skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't consider myself an expert on this topic, but from my reading, some of what you're saying is correct, and some of it is not.

My disagreement is not at all about whether the Wrights had their own insights and strengths or can justly claim priority to have the first human carrying powered and controlled aircraft. I know it can seem like I'm doing them down in some way, but I do not intend to. So, I recognise their advances and their focus on building their vision of an actually useful flying machine.

Where I disagree is when you say things like:

> Keep in mind that the Wrights built a series of gliders, each one was to test a particular aspect of the flight problem.

as if that were unusual. Almost all of the names I mentioned in my previous comment did exactly that too.

We probably disagree on precisely which of the Wright's achievements meant a significant advance on state of the art (some of the advances you mention were being systematically investigated by others too), but my main point of departure from you is really just the apparent characterisation of the Wrights contemporaries as not following the scientific method and approaching the whole problem in a haphazard and isolated way.

My own impression of those days is of a small group of pioneers that were in touch with each other, building on each others advances, and with incomplete but growing knowledge of the science behind what they were trying to do.
I think the website is very disingenuous because it purposely asks the wrong question. The question is not "is the rule technically violated", the question is "should they be fined for violating the rule". If you asked the latter question, then 99% of people would agree on all questions.
When was the last time an open source maintainer was sued for changing something?
This is especially true of really ancient animals such as fish.
Easy Move+Resize for moving and resizing windows from anywhere in the window
The best use case would be if you can efficiently switch between representations. Shallow nets don't suffer from the vanishing gradient problem, so you could have very, very deep RNNs, convert to a shallow net for the gradient update, and then convert back to an RNN for the next rollout. Of course, most RNNs track an internal state, which isn't considered in the paper, but overcoming that limitation could make RNN training effective for long enough rollouts that transformers are no longer needed, especially given that RNNs scale better for long sequences than transformers do.
You'll have to correct for more variables than that, since presumably the average Tesla FSD driver is going to look quite different than the average driver.
Sorry, I ran out of fucks somewhere in the middle of COVID. Them nuking their own army/PMC themselves would be small price if that ended Ukraine's conflict

> Let's not participate in the vilification of the Russian people.

I'm vilifying their leadership. But I'm still amazed there is no revolt there
11% here too.. Although it looks like 11% is the majoritiy of results here.. Interesting
I'm not downplaying anything, it was the parent who was dissatisfied with static checking of reverse. Personally, I think any static checking is better than none at all. Statically typed languages are perfectly capable of checking additional contracts/properties at runtime too (as Clojure does).
I similarly can't fathom how a bicycle is anything other than a vehicle. It has wheels and gears, it's a machine, it speeds you up significantly, you get one an off it, you have to learn to ride it, it can carry additional items. And you have to follow traffic rules (which is like circular reasoning but shows that governments say it is a vehicle).
We had take-home tests at my previous place, and the main thing we tried to communicate throughout was respect. Evidence suggests we managed it in most cases, as we regularly had candidates thanking us for a good test after rejection, and on multiple cases I saw/heard rejected candidates encourage others to apply.

How did we do it? Limited time, feedback, and benefit of the doubt.

We put a time limit on the exercise. It was a 1.5-2 hour exercise, with a 3 hour cap. Some felt this added some stress, but many appreciated that it didn't take up their whole weekend or multiple evenings. In the few instances that candidates overran this massively (~8 hours) without notifying us in advance, we saw no difference in their scores.

As for feedback, we were scoring against a rubric that was quite detailed across multiple different categories. This forced us as reviewers to break down and justify, not just say "I don't like it". And because we ended up with 5-10 bullet points of things we did or didn't like, there was useful feedback we could give. There was also the added benefit that we all knew the problem inside and out, and so could drill down to the essence of the solution quite easily.

And lastly, the benefit of the doubt. No software engineer writes perfect code every time, and code review is an important part of the job, so if the feedback boiled down to "I don't like it but it's close", or if it was something that with regular code review would have managed to pass the bar, then that's what we'd do. We'd schedule another round to discuss the code with the candidate, see how they responded to the feedback, and hopefully move them on to the next round.

