skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Suppose the data is in a private field of an object deep in the object graph. How do you get it? You can't, by design - that object's public interface may expose some aspects of the data, but you're not meant to access the actual raw data.
Please see this paper and the sections on alcoholic cirrhosis

> In north Africa and the Middle East, alcohol-related liver disease constituted the lowest proportion of age-standardised prevalence and death rates.19 This finding could be expected, because alcohol is prohibited in many of the countries in this region, which could lead to both decreased use and the possibility of under-reporting.

> Among GBD regions, the highest proportions of cirrhosis deaths due to alcohol-related liver disease were in central Europe (44·0%), western Europe (41·7%), and Andean Latin America (38·1%; figure 4; appendix p 41). The proportion of cirrhosis deaths due to alcohol-related liver disease was lowest in north Africa and the Middle East (5·3%) and in Egypt specifically (4·8%), and highest in Belgium (53·5%; appendix p 41).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1...

Also see these maps:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/t...

From this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7650014/
With all of the sensationalization, I am now convinced that many of the people in quantum computing itself are grifters, and that funding agencies keep paying them to put pressure on classical computing (despite knowing that QC is a big grift).

Already, optimization problems have seen classical "ising" chips get great results (as good as the quantum annealing chips), proving that optimization doesn't actually need tunneling or superposition.

Now, the number theorists just need to come up with a classical analog for a QFT or another similar transform, and we will see them obviate QC here. Arguably, RSA being obsolete has already done this.

In simulation, supercomputers are also making huge advances in power.
It actually got really really good with Ubuntu 23.04 and KDE. It's finally working as it should, and perfectly sharp.
Location: Oregon, USA

Remote: Yes, preferred

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Rust, TypeScript, React; see Résumé for more

Résumé/CV: https://agamecoder.com/resume/

Email: andrew.bowers -at- agamecoder.com

I'm an experienced (>9 years) full-stack web developer willing to learn and excel at any technology, language, or tool.
I feel like a fish out of water - I understand the importance of having an external monitor, maybe even 2 monitors if you're on desktop, but...8K ? 32 inch? curved? 120hz ... wow I feel like I have absolute no problems sitting here with a 27 inch 60 hz monitor alongside my Macbook pro...
Much appreciated. This goes a long way in alleviating concerns about this being a paid piece by TMC and gives some insightful credence into the claims about deep water sea life and potential impacts.

As I've apparently upset someone else in the comments by asking for citations, I just want to clarify that I didn't intend that as an attack. I'm just a bit incredulous that an organization with as much "prestige" and alleged journalistic integrity as The Economist doesn't - as a rule - cite their sources or byline their authors.

Perhaps it's just a different way of doing things, but that really doesn't sit right with me for a number of reasons, and as a result, I have a hard time taking anything it says without a spoonfull of salt/sources.

Thanks again.
Fun fact: the name of the app did not include "authenticator" before the rename. Because guess what, my Android phone is not in English. So the name was the localized version of "Google Authenticator" (I think it was Google認証). Now it's "Authenticator". No "Google", and not localized, and, obviously, not at the same place while sorted with everything else. And not the same icon.
not compared to the $500 Google gave them
You realize the vast, vast majority of the electronics industry and many other industries have very little choice in the matter (for the time being at least). That's great you can make that decision, but there are many who don't have that luxury.

If you want or require mass production of electronics or motors, it's fairly difficult to have done in the US for competitive pricing (or in some cases, at all).
It kinda doesn't matter? I would wager this will likely eclipse the fediverse's total userbase in a day or two. They simply post a banner for logged-in IG users, "Tap here to get the new twitter-murdering app, no signup needed", and they have an instant eight-figure userbase.
I wouldn't say its "missing" named function arguments. Treating arguments and return values as lists is very powerful. Perl is very Lisp-like in that aspect.

Also, CPAN is considered one of Perl's strengths. How did CPAN cause Perl to burn out?
The reason you aren't persuasive is because you just ignore arguments without responding to them. At least, you've done so here - perhaps you've responded other places with your decade of experience. When presented with surveys and claims of experts, you just dismiss those out of hand "I'm an expert too, therefore ignore other experts." When presented with an argument you just say "That's religious dogma and I reject it." I can't stop you from rejecting things out of hand, but you shouldn't be surprised that you come off as totally unpersuasive when you say and do these things.

In the simplest form:

1. AI could become smarter than humanity.

2. AI is rapidly progressing towards super-human intelligence.

3. If AI is smarter than humanity it could destroy or dominate humanity.

4. We aren't certain AI won't destroy or dominate humanity.

Therefore, there is some non-negligible existential risk from AI.

