skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In the past, having a child was a necessity for the sustainability of the country (and even species, to a great extent) at large, so it was done by all, even parents who could not provide, so filial piety was the only way it could be sustained.

It’s still true. No society can sustainably go below a total fertility rate of 2.1. They can engage in temporary arbitrage, by importing people from societies that haven’t yet undergone that “value shift,” but that’s a band-aid. The math will catch up with those groups and they’ll be replaced by groups that still prioritize reproduction.

For example, by 2050, the number of Catholics and Muslims is projected to increase greatly, while the share of the population that’s not affiliated with religion will actually drop 3 percentage points (despite the rapid dechristianization of the US and Europe): https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/4607977...
I believe nix is the logical solution to dependency management and thus is the future of it.
Background: https://www.coindesk.com/learn/brc-20-explained-how-tokens-o...

> The total transaction fees spent by this entity to dominate the Inscriptions are estimated to be 1056 BTC as of May 25, 2023... We leave the conclusions to the reader.

I don't really understand what conclusion we are supposed to draw.

> However, we notice that by spending only 0.005% of the total Bitcoin supply on transaction fees, a single entity can significantly impact the entire Blockchain regime. This illustrates that if a whale or a governmental actor, possessing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins, decides to spam the blockchain, they could impede its usability for normal payments.

Maybe this?

Interesting that someone was prepared to spend 1056 BTC on this. 1056 BTC is ~US$30M (edit: I had $3M before) at the current time.
Israeli cancer treatment has 90% success rate
Is superoptimization related to supercompilation, or are these unrelated compiler optimization techniques? From what I have read, it seems like Turchin [1] et al. are trying to prove equality using some sort of algebraic rewriting system (i.e., the "intensional" approach), whereas superoptimization uses an extensional technique to first try proving disequality by testing on a small set of inputs, then applies formal verification to the remaining candidates.

Massalin (1987) [2] calls the first phase "probabilistic execution" and claims that nearly all of the functions which pass the PE test also pass the more rigorous Boolean verification test. Can you give any insight into the benefits of TT over more "automated" optimizations? I am curious if MLTT/HoTT is more suitable for certain compiler optimizations or offers additional expressive power for proving equivalence, or is the benefit mostly ergonomics?

[1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/5956.5957

[2]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/36177.36194
> If electrocution is what caused the cardiac arrest, it is much better to give breaths than compressions. The heartbeat system resets itself before the respiratory system. The problem is then that the heart is back, uses up all its energy reserves, but there is no oxygen to replenish and the heart goes back into arrest.

Can you provide a reference or citation to this claim and practice?

It is always much better to give "conventional CPR" (breaths and chest compressions) if suitably trained.[1] If not suitably trained you are more likely to a) perform CPR and b) do it effectively if not providing mouth to mouth breathing.[2][3] You can argue about the nuance of particular patient groups where there is potentially a statistically significant benefit of providing conventional CPR over compression only.

Under no circumstances are there benefits to providing rescue breaths without chest compressions (as your comment seems to recommend).

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21273279/
[2]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7726702/
[3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17420082/
Don't invest in hyped technologies that you don't understand.
Helicopters are VTOLs. And all VTOL concepts have basically the same aerodynamic problems. So no, it is incredibly unlikely these problems can be solved easily.

Which is why VTOL concepts have stayed vaporware. People are simply trying to sell helicopters with a new name. It mirrors the endless attempts to build systems that work exactly like trains, but with a much sillier mechanism of operation. Both strategies are built on willful ignorance of what they're really trying to do, and are nearly guaranteed to fail.
>HBO doesn’t want people doing this without paying.

But why (from their perspective)?

They don't make their money from metadata, they make it from content. Every piece of real monkey-making content is going to get a torrent regardless of if it's protected behind a captcha.
I suggest that you watch Particle Fever, a beautiful documentary about the LHC. If you have already seen it, watch it again with an open mind.
Unfortunately, even though 320px iphones look to be less than IE users for us, 320px may we'll be required for a long time for WCAG (400% zoom at 1280px).
Most US food trucks have a generator unless they're operating in a location that is planning to accommodate them (I've been to several where the host business provided some circuits.) The quiet generators are pretty expensive, if you want one that lasts.

That said, OP's "I don't like noise and smelly stuff, it's ruining my city" is laughable.
> Restated, I haven't seen much win with objectifying everything and having a huge object inheritance tree.

Those aren't very connected, at least in several languages. Using interfaces and composition you can have pretty shallow inheritance overall. Most of my objects are just one level "deep".
I can't say how the website I'm scraping would respond if I just went full throttle. But it's also just a matter of courtesy anyway not to make ten thousands requests per second.

