skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a stupidly glib comment. The poster meant that the reality of life as a Jehova's Witness cannot be gleaned from looking at some document of the religion, and I think you knew that, but decided to take a shot at the Bible anyways because you've been acculturated to think that dunking on religion is both correct and acceptable.
> Most of what comes as "SV caliber" is mediocre devs.

That's an interesting statement. I assume the whole tech ecosystem and market is completely irrational since it seems to price these developer so much higher than their real worth? Where would one need to go to find non-mediocre devs who know more than just "the buzzwords"?
As a long-time Nix-er, who was into Docker before anyone know what it was, and was committing to Kube pre-1.0, I just kinda giggle. It's all just shuffling puzzle pieces around. Whether you're compiling your Rust to x86_64-linux and shoving it in a container, or compiling it to WASI and shoving it in some runtime... there's still gonna be some horrifying bash script orchestrating it. Because there always is.

There's still going to be someone running Kubernetes, or provisioning VMs.

> where you do not have to concentrate on "how to run" something.

Sounds nice, been hearing this pitch for a long, long time. I really don't mean to be harsh, but it just sounds naive at this point.
Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes turns herself in for 11-year prison term
When sam altman also signed this you know this is about adding moat to AI entrants
The airport boundary is Sepulveda, which is, admittedly, closer to 300 yards from Terminals 1, 7 and 8.

But there is a pedestrian walkway the entire way. With traffic lights at crosswalks and everything.
> The other five bogus cases were called Shaboon v. Egyptair, Petersen v. Iran Air, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Estate of Durden v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines.

Tyler Durden no doubt...
This is known as a Writ of Attainder and the United States Constitution forbids it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
More money into oil than solar, for first time
It might be helpful to view this from a scientific research perspective. UX research is more about how things should be done to provide a better usability for the user. Like, general respectively abstract concepts (e.g., how should a chatbot present itself when it first "talks" to the user, which UI components could be involved). It's not about how to actually design those things, i.e., applying CSS to an HTML document if you will. UI design is mostly a dev job, while UX design is more of an actual research discipline.
At 0.125 bps you reduce the pool of possible users by half every 8 seconds. If your existing fingerprinting results in a pool of 100,000 possible users, you can identify the exact user if they leave the page open for 2 minutes and 13 seconds.
Even non-believers have had their beliefs shaped in part by experiences with religion. In the case of joining a religious community, adhering to the dogma is usually important, let alone preferred.

I also have known "Catholic-lite" adherents, but they ultimately identify as Catholic. Anyway some of the minor sects don't take the distinctions between theirs and others lightly.
i'm sure they did it, that's fine

my point is that this is a nonsensical thing to do
> Deciding what's true can be a challenge.

It's not too hard when you hear ridiculous stories and treat them as if they were to happen today.

The one I remember from the church event was about a big guy that couldn't be subdued and then ended up breaking through chains.

So many questions from a single statement. Everyone else literally sat there and didn't blink an eye.
This kind of handwaving summary would be more credible if it hadn't been preceded by a long thread where it was made clear you didn't understand how CT functioned, at, like, a very basic level. You entered this conversation stridently equating CT monitoring with things like revocation checking.

I'm not looking for a debate; I'm just calling out things you say that are misleading and moving on. You're welcome to dispute my callouts! I'm satisfied that the thread establishes which arguments are credible and which aren't.
Web development is like giving a box of 50 different lego kits jumbled together to your kids, while a lot of other development is like buying a new lego kit from the store and giving it to your kids.

For a lot of tech there are fairly settled abstractions with a low number of meaningful choices. For web development, there are a huge number of abstractions that are not so easily comparable because they run at different levels and have lots of choices that will have significant impact on how things work and how things scale.

You can render JS in a browser, in your server, in a server that your server talks to. You can serve relatively static files, or you can serve files that set up an environment on the browser. Even in your application itself, you can decide to make your view a layer or you can embed it within your business logic.

So you have 4 layers that determine what eventually show up in a browser -> CDN/cloud front end -> application front end -> backend, and the internet as a whole has not decided what behavior belongs in what location and where the hard lines for where those abstractions begin and end are. I mean, we even have webasm. You could serve a virtual OS to a browser and make it run a webserver that runs a browser that runs a web page.

That's before consideration of the infinitude of framework choices and lack of a centralized "authority" (authority from merit, not from force) telling people what the best choices are and why.

So web development is daunting because there aren't many well defined abstractions. The abstractions are weak enough that there aren't many barriers you run in to which limit what you can do. So it's like making a lego structure, but half of the pieces are actually play-dough.
The headline is backwards.
> What difference you mean, aside from the lack of a regulatory framework, pseudonymity (and paradoxically, lack of privacy), lack of recourse in the face of user error, and custodial issues?

