skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
With ADHD it's true, unless I'm on some kind of medication, I need time to get into something and once I'm in it's really hard to stop. So if I'm starting to work on something at 17:30 that could take all my night.. I have to plan my day taking this thing into account
Isn't Putin's whole justification to protect russian people?

Russian weapons against russian people contradicts that.
Biggest takeaway here for me was that a rule needs definitions for everything, including things which don’t even seem to be part of the rule. To complete this, I was forced to define the vertical extent of a piece of real estate (the boundary between the park and this country‘s airspace), to define a vehicle, versus something you wear or a toy. By the end, I had actually established a kind of caselaw, which defined that a vehicle is a thing that people or cargo can be on top of or inside for the purposes of transport. I defined that something you put on is not a vehicle and defined that there was some upper bound of the park above, which he would not be said to be “in“ it. I defined that the dragging frame was a vehicle, but an identical frame that was not designed to transport. Things would’ve been classified as not a vehicle. Arguably all of the above are just my conjecture. But I could not decide most of those questions without, at least internally, making all of those judgment calls. Each judgment call introduces even more edges, which could be tested by further questions.

I did not consider for a moment whether the emergency situations should have exceptions made. I feel this is at the wrong place to do so. It’s a separate question to me to ask if it’s OK to break rules during emergencies. I really appreciated the creator’s point, which is to contradict the widely held belief among some people that regardless of opinion, there can be one and only one factual determination. It all depends on a dependency chain of definitions, even before you get into the questions like when it is ok to break the rules.
> I think saying "everybody else" is an exaggeration. It's a minority (possibly a major on HN, including me) who tweak colour schemes.

Doesn't matter. "Everybody else" is the literal amount of people who have to change their system color scheme to change the color scheme of your website because you don't want to implement a toggle. You can't argue around that, it is per definition correct. Anyone who has JS enabled could use a toggle, but you don't implement it, so they have to change their system color scheme.

> Colour preferences are also not black and white, literally. There is a spectrum.

And because it's not black and white you force people to change their system color scheme to change your websites color scheme? This is a non-sequitur.

> The only reason I personally switch from dark to light mode on some websites is because their dark mode isn't what I want and I'd rather put up with the light mode. It's not a preference, just a compromise between two extremes.

And because of this you want to make it harder to change color schemes? How does that make any sense?

> Having an absolute stance on this is untenable since it's a complex situation depending on the site's audience, capacity, goal and so on. Let website owners decide, so they can focus on what's important to their audience.

No. Let the website owners give their users options. It's not that hard.

> For example, for my blog, I suggest people use the RSS feed or Reader Mode to adjust colours and font sizes to their liking. I'm not going to spend time tweaking two colour schemes for some unknown audience, which would just put me off writing and publishing.

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.
The full sentence is:

> Most standards organizations have SOME way of making money, because we live in capitalism.

which could be shortened as:

> Most things that keep existing have SOME way of making money, because we live in capitalism.

And you rebuttal that it cost money to do anything is a confirmation that it is due to capitalism. I would argue that it is the definition of capitalism.

I do not mean this to be a value judgment.
Alternative n+1: Run your own hosting and content. Advertise in real life and through friends networks.

Why bother playing by big platform rules? They will never ever adjust course in your favour. They have their own goals and individual contributions are content to be farmed.

I can not post the majority of my views and content without being suppressed, so time to walk.
> Presupposing that all programming is in the pursuit of grand designs (...) is the only thing that would justify it.

Inversely, chopping up developers' days might be one way to keep them small, bug-fixing, value-tweaking, code-pasting peons.
Oakland. (The intended joke being that peeople visit SF. If you're already in SF you get out. IIRC there's still some kind of community in Oakland)
I get your point and tend to agree; the issue I have is that d3 drawing and updating, along with internal events (i.e. d3 custom dragndrop implementation) don't play nicely together with React (or Angular or Vue, for that matter). But I admit, I wouldn't know how to improve on that.
Fascinating that the first comment entirely disregard the very simple game rules (“it’s not about your jurisdiction“ and “it’s not about wether the rule should be disregarded in that case“).

Is it just because that way you can feel smart having “solved“ the game? Or do you think there’s a moral imperative to say an ambulance isn’t breaking a rule even in an abstract word game? Do you understand abstraction, and that this isn’t really about a park?
Simulating a real camera and lens in Blender [video]
@dang anything mentioning Wagner group is being flagged off the main page, I could see why some people would react that way when there’s a 20 articles shared about the same thing in an hour, but it’s a bit disturbing that there’s currently zero articles on the front page about this
>Both the American paddlefish and the Russian sturgeon are endangered species.[2]

This is where I started getting suspicious about how accurate the article was. The paddlefish is vulnerable, but not endangered. They're doing pretty well in the Missouri, all things considered.