Funny story - at work we once had a huge spike in requests from a single IP. We all crowded around, thinking it was some malicious hacker from France. How exciting - we're now interesting enough to warrant a DoS! Turns out another team in the company was just pulling all our data into Algolia to improve search. They were clearly not very courteous!

So on the other end (building APIs) I certainly do pay attention to traffic and have Grafana alerts set up around it.
The usual metaphor is springs in a mattress:

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2015/08/20/qft/
> At this point in my career, I'm thinking what else is there for me? I'm exhausted - tired of chasing the next dream for it to be a disappointment. I just want a job where I can flex my engineering skills without BS, work with good, competent people who care as much as I do, and be able to relax when I get home, knowing I've done what was expected of me. Does this even exist anymore?

I think you will still be disappointed. Perhaps try working for yourself instead?
From their website:

> Arkose MatchKey challenges have revolutionized CAPTCHAs
In my experience, most people just aren't aware of what CSS is capable of.

But to play devil's advocate: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I think the best argument for DoH being the killing blow to DNSSEC is that not only does DoH overlap a lot with the security features DNSSEC is trying to be the solution for, but DoH also gives you arguably more important security features that DNSSEC does not and cannot reasonably provide.

This is particularly true if your security model also includes things like TLS to secure your communications with whatever domain you just resolved. In that scenario, the features DoH provides that DNSSEC does not (e.g. lookup confidentiality) are still quite useful, while the 5% of DNSSEC use-cases that DoH doesn't cover are essentially redundant if not better provided elsewhere in your protocol stack.
IIRC, for similar reasons, American Express purchased a Cray to AI fraud detection. I guess it was a giants rules engine. An former Amex exec reported to me it was a waste of money and the cheaper statisical models worked much better.
They have a very strict automod to protect their echo chamber. Post it there and you'll find out lol
I am not a crypto fan, but I believe this would constitute a 51% attack https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp
Which takes time, so records can be disappeared. And since they don’t control the format of the records (yet) or what’s in the records (yet), they are also a ton of work to use.

Definitely not impossible, but much harder than if there was a single centralized system - dramatically harder.

Cash is king though, as you say.
Ordinal is a fairly new feature so it isn't terribly surprising that it's not widely used yet. Somebody has to be the first user, just as Satoshi mined most of the early blocks. More concerning is that the Bitcoin blockchain is getting clogged with Ordinals, crowding out other transactions. Spending $29M to DoS Bitcoin is either a really large or really small amount depending on your perspective.
New Zealand did both, and both worked - it did delay the inevitable, but that allowed time for the population to become vaccinated, for supplies of PPE to build up, for hospitals to build ICUs etc, and provide time for the virus to change to the much-less deadly omicron (delta and alpha never spread widely in NZ - we avoided all of that). Per head of population, our death rate was lower than almost any other country in the world. And we enjoyed an entire year of normal life between the successful elimination of alpha/delta and the eventual emergence of omicron while the rest of the world suffered.
All the political parties in NZ were unanimous in stating that the elimination strategy was the right choice, and you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of New Zealander's that think now that the better strategy would have been to 'let her rip'. Of course you can find personal examples where lockdowns/border closures were a worse outcome for some people (I have a friend whose brother was unable to see his dying father), but being able to quote examples like that doesn't refute the strategy, because we only have to look to other countries to see what the alternatives were - a much, much, higher death rate.
You say "the country that ignored the hysteria came out with some of the best results in Europe", but you don't say what that country was - did it have a lower death rate than NZ did?
Wei-han Lien (lead architect of M1 at Apple) is the lead architect of Ascalon at Tenstorrent (CEO: Jim Keller).

Ascalon is a RISC-V microarchitecture expected to be released in 2024, with similar performance to projected AMD Zen5 (also 2024), but lower power consumption.

If ARM is still trying to catch up to Apple, they'll be leapfrogged by RISC-V, as early as that.
The HBO MAX (aka just MAX now) in PS4 is just a disaster. Can't play videos anymore, as it gets stuck on a infinite loop in the intro of every movie.

It the remaining time is displayed as a negative integer, and for some reason the system just thinks the move is done and resets it to the beginning.

Seems like a bug that some very basic QA testing should have caught it.

The new rollout seems like a total clown show, and unfortunately it ruined the service and made it impossible for me to view movies, unless it is from a laptop.
Definitely incorrect, the paths in the robots.txt are prefixes, so `/` means anything starting with `/`, that is, everything. Look up the specifications for the robots.txt for more information! (Or, for instance, look up how you'd block the whole site in robots.txt if you wanted to!)
In other words, they don't know. They just have a fuzzy feeling, nothing more than that.

Would you be okay with the police being allowed to randomly enter your home and seize whatever stuff they want, just because they have a hunch? Or would you rather they have to get a search warrant first, which requires at least some form of evidence?
Really cool!