Is anonymity the issue? Cash is anonymous, but you also say that crypto is not private, which makes it now good or bad in your eyes? The opportunity for recourse has nothing to do with a currency. A currency cannot give you recourse in the face of user error (or basically any). Neither fiat can do that nor crypto can.

> The "not your keys not your coins" take is hilariously dumb in light of how much "value" has evaporated in personal custodial failure.

Do you want to tell me this cannot happen with fiat? The (partly rhetorical) question also aims at both sides custodial and non-custodial fiat.

> The currency and its supporting infrastructure has everything to do with it, and crypto fails basic litmus tests to even attempt to go mainstream.

What exactly does it fail?

edit: replace one "it" with "crypto" to remove ambiguity.
You're assuming that the 2nd Circuit based their decision on a valid reading of the law. Why do you believe that? (I don't know, myself.)

The legal system does have a history of favoring the powerful and connected.
Nope, it's not a toy. It's a fork of Uber's workflow engine, Cadence.

You don't need to explicitly interact with an event queue because it's a higher level abstraction that sits on a queue. In fact, that’s the big value add.

ACID doesn't help you once you're trying to coordinate actions across systems, like the example in the article.
There's another a step above: I am a lawyer but I am not your lawyer.
And how do you get the money out. At the end of the days there's a magic internet money to real money transaction and that will get hit with KYC and suddenly the entire house of cards collapses.

Or you never get the money out, but suddenly have a bunch of stuff and you get hit with taxes you can't pay because you didn't take the money out.

Countries aren't just going to let people evade AML because it finances stuff much worse than Johnny buying weed from a guy in Mexico, it finances terrorism and it's infinitely easier to follow the money than anything else.

Anything that gets big will get sued to hell and it's ridiculous to think otherwise.
This topic clearly touches a nerve with the HN community, but I strongly agree with you.

To be honest, I've been someone disappointed with the way AI/DL research has proceeded in the last several years and none of this really surprises me.

From the beginning, this whole enterprise has been detached from basic computational and statistical theory. At some level this is fine — you don't need to understand everything you create — but when you denigrate that underlying theory you end up in a situation where you don't understand what you're doing. So you end up with a lot of attention paid to things like "explainability" and "interpretability" and less so to "information-theoretic foundations of DL models", even though the latter probably leads to the former.

If you have a community that considers itself above basic mathematical, statistical, and computational theory, is it really a surprise that you end up with rhetoric about it being beyond our understanding? In most endeavors I've been involved with, there would be a process of trying to understand the fundamentals before moving on to something else, and then using that to bootstrap into something more powerful.

I probably come across as overly cynical but a lot of this seems sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy: a community constituting individuals who have convinced themselves that if it is beyond their understanding, it must be beyond anyone's understanding.

There are certainly risks to AI that should be discussed, but it seems these discussions and inquiries should be more open, probably involving other people outside the core community of Big Tech and associated academic researchers. Maybe it's not that AI is more capable than everyone, just that others are maybe more capable of solving certain problems — mathematicians, statisticians, and yes, philosophers and psychologists — than those who have been involved with it so far.
OpenAI’s Altman and others warning of advanced AI as ‘extinction’ risk
Surely at the scale of Wikipedia that wouldn’t be a factor ?

considering the dominance of few browsers (chrome , safari on iOS) will most users notice any difference? The first one (with that UA) to the site with a new build will have they cache key warmed up ?
https://www.history.com/news/mailing-children-post-office has more details about the loophole (the law for the new parcel post system was vague about what could be mailed).

Also:

> In the case of May Pierstorff, whose parents sent her to her grandparent’s house 73 miles away in February 1914, the postal worker who took her by Railway Mail train was a relative.

And anyone with children will agree:

> In June 1920, First Assistant Postmaster General John C. Koons rejected two applications to mail children, noting that they couldn’t be classified as “harmless live animals,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
At least for Protestant Christian churches, there can be ambiguity about the purpose / audience of a church meeting.

Some meetings are intended as outreach to non-Christians. E.g., to present reasons for being Christian, or to let outsiders see what a typical worship service is actually like.

Some meetings (or parts of meetings) only make sense for actual Christians: singing worship songs, testifying what they believe God is doing in the world, or taking communion.

I think a lot of awkward discomfort stems from lack of clarity on these points, and confusion about which attendees are professing Christians.
Typically the centralized rental car facility is near or at the airport boundary at airports I’m familiar with.
I would love to be educated. I've seen claims about the merit and value of functional programming throughout my (nowadays relatively long) programming career. In practice I've never once seen those values or merits come to fruition - just the same cycle all software goes through.