Which of these points do you disagree with, or do you think the conclusion doesn't follow?
I agree with you. Splitting db tables can be a net positive in very specific cases but it smells like premature optimization.
"Nothing to see in this inconsequential corner of the world I'm busy monetizing with who knows what side-effects; you really ought to worry about the Killer AI Robots instead!"

Again, I think ego is probably a better explanation than nefarious intent, but it's a nice side-effect.
it was the math prof who made "life" who gave (with a friend hop) me the game where one speaks with just these base words.
Boom, Bubble, Bust: The Fiber Optic Mania [pdf]
This is the whole point of modern open source: to be able to exploit others for their works, without them having any recourse for compensation or entanglement when you make lots of money derived from their labor. It’s a technologist’s libertarian dream come true. It’s also a primary cause of burnout in open source developers — but that doesn’t matter, because there will always be more open source developers to exploit, so long as they believe in open source strongly enough.
I love watching people reinvent Visual Studio or IntelliJ IDEA, badly.
It's generally a question of time.

If you want to play the long game and collect a lot of encrypted data now, you can simply wait until it is possible to trivially decrypt, and/or start cracking now and let the years work on it.

Most encryption decisions are framed as a tradeoff of the time and resources it would currently take to brute-force your way through it, and how many years before a simple attack becomes feasible, vs. your $5 wrench attacks in the present day.
In this case though it's "you failed! try again tomorrow!" (because it's a daily thing). The odds I'm gonna come back tomorrow are extremely low though.
Solution: ask your company to sponsor the project. It’s easy:

https://github.com/sponsors/libjpeg-turbo

Ideally, every developer in every large co would be given some budget to spread sponsorship money around as they saw fit—ask your manager to make it happen. Note that they may be able to register this as a marketing expense, which may be more favorable to your accounting department.

(I use this library in PhotoStructure via Sharp and libvips, so I just started sponsoring it)
At risk of asking a dumb question, is there any good reason that you’d want nginx to allow traversing into “..” from a URL path? It just seems like problems waiting to happen.

Edit: Actually, I’m a bit lost as to what’s happening in the original vuln. http://localhost/foo../secretfile.txt gets interpreted as /var/www/foo/../secretfile.txt or whatever… but why wouldn’t a server without the vulnerability interpret http://localhost/foo/../secretfile.txt the same way? Why does “..” in paths only work sometimes?
That sounds better than every recent sequel coming out of Hollywood, imho. Would watch.
Same thing with DPReview- the digital camera review site. Amazon bought it, ran it for a number of years, and then shut it down a few months ago. Owner of the site exited. Employees got a few years of salaries.
Eventually guys like this get tuned out because they tear other people down.

There are plenty of rational, thoughtful critics of technology, and the ones who are most listened to are the ones who have built things and shown themselves willing to error correct in a way that balances tradeoffs.
Musk's actions generally speaking make a lot of financial sense, it's just that he bought a company that wasn't founded on financial sense, and now all that debt requires payment because the economy is in tatters
Scrolling through their blog, I think something's getting lost in translation; their idea of a "decentralized organization" sounds more like a flat hierarchy in the style of Valve, but you've got to try to parse this tortured "starfish vs spider" metaphor to get there. https://starfish.team/blog/adaptive-vs-reactive-strategies-w...

Likewise, I clicked "portfolio" expecting some samples of their work and instead got another unintelligible sales pitch and a mailto: link. Their corporate culture sounds nice, I like their healthy attitudes toward remote work, but maybe they should get some native english speakers to edit their copy?
Not sure what you’re refering to.
Nope. All it takes is a sci-fi essayist. /s
Genuine question: did anyone actually get locked up on a business trip to China?
Ask HN: How to measure the cost for read requests in Serverless DBaaS
I'm currently developing a serverless time-series cloud service and we've reached the juncture of designing an innovative cost metric system. Our goal is to move away from the convention of calculating costs based on memory and CPU usage, instead offering our customers a more precise price calculation method.

For write requests, the measurement method seems somewhat straightforward - we can measure according to data size. However, when it comes to read requests, the paradigm shifts. These requests often involve varying levels of analysis operations which could result in substantial differences in resource utilization.

I'm struggling to find a fitting and fair methodology to measure the cost for read requests, particularly those that involve complex analytical queries. I'd appreciate it if anyone could suggest suitable approaches to accurately factor in such diverse resource requirements in our pricing model.

Any help or pointers would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I feel something like "OK, you made your first guess, now try to get even closer! Here's another image" would have been helpful.
Maybe I am doing something wrong but the example code does not seem to work on VS 2022 (no output file after a div by zero or stack overflow crash).
Some more brainstorming:

===

"Support Void", "Voiding", "Customer Voiding"

Tossing all customer support requests (and sometimes customers themselves!) into the void.