QGIS might be another client to test against. They’ve implemented OGC API read/write support. Plus, QGIS is great for mocking up a wide range of GIS user scenarios.
You're off by an order of magnitude. 1,056 BTC is currently worth approximately $29m.
Could Tesla face a 3.3B fine over a data leak?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
> or is the solution to fix the problem of the car doors staying locked when submerged into water?

The natural progression is for hijackers to then carry buckets of water or spray cans and target the sensors that detect a water scenario.
It's not. A 51% attack involves mining, not transactions.
> I consider someone to be an experienced developer one that has seen a couple frameworks and hype cycles come and go. Let's say 10 years of experience.

sure you draw the line where you feel comfortable, but in the US job market, people get the senior title in 3-7 years, its just a statement of fact rather than opinion.
The absolute worst place to do fraud is on a traceable and a transparent blockchain.
I mean just because two people disagree doesn't mean that there is a misunderstanding. They might have opposing interests. Like one person wants to eat the last cookie on the plate and so does the other person so they disagree. It's not like I have to puzzle out how to use logic, rigor, and debate so that I can understand why they don't prefer that I get the last cookie.
> They're just testing it with their friends in closed alpha/beta;

That's being generous. I know I've read "startup advice" to make a landing page with your idea and get signups, and then build it only if it gets some interest. I don't think that's good advice for fields that evolve daily anyway, by the time you gauge interest, the world will have moved on or someone else will have built the product.
There are several corporations, some of which have raised > 100M, tackling this problem. AIdoc being one of the more notable ones.
That is why statistics are a horrible tool for decision making.

There are so many things that on a statistical basis make no sense. Yet on an individual level it is a life-or-death difference.
if you took a thousand people who adhere to different ethics and polled them on questions of ethics, would you expect the net responses to adhere to any consistent ethics even if each individual's responses did?
> The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned

Obviously, the answer is to disallow that.

And if people break the law, and do it anyway, by trying to be "clever" then a judge and jury can punish them.

This punishment works especially well, with this thing called "discovery", in which the legal system can parse through your internal communications, to see if you are intending on defacto banning it.

> It would be challenging to stop without mandating some explicit formula too

No it wouldn't be.

Just do it, like we do many other laws. Give a vague description of whats not allowed, and let the jury figure it out. And give a large fine if they lose the court case.

That's enough deterrence to stop people from gaming the system. Just give them a huge fine if they try to do that.
In some cases, like "Windows Subsystem for Linux", there's also a common distinction that is caused by consistency in trademark usage.

"xyz for Windows" is allowed, while "Windows xyz" is reserved by the company to indicate that it is actually an official part of Windows.
As far as I can tell ordinals are just NFT's? Is that correct?
Your ethical thought experiment is fair. What would you do if you knew that it would be used for illegal activity. The point you are missing is the payment processors should not even try to detect what the payment is made for. It should not be their job.

Does postal system open every envelope to see if there is cash inside sent as an illegitimate payment to someone? Because it's easier to do it online should not be the base for justifying it.

Would you be happy if your email provider scanned all your emails using ML systems to detect illegal activity? For some reason we value the privacy of our communication more than other types of transactions.
I disagree with the following, but my understanding is Bitcoin purists believe that ordinals are moving Bitcoin away from Satoshis’s whitepaper introduction of Bitcoin as peer to peer electronic cash. In this mindset, meme coins and nfts are scams or at best unimportant entertainment commodities rather than a core innovation of blockchains. So the use of the Bitcoin chain’s limited block space to create these ordinals increases fees for peer to peer cash transactions and move Bitcoin away from Satishi’s vision.

Probably the reason for leaving the conclusions to the reader is conspiratorial. Since one single wallet is responsible for most ordinals, some people might believe it is a government actor trying to stop Bitcoin from becoming useful as peer to peer cash. Of course this is ridiculous as in fact the original premise is wrong as memecoin and nft entertainment products represent a greater threat to state power than peer to peer cash - as they represent popular sovereign property that a lot of people want.
the distributed asynchronous nature of information is fascinating
Today this is the microservice. Why reverse a string when you can build a string-reverse-api microservice to handle it?
Are you sure? ' easily accessible on every layout I've looked it. ´ and ` are usually a pain though. There's probably some layout where it's a pain, but it can't be that many.

But oh how I hate `. I had to edit my layout to make it typable for stupid haskell infix functions
Anything other than “trust the science” was eviscerated during the pandemic, as if “trust” had anything to do with science.

I’m hoping at this point we can agree that the efficacy and function of the available vaccines was overstated and the pressure campaign to take it may have been some of the most intense propaganda inflicted on a western nation in recent memory.
> 1056 BTC is ~US$3.1M at the current time.