>Researchers in Hungary conducted experiments designed to test if either species could be bred in captivity.

This is where the wiki lost me. Paddlefish are relatively easy to produce in captivity. We've been doing it for decades. It generally doesn't involve sperm from an unrelated species either. I'm curious what the real story is.
> obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign

Most likely true. But to me the answer for the question itself is not about whether the rule can be overridden by any other rules. It’s purely about the rule itself.

The intro supports this:

> You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction. Or perhaps your religion allows certain rules to be overridden. Again, please answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed).

There is a difference between a rule being violated, and whether the violation of the rule is allowed. Like they say in that intro text.

Therefore, all of the examples with police motor vehicles and ambulance motor vehicles are to be answered as being in violation of the rule.
How are they saving face?

Internal power struggles are a sign of weakness. Putin does not like to appear weak.

Now while it certainly has staged elements, the power struggle between Wagner and the regular army is very real.

But the outcome hopefully will actually lead to ending the war (blaming it on the Wagner traitors).
Or worst case, all out nuclear war.
This is pretty good. I use it daily on my Windows 7 system mainly because of hevc, eac-3, jpeg-xl support and a slightly newer version than chrome for windows 7 https://thorium.rocks/win7
Same here.

Also the questions have dubious intent.

Does something violate the rule? Some times they do and sometimes we need to understand if that's acceptable or fix what made this rule to be broken.

But I think many people interpret the question as "should it be allowed"
Uses SCSS which seems outdated.

Why not simply use native CSS variables? Worth pointing out since this is a post about doing something in a simple way.
Can anyone here put NuttX in some sort of usage context with other RTOSes?

Put another way: if one were to learn an embeddable RTOS for first hobbyist and then perhaps professional purposes, where is NuttX in the hierarchy of things you would recommend learning?

It looks fascinating and well thought out, but I have no way to assess how much of a backwater, dead end, quirky solution or solid choice it might be.
This is incorrect afaict. The Go docs specify that the toolchain directive is only considered in the "main" module. If your dependencies set it, it has no effect (unless they're binary tool dependencies that you go install).
I work for product companies in R&D.
If nothing appears after the initial instruction, try a different browser. It doesn't seem to work (but also not show any error) on chromium-based webview android 11. At first I assumed the site was hugged and the questions were being loaded non-statically.

Also, I don't get how this is supposed to help anyone understand content moderation. Take any court case and you'll have similar questions: it's more like playing judge than like playing moderator. Moderation is way harder because you can offend people on both sides at once, and they'll leave your community. In this park scenario, the people being passed judgement on can't move to another park with two clicks of the mouse and take a bunch of friends with them, and the park's sole appeal is not the existence of other people in it (network effect) the way that it is for online communities. Another difference is that people rarely get angry with the judge as much as with the law and politician that made it, which again puts you in a rather different position than in actual moderation.
Russia nuking themselves does not imply that tho. It would be same humanitarian catastrophe as Russia nuking Ukraine, Russia blowing up that nuclear plant in Ukraine they are currently likely planning to blow, Russia blowing up the damm.

Meaning, it would be exactly the same humanitarian disaster as Russia is comiting elsewhere right now. Only difference is that a.) nationality of innocent victims b.) event that harms Russia itself as opposed event that harms countries around Russia.
Please yes. This is the killer feature. To solve your issue all you need is an otional modal to confirm joining. The idea is that you are joining a room not having a phone call. This enables things like joining by yourself while other participants join.
The only one that I don't understand is the horse.

A horse is not a vehicle. A horse is a horse, of course.
Wasn't it just being polite?
Clickbait. It's nothing like it.
Well there was reports that this information was leaked and the news media had this information days before it was officially reported but the news media chose not to report on that leaked information which is also curious
CSS only theme toggles are possible by utilizing a checkbox and placing the body content below the checkbox in a container element. Then adding a transparent label element that controls the checkbox state somewhere else on the page and styling a pseudo-button however one likes below the label.

Then in CSS setting both the prefers-color-scheme media queries but also configuring how the colors should react when the checkbox state is changed. So if a user has prefers-color-scheme:light then when the theme switcher is clicked it styles the page the opposite (example selector: .theme-switch:checked ~ .pagebody). Can also add such styling as a default outside of media queries, too, for browsers that don't recognize prefers-color-scheme.