Why doesn't everywhere do this? It's actually pretty hard. You need a recruiting team who are very on top of the logistics and running the process, and you need reviewers who know the problem well, are bought in to giving a great candidate experience, and who are good enough to be able to judge others. In my experience most places don't have much of this.
MittiCool, the zero electricity terra cotta refrigerator
> Going off of China’s own numbers

Why would you do that? Their numbers are factually fiction [1]. I know someone who had weekly reports, through their business relations, of where outbreaks were when, according to China, there were zero cases and deaths. They weren’t allowed to travel or do business in those areas.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/asia/wuhan-china-covid-intl/i...
Worry about the pfas if it's microwave popcorn
I believe they recently added that modal, in a recent installation it prompted me for confirmation before I clicked the "dont ask again" option
Hybridisation of distant species is rare but happens at a nonzero rate. It’s role in the development of species is probably underestimated, imho.
Interesting to note that the underlying data by the OEC has some caveats.

For e.g. the exports for Venezuela [1] is valued at $3b, which doesn't include Petroleum exports which account for 80%+ of the country's exports. I've heard that this is due sanctions on the country by various countries and that affects the data collected by the OEC (I have no citation).

[1] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/ven#yearly-trade
> C++ really can be used anywhere C is used.

Kind of what I have been preaching since 1993, as I adopted C++ into my toolbox, and had some fun on Usenet on C vs C++ flamewars.

It was with some vindication that I celebrated when all major C compilers eventually transitioned to C++.
How's this different from just refactoring? Why the fancy name?
Two important things:

1. From the first page:

> please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

In other words, if a question is about some kind of vehicle that you think should be allowed to go, overriding this rule, the answer is "yes, the rule is violated".

2. There is a twist in this game and it's best to not tell which it is before you try the game. (The twist is acknowledged in the result page, 4th paragraph from the bottom, not counting the P.S. line at the end).
I thought Twitter famously doesn't allow reallocation of old usernames?
If on can find infrastructure, safety, public health, climate, industry, and the internet one can be in a Renaissance environment.
Anki is badly designed and inefficient, largely I think because it was the first project for its author. It's also become venerable and battle-tested, and features have been developed through the needs of a very large userbase.

I don't think that anyone denies that Anki could be a lot better if it were completely rewritten with the experience of having had Anki for years and knowing its pain points. You just have to have a plan, best based in analysis of Anki (and SuperMemo) to do that.

> There's definitely space for an easy to use SRS out there.

I think there's definitely even space for a hard to use SRS that's easier to deal with. But it's got to start by covering at least 80% of what Anki does already or it's not worth switching.
>It’s a different goal from grinding spices. It’s functional.

Or... it's an after the fact rationalization for the cargo cult!

At best this might be your goal, for whatever reason. 99% of the people who cargo cult a salt grinder don't have that reason - and regular sold salt would be 100% OK for their purposes.
Read this book if the following sounds interesting to you.

The Amazon, before European settlement was not a huge virgin rainforest with scattered tribes living in harmony with nature. Instead it was a completely human agriculture dominated landscape with huge cities boasting populations larger than Paris but without the famine and shit in the streets.

The forest we see now is not the state they lived in but is more like a post-apocalyptic landscape where the trees have taken over again and scattered pockets of survivors eke out an existence.
> and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign.

I disagree due to the instructions on the page before starting the quiz: "please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)."

The game is specifically asking us not to make a judgement call on whether a violation of the rule should be permitted. So, police are violating the rule (even if we think it's allowable)
I'm sure a fuzzy inference system is being trained in the background based on visitors' responses.
Rule 24 doesn’t obey rule 11. Practice what you preach!
Since when is 10% big?
Seems like more intelligent coverage than 99% of the stuff I've seen.

A couple points it misses:

- Some serious-looking (but ultimately fake) drama between Wagner and the Ministry of Defense could be extremely useful to Putin - by providing a distraction from the current Ukrainian offensive operations, and a scapegoat for any successes of those operations.

- With only ~25,000 soldiers, no logistical infrastructure, very limited heavy weapons, no air force, etc. - Wagner has no ability whatever to win an actual fight with the Ministry of Defense.
The only way to make it quickly enough.
Newby
Hey! I am new here.
> an array of structures, the compiler/language should be able to turn that into a structure of arrays

class Point:

i: int

def get_x():

return x_array[i]

# shift every point

x_array += 1
The Guardian's Ukraine live blog has good coverage as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/series/ukraine-live
Clarifying: the part I'm arguing is "self-evident" is that an LLM is a derivative work of its training data, in the same sense that if you copy the text of a million books into a data file and compress that file reversibly in a way that lets you get most or all of them back out again, the result is clearly a derivative work of those books. That part I made a case for, and it seems like from your last paragraph you agree with that part of the argument.