Current exchange rate is around $27,774 USD, so more like $29,329,344.
Locked doors can help prevent the door from flying open in an accident, too.
> who are these other people that you are talking about that aren’t allowed to do it?

I don't know. You used the word "people", not me. If you just meant "banks", it would have been clearer to say so.

> Banks are doing this at the behest of the gov’t.

Yes. That doesn't make it right. The government should not be allowed to deny people access to money without due process either.

> You seem to be arguing that what is, isn’t?

No, I'm arguing that what is is not what should be.

> If you want to say that what is, is bad, then hey I’m not arguing against that!

Good! That wasn't clear to me from your previous post. If you agree that what is going on now is bad, then we're in agreement.
By outward appearance or some other metric?

Not to get on a soapbox, but I would imagine someone with great pattern recognition would be able to realize this way of doing things is deranged; and ultimately helps them more than the team- On second though: perhaps they are genuinely the smartest people in the room -- prioritizing their image and importance by making others believe they're too stupid to understand what's going on.

I really should go study Gang of Four -- job security demands it.
Wow, I just had exactly the same puzzle some hours early, when my Twitter account asked me to verify that I’m not a bot (connected using vpn)
I feel the problem is more that Haskell is one of those languages that push against the unmovable barrier of dimensionality. Yes, monads and related ideas that get increasingly adopted by other languages are great. They let you express some things more clearly than before - especially when it comes to cross-cutting concerns like error handling - but only to a point.

At some point, you're trying to optimize readability of code across multiple concerns, each having a good claim to being of prime importance. But you can't. You can try and invent increasingly obscure mathematical abstractions to make some concerns special cases of a more general one - but in the end, there's only so much you can cram into the same piece of plaintext. You have to trade readability for some readers (e.g. those interested in "golden path" business rules) against readability for others (e.g. those interested in error propagation).

Or, you can double down on further abstractions and make everything unreadable for everyone equally :).

The underlying problem is partially about plaintext format itself, but mostly about the fact that we always work on the same, single representation, and demand it to be everything for everyone. I feel the only way to progress is to finally give up the constraint of directly reading and writing the final "single source of truth" code. It will definitely simplify things day-to-day, as it'll allow you to plain ignore and hide things you don't care about at a particular moment, instead of trying to keep them concise with design patterns, clever syntax, advanced algebra, etc.
Point of note:

The Founders did their thing without a Second Amendment.

As it turns out, A Government without the consent of the Governed is not as powerful as it likes to project when it thinks it solidly has said consent.

Their intent was to ensure that if needs be it would be even more likely that any subsequent overthrows have a reasonable chance of succeeding.
It sounds like your brain has been wired in a very specific way. Perhaps it could use reprogramming? One option is psilocybin therapy. It's supposed to be able to make this underlying wiring more malleable in a way that can lead you to having more contentment and joy in life.
An aggregator won't just buy a $12/mo account and use a real login?
The Executive isn't determining that they need to borrow money. Congress did when they passed a budget and the Executive signed it into law. At that point Congress authorized revenue, borrowing, and expenditures, and other monetary considerations. So, again, there is no merit to the debt ceiling. It exists solely to act as a hostage for conservatives to use to harm the economy and claw back our safety net funding targeting veterans, the elderly, those living in poverty, and other vulnerable demographics.
Globalisation is one of the ideas where interests of both sides are aligned. The good ones want globalisation to get rid of nation-states: those war machines that only excel at oppressing peoples. The evil ones want globalization to build a planet-scale tyranny, a rule-based society that nobody can escape: such a tyranny can employ ways of oppression that aren't possible today, as it no longer needs to think about competition with other nations.
> (caveat: not formally adopted)

Not only was P2137 "not formally adopted" it was purposefully written so that the committee could say explicitly "No" to these goals. It's in some sense a manifesto for one of the 2022 "C++ successor" languages, Carbon not for C++.

If you want to cite actual goals, you won't get much from WG21, which prefers not to get tied down by having any principles to speak of. Bjarne himself however wrote a book in 1994 "Design & Evolution of C++" which might help you determine some goals.

I don't see constexpr functions in particular as a success. There are too many caveats, it's easy to find C++ programmers who've written what they assume is a constant evaluated expression but it isn't, for one of many reasons their compiler has decided it's runtime evaluated, and the programmer was surprised.
There's a similar saying in cryptography: "Anyone can design a lock that's so complex they can't break it".
[[nodiscard]] is there because people can't keep clear and empty straight. Which one empties the container and which one checks if it's empty?
If we follow this analogy further, why should we keep the concept of car doors if particular car locks can be made with bugs in them? Doesn't the possibility of bugs in locks means that there will always be a risk, even if we abandon specific locks that has demonstrated to have a bug in them?