Saving the state across pages however requires some JS but just wanted to comment that CSS-only toggles are possible.
Very simple CSS only example, including JS-free toggling:

https://codepen.io/theprojectsomething/pen/oNQYqRw

Note: Could be simplified with the :has selector but it isn't currently supported in Firefox.
Anki is supported via the paid iOS app. It used to accept donations but the payment processors kept causing problems.
No room of 100 people will ever agree if a rule that was broken was only technically broken. What should be an exception is in fact an opinion.

Rules can absolutely prevent you from saving a life, for example a rule preventing rescue workers from entering a dangerous area like a cave until conditions improve. Or a police no chase rule.
Vale is an OSS tool that you can use as a "prose linter" with many of these rules. You can also write your own rules. Together with a spellchecker its a good replacement for proprietary tools like grammarly.

- https://github.com/errata-ai/vale
Would a dune buggy be allowed?
Why blow up this headline if the study hasn't been peer reviewed?
Please note that I have 0 interest in inciting anger in this absolutely (to me) fascinating topic. The way I present my arguments are very strongly detached from how this should be handled in any real world scenario. On that part from, what you wrote, I am relatively certain that we would be in easy and relaxed agreement. I don't want people to die in parks because EMTs are vehicles. Please keep that in mind while reading on :)

> You can't dismiss ambiguity with a "you just need to"!

Granted, ambiguity is built into language – for example, what exactly is a vehicle seems to not be conclusively answered for every edge case, and I would allow for the confusion around that – but if you are creating additional ambiguity by overloading the task you have been given and adding "technical" distinctions and "implicit" rules, you are not only no longer playing the game, which is for you to judge if the proposed rule has been violated.

You can of course chose to not judge if this rule has been violated in favor of something else you think more interesting. In that case you are playing a different game.

Interpretation is a tough one. Something might be technical or implicit to me. It might not be technical or implicit to you. Or vice versa. Mostly, on most things, we might agree – but if we do it this way, there are bound to be cases, where we don't, which is precisely the dilemma the creator of the experiment is talking to.
Yes, I'm not questioning whether in real life this sign would cause issues or not. The question is "Does this violate the rule?", To which the answer is "yes" for an ambulance.

Whether it's fine in certain scenarios to break some rules it's a different topic though.
No, it wouldn't necessarily have to. Self-driving cars are going to fail in ways that seem very stupid to us, but they might handle "normal" accident-prone situations much better than humans and thus be much safer overall.
Things like these are a liability for open source volunteers. I wouldn't want to volunteer in open source for no payment if I could be sued for changing anything. It needs to define open. Are third party captchas open? Is requiring facebook account open? Is closed AI based spam control open?
I think it's a fascinating practical example of how "baked in" cognitive bias is. The sort of people that use HN tend to be highly analytical. Yet nonetheless we see a massive public display of people rationalizing their failure to directly answer the question that was very clearly and unambiguously asked while pretending that they did.

The logical exercise is extremely close (by design) to one that commonly occurs in everyday life. In real life people want to bend the rules to achieve a certain outcome when applying them. They don't want to say "well a rule was violated but I'm exercising discretion". That's on full display here even though no meaningful outcome is actually being determined in this case.
> The creator of the original game was relatively radical for her time:

Relatively radical for that time makes you far more radical than people are now.
Iron oxide contains no carbon. So if there is any carbon monoxide forming that would have to come from somewhere else. Like the co2 in the atmosphere.
Always wanted to go but put off by the price and relative lack of 'rides'.

How much of your enjoyment was based on the meta (its history, surrealism, copying the Dutch, etc.) and how much was it being genuinely fun?
> most likely bringing the average vehicle occupancy below 1.

That would quite hilarious and horrific at the same time
I'm a little perplexed as to why professors and other academic staff have routinely hard to read websites. Yes I'm aware I can bump up the font size, but especially on mobile that gets annoying. It's one thing if they don't have a stylesheet what so ever, it's a fully another thing to intentionally make things hard to read:

font-family: arial,verdana,sans-serif;
font-size: small;

From an article that expressly advocates not making things hard to read:
"Avoid excessive parenthesized remarks as they make the text hard to read;"
The performance improvements are noticeable on my pretty old computer.
GCC 14 Adds Initial “-std=C++26” Plumbing
BBC seems to be more "Live" with recent events including them taking another city/town [1].

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-66006142
But rules are a "contract" between two parties. The people who put up a sign are trying to fix a problem and they care about the intention behind the sign. But the visitors need to try to follow the rules, so they need to decide of the activity they were considering is allowed.