My very direct experience recently has been Scala + cats resulted in the same buggy nonperformant software it was meant to prevent. I understand that bad programmers produce bad programs, regardless of language, but I feel pretty strongly that good tools prevent some amount of the typical "bad" that makes bad programs bad (ignoring the obviously maliciously bad examples). So I don't really understand, and would like to understand, if, how and when pure FP (and I suppose FP in general) actually improve quality of code/life outside of toy examples.
I am curious. Which country do you live in?
> AI already sucks

Not to mention what 'automation' or 'tech-driven capitalism' has already done to society over the past 100 years with effects on natural habitat and human communities. Stating 'AI risk' as a new risk sort of implies it's all been dandy so far, and suddenly there's this new risk.
Not sure about Temporal's implementation, but classic Saga pattern is ACD (without Isolation), so overlapping or concurrent Sagas may overwrite each other.

There are several Saga-related application-specific patterns called countermeasures, which help to somewhat mitigate this problem.

Also unlike RDBMS with their ACID transactions, Saga design forces you to understand your business requirements better. Which steps are more likely to fail? Which steps are pivotal (i.e. points of no return)? Which steps are riskier or more valuable for business, etc.
I would hope so, at a minimum! I'm shocked that signing an affidavit in a court of law certifying the existence of made-up courses isn't simply criminal.
I almost wonder if it could be something like one who deliberately slips on a grocery store floor to do some legal shenanigans. Like I'm sure there are some people who if they saw some spilled milk on a store floor they would be like 'it's my lucky day' and maybe similarly this lawyer saw a service that tells lies and he could have been like 'this is too good to be true'.
Rubbish, there's already big companies set up to re-centralise it. What wallet are you using.

You don't have to use a regular bank either you know, cash is way less traceable than Bitcoin.
I wanted to like React so bad. I tried. I loved JSX and really appreciated the way you could reuse components. That was all very cool, and I was initially quite enthusiastic about it. But for whatever reason, I just could not figure out state management/hooks. Drove me crazy. It just always felt so unnecessarily complicated compared to other languages and frameworks I've used (even vanilla JS). Now, don't get me wrong: I fully accept the blame here. I am mostly self-taught (and not even the best 'student' in that context, haha) so I'm sure I just lack the overall knowledge base/big-picture understanding to really appreciate what they've done here. I hope I'll give it another shot one day, and perhaps with fresh eyes (and maybe with the help of a patient tutor), it will all 'click'!
Please read the book ‘Debt: The First 5,000 Years’ and then re-examine your ideas about not needing debt. I think you’ll find that we do in fact need debt to function as a society.

A currency with a pre-defined supply is a non-starter, there are multiple academic papers you can find that will tell you exactly why.
It's speaking with respect to radio. It's why you wonder who is listening to Ed Sheeran and Imagine Dragons but they're somehow so popular.
> So not support terrorism, but possibly extracting currency from a controlled regime

We have controls on regimes normally because the two are highly correlated.
Please note that this specific ruling was still that the motion to supress be denined, because the agents thought they had a legal right to search the phone and because they later got a warrant for the contents of the copy they made, so the defendant still got fucked even though his rights were trampled, simply because the agents were too fucking ignorant to know that what they were doing was illegal per the SCOTUS 2014 decision.

td;dr: government agents can use ignorance of the law to get away with breaking it

--

a quote from the decision:

> Nonetheless, that still leaves the question whether to suppress the evidence from such an unlawful search. Here, the Court determines that the “good faith” exception precludes suppression, both because at the time of the search, the agents conducting the search had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that there was legal authority binding on them that authorized such a search and also because the Government ultimately obtained a search warrant to search the phone copy, disclosing all relevant details of the search to a neutral magistrate. For these reasons, further elaborated below, the Court reaffirms its prior denial of Smith’s motion to suppress.
How does the quality of random_bytes() compare?
If I'm getting your point right, I agree! If you have the workflow / durable execution primitive to depend on (a durable function is guaranteed to complete executing), then there are a lot of pieces of distributed systems stacks that you no longer need to use. Your durable code is automatically backed by the event sourcing, timers, task queues, transfer queues, etc that Temporal internally uses to provide the guarantee, so that you don't need to build them yourself.
Creating humans to solve your problems sounds unethical.
All this to support older browsers and get rid of all JavaScript where you can .

Plenty of sites aspire to be JS free for a variety of reasons it is worthy goal
Fully agree, the crossfit gym I joined several years ago has become an important part of my life.
So turds turn up in AI law as well...
yes i am in the 'fixit culture' not in the 'poverty culture' looks sideways
>I am really curious what it would cost, as a theoretical lower bound, to pay OpenAI to write the Linux Kernel

Billions of dollars.