Pros: Sounds snappy and dramatic. Has humorous resonance with voiding your bowels.

Cons: Meaning not immediately clear. Sounds active when the problem is really more passive.

===

"Customer Neglect", "Customer Disservice", "Customer Ghosting"

Opposite of "customer service."

Pros: Meaning is more obvious because of its relation to Customer Service.

Cons: Not quite as snappy.
This illustrates the problem with this 'business value at all costs' perspective. Improved velocity is not the only or even primary takeaway from consolidating 3 mostly identical codebases into 1. There are so many benefits that I struggle to think of a decent justification for leaving triplicated codebases in play, based on what GP has described.
>2. Specific evidence that an AI System can be used to aid in the development of WMDs of any variety,

That's not difficult to satisfy. Turns out AI is very good at designing chemical weapons:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/11/ai-dru...

Granted, design is different from actually producing the material, but there are models to help with that too, e.g.:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05376

Which has zero guardrails for materials not in a blacklist (see page 18). It's too easy to see how to bypass the filter even for known materials, and it definitely won't help with new materials.

I see nothing here that can't be replicated in principle by a not too large non-state actor. It's not like some people haven't already tried this when AI didn't exist in its modern form:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
The problem is that a lot of the time the anti-AI people are complaining about the scraping itself. They say things "Downloading Copyright web content without permission" when thats what has been happening for years.

As if scraping was a new and unusual thing. Google and other have always been doing a lot more than just creating an index.

The opponents should attack the new stuff, not the other stuff that people have been doing for years.
Thank you, that's very kind. However, it's not possible even for me to view the listing while it is blocked.
> No, this has not been audited. Fuck you, pay me.

Lol. Nice.
I personally love these kinds of names. On a long enough timeline, using them either:

- prompts someone to tell you the actual name for the thing, and now you know a name for something

- calls out poorly considered dependencies/design

- leads to naming a thing that deserves a name

- calls out complexity which is inherent either to the domain or other aspects of the underlying architecture

Every one of those is a positive outcome, and a less verbose name will never* be a better tradeoff.

* There are many apparent real-world exceptions, but they always fall under the “naming a thing that deserves a name” category, even if the resulting name is less clear than the verbose one. And they’re almost always directly involved in core abstractions (i, acc, cons) or core domain concepts.

Edited to make this less mistakenly ignorant of lisp.
I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.
No problem, happy to help
Mm, okay. ThriftBooks is my go-to for used books, because I first discovered them through Internet Archive. However, IA's partnership is with Better World Books, (BWB) which is a completely different site.

Checking orders, there was a switch from BWB to ThriftBooks. I don't know how the switch happened, but you'd think I would notice when receipts stopped having anthropomorphized messages.

So, I'm not able to link IA with ThriftBooks, unless OpenLibrary linked them and I happened to stick with them after the first real delivery.

(Or, maybe ThriftBooks happened to have better inventory at the time.)

> advertising

With the above as context--well, it worked for me. Classics one or two orders of magnitude cheaper is a good deal.

That brings us to

> recommending books

Hard to say¹ without more context. First, I'll add a constraint: don't get only one book priced at 100 euro, especially since many books in this thread are inarguably valuable for much less. Then really, what OP can afford is a collection of books. Then, there is no "one best" book.

For the sheer number of exercises, can't go wrong with Deitel & Deitel How to Program series: Java, C, C++, or Python. I know folks will scream, but without much more to go on, there's enough material to get solid on fundamentals.

It's not the best book on CS, but it's one of the best to get started.

The way OP mentions "circle of interest" makes me assume they have some knowledge of things, so let's skip Data Structures & Algorithms, and head straight to electives: operating systems, databases, advanced algorithms, functional programming, software engineering, networking, assembly, etc.

The solution here is to buy multiple books from the suggested ones in this thread, where the books

* are not already available for free
* are used books

Along with the consideration for book bundles from Humble Bundle, where past publishers have included Pragmatic Programmer, Manning, Mercury, O'Reilly, Packt, Apress, Wiley, and No Starch Press.

But that would only likely be available after converting from Amazon to a generic gift card.

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36566229
Great geo-guessing, very intuitive, and today's chosen pictures have just the right amount of help. If I'd paid more attention to my intuition I wouldn't have tried Montana as a guess! When I did ... 171 miles.

"I'll be back!"
Take a look at how AWS Aurora does IO metering.
> Maybe fmt fixes these problems, I don't know.

Yeah, it looks like you did a lot of guesswork in that comment, and a lot of those guesses were inaccurate. Not really trying to be hostile here, but you did acknowledge that you were unfamiliar with std::format.