This ambiguity can cause issues. In a perfect world it doesn't exist. But in reality it usually does because you don't want to hire a lawyer to help you understand if the 30-page sign prevents you from bringing a toy boat into the park.
Good point. It has libraries in most languages and that's good enough for me, but might be a problem if you're interfacing with other projects.
But Web browsers already don't render off screen content right? I'm pretty sure I remember opening hundreds of megs of data in Firefox at one point without an issue. Or old reddit with RES has infinite scroll and you can go dozens of pages deep without a hitch. All while not lazily rendering the other pages.
And this is literally true, OP your interpretation is exactly how it was designed:

> Monopoly is derived from The Landlord's Game, …… as a way to demonstrate that an economy that rewards individuals is better than one where monopolies hold all the wealth

( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) )

The less outright-capitalistic part didn’t survive in the rules.
I would like also to have benchmarks between the current Java API, and you library. Otherwise it is not obvious, does your library outperform standard implementation, or not.
.... that has nothing to do with the allocator though
Kyiv Post also reports that RU has begun bombing their own territory to deprive Wagner of resources:
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1672548663057326080
Shouldn't FSD drive at speed that it can stop on visible bit of road? So if there is a bend it should only go as fast as visible space allows?
>> But understanding from direct specification breaks down when the space of operations is too big to comprehend. If all we can do is run a program to see its output because its state space is too large and/or complicated to comprehend, then we lack understanding.

I don't agree. That's [edit: part of] why maths are established as the language of science, because they're a formal language of abstractions by which we can avoid having to deal with large, or even infinite, spaces, by writing down a finite formula that fully defines the relevant concept.

For example, I don't have to count to infinity, to understand infinity. I can study the definition of infinity (there are more than one) and understand what it means. Having understood what infinity means, I can then reuse the concept in calculations, where again I don't have to count to infinity to get to a correct result. I can also reuse the concept to form new concepts, again without having to count to infinity.

With LLMs then, we have the maths that define their "space of operations". We can use those maths to train LLMs! Again- what else understanding remains to be had? I do think you're still talking about tracing the operations in an LLM to fully follow how inputs become outputs. But that's not how we commonly approach the problem of understanding, and even predicting the behaviour, of large and complex technological artifacts. Like, I don't reckon there's anyone alive that could draw you a diagram of every interaction between every system on an airliner. Yet, we "understand" those systems and in fact we can analyse them and predict their behaviour (with error).

That kind of analysis is missing from LLMs, but that's because nobody wants to do it, currently. People are too busy poking LLMs and oohing and aaahing at what comes out. I'm hoping that, at some point, the initial rush of hype will subside and some good analytical work will be produced. This was done for previous LLMs although rarely of course, and poorly, because of the generally poor methodologies in machine learning research.

>> The danger in LLMs is that their sequence of operations ...

That's relevant to what I say above. Yeah, that work hasn't been done and it should be done. But that's not about understanding how LLMs work, it's about analysing the function of specific systems.
Phillips O’Brien has been writing presciently [1].

[1] https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien
There are ways to do this, i.e. through custom protocol handlers. They could also be used to deal with following accounts on other servers without having to copy/paste all the time.

Mastodon had a custom URI for interacting with it, but it wasn't an opt-in feature and the constant prompt to register the handler annoyed people. That's why the feature and the protocol were removed and they haven't been added back.

I think it's rather silly to first ignore the calls to opt into the protocol popup, then remove it completely because there were too many complaints about the protocol popup, and now refuse to add it back because of "bad UX".
Yeah but rules are not "listen for siren sound for at least 2 seconds to move out"
I wonder if this will last longer than https://designsystem.gov.au/
Craig Murray is an interesting one. All the new wave right wingers portay themselves as independent thinkers who disparately analyse the data and just so happen to rationally consistently comes to conclusions that "the libs" hate. They're all grifters, of course.

I believe Craig Murray is one of the few exceptions. He's an actual independent thinker who happens to ruffle a lot of feathers on the left. I disagree with him most of the times, but appreciate his intelectual honesty.
How Outback Steakhouse went from down under, all the way to the top (2001)
So in short, you're saying that a stochastic coup is a thing, and the Capitol case was an example of one?
Slotmap is one of my favorite crates, by the way. Thank you for putting it out there!
Appears to be React + React Router, built with create-react-app. I'd use Next for a site like this nowadays, though.
Sure. It's definitely opinionated, but perhaps our opinions align!

https://gist.github.com/idle-z/7fc3d3950b02c441ab522a094e5f4...
I don’t think that suggests copyright infringement, more that you could do something like “request from the Amazon internal admin page url” and the AI will generate you the correct link. Or tell you other info which is private. The AI hasn’t copied anything, but it does know secrets and can use them.

This does not matter for open source since anyone can see this info already.
The author appears to run Ubuntu - but this should work for Debian too:

https://www.zaccariotto.net/post/zfs-snapshot-rollback/