey this is just a fun little thing we made, hope you enjoy" but that price tag would risk anchoring consumer expectations of the cost of actual premium Nintendo content to a lower benchmark: "Why is Nintendo charging me $40 for New Super Mario Bros. 2 when a similar game (in visual aesthetics only, but still) only costs $3? Ripoff!"

Or at least that might have been their fear at the time. Mario Run appear a in the year prior to the Switch and after the mediocre reception of the Wii U.

The confusing thing to me is that, even after the Switch's success demonstrated the mobile App Store platforms didn't need to be an existential threat, they still went ahead with a freemium lootbox game, or really any freemium game. It's like their still fighting the previous war. Now the emerging mobile war surrounds gaming services that can provide a full console or PC experience on just about any mobile device. I'll lump the Steam Deck in there as part of that war since Steam has demonstrated that really avid gamers are willing to pay to 1) have access to their existing deep library of games and 2) not have to deal with the downsides of streaming. A more casual gamer can get a decent experience streaming w/ Game Pass for $15/month on their phone and/or tablet, a more dedicated gamer might still do that for convenience but can also go for the Deck (or potential competitors) at a price near that of traditional consoles, etc.

There's lots of dust still in the air here that has yet to settle, but Nintendo has yet to show their strategy for this next era of gaming while their current hardware is aging and their gaming service is not only restricted to that hardware but also limited mostly to older games from previous gen consoles.
You seem to be conflating two different things:

1) How personally validating a job is to a person

2) How valuable the job is to society at large.

To see how those might decouple, consider Superman continuously turning a crank to provide limitless energy for society (credit: SMBC [0]). Fabulously valuable to society, extremely lacking in personal validation for superman.

In general, you'd expect salary to correlate with 2, and inversely correlate with 1, since the sense of validation is in effect part of the compensation you're getting from a job. It also seems pretty common to (IMO wrongly) think that 1 and 2 are tightly coupled: the jobs that produce the greatest societal value are the ones that feel the most personally validating. But that's just because modern society is far more complicated than our brains were evolved to handle. Identifying the actual value of a job requires following a complex chain of incentives and value production through the vast networks of businesses and organizations that comprise our world.

Sadly for those instincts, it is probably true that a programmer writing a piece of code that makes $business_process_c56_2 0.1% more efficient, which is then run billions upon billions of times is actually producing more value in net than a teacher who changes the lives of O(1000) kids over their lifetime.

[0]: https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305
There is a report about the homepage being broken. Mobile and desktop are both having issues. Discussion here: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/55493
Can the institutions be blamed for trying to stay afloat? Where is this money coming from to pay the scientists? A collective decision has to be made to keep science healthy in a meaningful and productive way. I think academia (through its ethos of critical approach and peer review) may be the single social structure that keeps some kind of sanity.
>There seems to be a general idea out there that decoupling is being fundamentally driven by U.S. and European policy.

Why is it the many writers refuse to understand that writing “Europe” is like writing “Africa”? When they in actuality mean EU why write Europe? The whole article is about how decoupling from China is happening and as far as I know the biggest European country (Russia) is not trying to decouple from China – quite the opposite. It is not like writing EU is harder.
"Simply put, we have no idea how the human mind works." ~40,000 neuroscientists beg to differ. I'd argue that, more or less, we have a good, general, working theory about how the mind works.
> If you look at the newest operating systems (Android, iOS, ChromeOS, Fuschia), they're all extremely same-y

Agreed. This is the central argument present in the old "Unix Haters Handbook". It describes Unix as a virus.

> Go, Swift, Kotlin etc - all nice langs but very much of a muchness and avoid new ideas

Agreed. This is what I think Greenspun was getting at with his "tenth rule".

> iii. Hardware: also stagnant outside of mobile.

Agreed, but I sure hope it doesn't stay this way.

I still want real smart glasses that look like regular glasses, but perform as well as an expensive VR headset.

My wife still wants digital nail polish like the receptionist in Total Recall (1990) has.

> Web ideology has been fading with time and Google's dominance.

I'm not sure that "web ideology" was ever really a thing outside of those responsible for describing why the WWW took off. The reason I say this is that people have been trying to shoehorn it into an application delivery platform since almost day #1. If something akin to Java applets had taken off, then I think we'd be looking at a very different, significantly-less-open web today.
This is great, except it seems Windows only. I'm guessing because of the VB scripting compatibility? It seems scary that Microsoft still has such dominance in spreadsheets still. OSX has Numbers? Linux has.... LibreOffice?
Microsoft to Add Bing Search to OpenAI’s ChatGPT in Battle with Google
>Military or corporation

Why not both? The Horizon franchise's lore has a "fun" example of the military-industrial complex converging on Armageddon.
Your comment has everything to do with the article, but unfortunately, the "it has nothing to do with the article" is one of the issues with Science. To keep my argumentation on topic: Historically, scientists never had a so safe life like today. In the past, scientists used to put their life at stake. Galileo, Copernicus, Turin, Einstein..