Eh, what? Why in the living hell would it cost that much!

Because the actual Linux kernel cost that much or more. Of course most of these costs were volunteer labor or born by someone testing out a failure on their own companies time. To greenfield an OS kernel as comprehensive as Linux and with as much hardware support as linux would be one of the more expensive human endeavors ever.

But wait, why doesn't Windows cost this much?

Oh, but it did. Of course Microsoft has thrown a huge amount of the costs of on to users and hardware development companies too.
It happens regardless of whether you agree. I also saw it many times in situations I wasn't involved in.

I generally support the need for evidence, but I have only so much time. And I saw many, many instances of this behavior.
> But, "literally expect you to just die if you experience any sort of trauma." is outright wrong.

How's this: "literally expect you to die if you're in need of a blood transfusion to survive". Seems pretty much in line what what you espouse.
There's nothing to debug because a failure during a saga is a totally reasonable and expected thing to happen. Take the example in the article.

1. You book a flight. You successfully reserve a seat.

2. You book a car. You successfully reserve a sedan.

3. You try to book a hotel room. The room that you wanted was booked while you were booking your flight, and there aren't any more available.

You obviously don't want the car or flight anymore, and you want to cancel them without a human having to manually fix it.
I don’t understand why this should be distributed as a package of many hooks.

Unless if a hook is unusually complicated, I much rather copy-paste it into my code.

You should really share the implementations of each of them on the website. I don’t want to pull in 100 hooks just because I don’t want to write 1 from scratch.
You must for transactions (like, financial transitions).

Let's say you're making a plane booking service (kiwi.com clone).

You charge the customer, then book the flight. But if booking the flight fails, you must refund the customer.
I think this is downplaying the effect of the devastation their actions have caused. Pretty much everyone knows someone impacted by their products. As the degrees of separation increases, so does the number of people brought into the world of addiction. personally, i know many people that have opiate addictions, and not one of them was introduced to them from buying them on the street or were addicts of anything prior.
That is not what I said. Read again.
No it's not. Don't be a misanthrope.

Everything is awesome. Every year gets better and better for most of us on average.

Be glad we're not an icy hellscape like Pluto. Or that we don't not exist.
I'm struggling to decide whether this comment is a troll comment or not. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

> But… the people who made it brought the politics. They own it.

They don't. At the very least not fully. The compiler itself is MIT/Apache licensed. This gives up a lot of control and I think many people, including me, would say that means they don't own it anymore.

> Rust is also not a cool language. You can not be cool and fuss about soundness and memory safety at the same time. It is mutually exclusifve.

Whether the people who implement Rust and/or write Rust are cool has nothing to do whether the language itself is cool. I also fail to grasp why caring about memory safety and soundness and being cool is considered mutually exclusive. Why would it be?
Or XEmacs forking off from Emacs in 1993. Although that didn't so much get subsumed but basically died a decade or so ago when most of the features XEmacs provided had been added to normal Emacs.
You don't have to subscribe to their set of beliefs. They are not telepaths, they don't know whether you actually believe or not.

For that matter, it's debatable whether or not the believers actually believe things. They probably wonder themselves sometimes. They don't often make a big deal out of it, if they do find themselves no longer believing... and there is a conceptual framework built into the religion (that of "loss of faith").

Like the ancient religions, being willing to perform the rituals non-cynically is really the only requirement. You and everyone else already perform dozens of non-religious rituals and think nothing of it. What's a few more?

I mean, don't do it if you don't want to. But don't pretend the option's not open to you. Even if there's a clever believer there that somehow reads your mind, you're not unwelcome at most of these places even then.
They either get eaten, or fall to the ocean floor, ~4,000m down.
Author of the article here. Yeah, @agumonkey I like that analogy a lot!

Generally, that's a good way of thinking about it. The one additional bit of nuance is it's like a "safe" stack unwind while other processes could be still modifying databases at the same time, so it's not a complete "rollback" of the whole world if that makes sense.
I found their docker-compose more helpful than their chart: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/blob/main/docker-compos...

But I also needed to read their Ansible files to understand how they manage their infra better. Those are deleted now, but luckily you can just look at the history (commit that deleted it: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/commit/0d3d022eb1fe4a42...)
I've found one by going to smaller EDM/DJ sets on weekdays and talking to people - it's not a huge crowd so people tend to chill and chat. Never ended up going to the actual event - it was more of a local burner/art event, but it was definitely a word of mouth kind of thing
Indeed that is very awkward: "European Union (“EU”) legislation requires all website operators to inform website visitors about their usage of cookies"

Later: "first-party and third-party cookies are used on: 1password.com (...)

Stating that you need consent and not asking for it is extremely weird.