(By contrast, I wouldn't say it's self-evident that a database of blake3 hashes would be a derivative work (leaving aside that it'd probably be fair use), nor is it self-evident that compiling a million books into a Bloom filter that can recognize any random sentence but not output any random sentence would make the Bloom filter a derivative work. I think the unfiltered LLM being able to output near-verbatim copies of parts of the training set makes that case evident.)

I agree that the second step, of the output of the LLM being a derivative work of the LLM, is less obvious. And I agree that it's going to take case law before people are sure of the answer to that part. I hope the answer is "yes", and I think it'd do substantial harm to Open Source if the answer is a definitive "no".
This was a really elegant way to decline having a pointless discussion, I like it.
I promise that turning your summary into flashcards and looking at them for the next couple of years will help you remember that stuff longer.
I’m inclined to agree with all this but when I’m conversation with someone who has only ever been in a Manager schedule, what would you recommend I point to as actual evidence?

Specifically on the cost of meetings to developers.
Probably because a real war would expose the sheer amount of graft and theft him and his cronies had accomplished over the years. Peace would have ensured that no one even knows that the munitions depots are empty and the equipment never maintained.
I think it really depends on where you are located. I can't imagine personal wheeled vehicles like bikes and skateboards being prohibited from a park in the Netherlands unless explicitly stated so. On the other hand in suburban Florida biking places is so far out of the norm that it might make sense.
Do people really have that much of an issue with it? In my brain it is much like left-vs-right-side-driving; just a mode in my brain.

The first couple of seconds using it differently are confusing, then _click_, brain switches over.

Maybe this only happens if you regularly need to use different machines.
A better example would be a private property (you're the sole source of law, not interpreting someone else's rule) where people come to network (people are here because other people are here) and there's a competitor literally next door (there is no cost for them to change platform).

These three crucial differences make the game incomparable to actual online moderation
> Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues.

Ehhhh the title is a click bait imho.
Both those examples (rescue/no-chase) are in order to save lives... but I agree there are examples like not interfering with a state execution. My point was about the general case and not denying there is tiny minority of exceptional counter-examples. I expect between 99-100% of park rules will not be enforced to save a life.
If you are talking about what to do with unloyal locals in Donetsk and Luhansk, I took it from ukranian propaganda, not russian.

Russian government and it's mass-media has no trust in any questions (especially in Ukraine-related), no sane person trusts them, even ultra-Z-pro-war-vatniks (if we can call them sane).
> No. Let the website owners give their users options. It's not that hard.

If it's not hard, shouldn't that ideal be towards the handful of browser vendors rather than the thousands/millions of website owners? I agree, if you're going out of your way to provide different stylesheets, provide a toggle, otherwise it's kind of a wasted effort anyway. However, my point of argument is the ideals. The idea someone SHOULD provide something. That SHOULD should be towards browser vendors, not website owners.

>And that's totally fine! If you don't have separate color schemes, it would make no sense to include a toggle. But if you have separate color schemes, add a toggle.

I don't think it's fine in your scenario, and the current state of things. If we require websites to individually provide their own toggles, how will the user know a toggle is even available or not? It creates an inconsistent UX where some websites have toggles and others don't. How many Hacker News visitors wasted time looking for a dark mode toggle that doesn't exist?

Which is why having it at the browser-level is necessary. Not to mention storing state, one of my pet peeves is using Incognito and losing my preferences.

It's kind of funny to me because Alternative Stylesheets solved this problem decades ago. Just like how Firefox used to have an RSS icon so we knew a website had RSS without needing to look for it. All of this stuff has been delegated to web extensions, which is barely supported on mobile. So we all need to plaster our websites with what we do and don't support and hope users find them.
I think I’m misinterpreting what “rated for 4000m” means. My impression is this is the maximum safe depth the sub is capable of reaching without damage. And that they are bring it regularly to 95% of that depth.

My understanding of safety margins, as I was taught, is that one should design such that you have a safety margin of 1.5x the intended use case. In other words, for 3800m expected frequent usage, it should be able to reach a depth of 5700m.

Alvin, for example, can reach a depth of 6500m.