The part that fmtlib / std::format has, which is printf-like, is the idea of having a format string and arguments, rather than having a bunch of separate, piecemeal strings.

// Old printf code, works ok for most people
std::printf("failed to clone %s from %s", target, src);
// <iostream>
std::cout << "failed to clone " << target << " from " << src;
// New std::format / fmtlib
std::print("failed to clone {} from {}", target, src);

You can see that you don't need to remember what kind of format specifier you need. This is C++, and that kind of problem is solved with overloading.

The std::print interface can work equally well with FILE or std::ofstream, or whatever you want. This is C++, and so you can just use a templated output iterator—or one of the overloads that creates one automatically.

There are a lot of problems with <iostream>. I think it’s telling that lots of languages have copied printf, but nobody (or almost nobody) thought <iostream> was good enough to copy. There are just too many serious design flaws with <iostream>. It would be one thing if <iostream> were just annoying to use, but it poses problems for localization, thread-safety, accidental misuse through its statefulness, and its operator overloading syntax is bad.
Not in any "normal" use-case, no. It'd make sense to make this behavior opt-in, like having a `allow_parent_traversal on;` flag in the location.
If all you need is a simple way to serve static files that minimizes resource consumption and is reliably secure, what is the state of the art these days? In the past I would probably reach for Nginx, but I wonder if a more focused/less configurable tool would be preferable from a security standpoint.
Tbh the lack of sensible account recovery in the process is why I am afraid to turn it on.

What if my phone dies with all my keys?

Do I need to maintain backups on 3 devices? I assume manually to be secure. This is so much time, esp for throwaway nonsense accounts I use yearly.

What if my phone died during a trip and backups are at home in another country. How do I email someone now?

My mom forgets a password each time she has to retype it. What if she breaks her phone with all the keys and no backups.

How do I log in on a computer without usb access that is not connected to the same network as my phone with the keys? - this workflow is already broken with gmail 2FA process with approving in gmail/youtube app.

If I even reset a passkey, how to use a friends device if mine is broken currently?

This is all solved with a password reset email.
probably interoperability with "legacy" equipment and networks
As a big Free/Libre software guy... yeah, I agree. Wish it wasn't that way but that is just how it can be.
I would definitely say the Arabs are more blessed. They have massive oil reserves, favorable warm weather and a central location in the world to sell that oil. Norway is a frozen wasteland in the north.
When we started with:

> A common problem I notice on the internet is the lack of awareness of many problems in the world. Of which, there are times when someone may be aware of the problem, but not to what extent.

I felt that this was going to be satire of some kind. But it seems confused and confusing. Part of it is about accessibility and part of it is about harrassment. It seems to be highlighting positive things GNOME has done in terms of accessibility. In fact I expected it to blame GNOME, or some other projects, for ignoring a11y, but that is not the case. And then it brings in this issue of people getting harrassed outside the confines of the project. And I don't know what a project is supposed to do in terms of protecting its members from harrassment no matter where they go on the Internet; that seems like a personal safety issue and not something GNOME or any F/OSS project is equipped to fix.
Considering the origins of "stockholm syndrome" this may not be exactly the message you intended.

However, printf and its ilk get it right; presentation is a property of the context in which the entity is to be presented, not of the entity itself. You can kvetch about the markup syntax, or the type safety issues the C implementation has, but the architecture is fundamentally correct.
That's a kind of standard answer about manuals and design, and on the one hand I understand its practicality, but on the other hand, I'm starting to have doubts - this approach may be another cause of exacerbating the very problem it's trying to work around.

That is, the more stuff is usable without reading manuals, the more people ignore the manuals - making it harder to build complex, powerful tools, and in fact creating a strong design pressure to "fisher price" your product. Overall, this trend ends up disempowering users.
The field of quantum computing HAS to have incremental results, or else nobody will continue to fund it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be presenting great opportunities for incremental results. This doesn't invalidate the field, it just means that it's really hard to tell if you're going to see a pay-off. These things aren't really factored into the risks that investors think they're taking, so it's giving me a weird feeling in the pit of my stomach. I desperately want to see quantum computing work -- I've worked on it for 15 years now. From my vantage point, I see progress, but that's progress in making better qubits, better gates, better architectures, not solving problems. There's an error correction threshold, remember, and you start seeing real results when/if you cross it.

Anyhow, with all these huge beautiful dilution fridges with their fancy gold plating and all that, the expense of QC is a rounding error relative to AI. It's still high-risk/high-reward and has seen a level of investment that's commensurate with that.

Also, I don't know who all thinks that these physicists like myself are making beaucoup bucks working on QC. I make far less than a software engineer at grubhub or something, and have taken the opportunity cost of getting a PhD and all that.