But you’re right, we don’t know what that 4000m means, really. I’m just assuming it means safe depth without damage.
I have been struggling with the same problem while trying to learn about human history because I wanted to first get a good 10000 foot view. It's really hard grasping what happened when, especially when things get really complicated after the fall of the Roman Empire.

It's also interesting that there is no (or I couldn't find) readily available (free or paid) web app which would allow us to sort of slide over a timeline of history and show events which happened at that date/week/month/year. Even better if that could be filtered by event and importance.

The best I could find are various timelines od history which try the parallel rivers approach, but they are mostly huge and unwieldy.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying we should somehow care more about Russians than about anyone else. I just don't think Putin nuking cities with millions of people would be hilarious in any sense of the word, and I don't see how that changes based on which side of the border it's on.
It was first published in 1966, so seems probable. Thankfully prose and the core structure of language is slightly less volatile than the JS ecosystem.
The intent of moderation is "don't be horrible to each other and/or the space".

Unfortunately, people who are horrible to other people and/or spaces generally refuse to accept this, and therefore either need more specific examples of what being horrible entails to compare their behaviours against - leading to proliferation of edges, epicycles and rule-gaming - or you have a codicil along the lines of "the decision of what is horrible is up to the moderator and is final", leading to, at best, everyone whining about how unfair, arbitrary and partial the policy is now they can't be horrible to each other any more, all at once.
> Avoid use of passive tense if at all possible. Example: "In each reservation request message, a refresh interval used by the sender is included." reads better and shorter as "Each ... message includes ..."

To which I submit the following article as a rebuttal: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.html. Oh well, at least this person seems somewhat more consistent than most in following his own rule.
The Case Against Travel
I thought it would be too tedious to write out everything about the Landlord’s Game since it was shared here a few months ago. Which is why I only winked at it by mentioning Georgeism (it’s there, literally in my comment).

The history aside, the game Monopoly describes the concept of monopoly quite well and how it is a bad thing.
I've somehow created a thread that's attracted presumably independently wealthy people who think pension funds are evil.
And people who don't care won't change the default settings.

The best case scenario is opt-out. That way people who care have a choice, and people who don't care are updated. People will complain either way.
According to most Reddit moderators: no vehicles in the park (unless the vehicle is in front of a sunset or we have to save our democracy by allowing vehicles with megaphones to drive around the park spouting the exact political ideology of the moderators)

The rule “no vehicles in the park” isn’t complicated. It’s complicated when it’s “no vehicles in the park except the moderators and their friends.”
Which obviously only works for the training data. It's a good example to remond that the whole point is to predict unseen input output pairs (generalization) so what is important is not so much the ability to fit a function, but to interpolate and extrapolate that function. And different bases and different fitting algorithms will have different behaviour in that respect.
The Prigozhin Coup seems pretty damn well organized
So was there a problem or not? That email referred to groups by ID, which is totally useless.
Your keyboard layout is broken
There are several threads on r/openSUSE about updates reinstalling packages people had previously uninstalled or unselected during installation, because they were part of an installed pattern. Stuff like small games for example. You can manually "taboo" packages to prevent this but it does not sound super convenient.

I only tried Tumbleweed for a couple of days a few weeks back because I needed to switch distros, and this was the only thing that seemed a bit annoying. Other than that it seemed like a solid and friendly distro.
Thats when you do polars.DataFrame.to_numpy()
> If you find yourself saying "In other words," it means you didn't say it clearly enough the first time. Go back and rewrite the first attempt.

Sometimes, particularly in didactic material, it helps to explain things in more than one way, as different people may find different explanations helpful.
This is core to the Gricean Maxim of Quantity [1], according to which one gives as much information as needed but no more. If the sign says "No vehicles in the park" and nothing else then any reasonable person should assume that the reason for the sign is so obvious that no further clarification is needed.

Unrelated, it is also the reason why a hot-dog is not a sandwich, pragmatically speaking.

[1] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html
Cache-friendlier than past versions happens all the time for PHP and Javascript. A fair amount of the gains in PHP7 were optimizations that reduced reallocation of memory, "packed arrays" where if an array is all ints to store it in a more compact structure, etc.

Polymorphic inline caching would be another example of trying to reduce the performance impact of a dynamically typed language...being more cache friendly despite the handicap of not knowing everything until runtime.
Ask HN: ChatGPT is a terrible product name. What would you have named it?