skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk

We are still waiting for an example of a sane society where the opposite is true.
That person doesn't really exist, at least not in Germany which this is about. The issue was never just Street View. Ubiquitous surveillance has been a topic for a long time, in German fashion we invented a phrase for it, "Gläserner Bürger", literally a 'glass citizen'. It's no accident we're a huge outlier when it comes to cash payments as well, people like their anonymity.

As for the encryption debate, the difference is that it is literally that, a democratic debate. There's still a difference here between trade-offs being made for national security or policing, and private firms just running circles around you to make more dollars. The latter will always cause more anger.
> However, in screenshots of messages between r/PICS and Reddit seen by The Verge, Reddit said that the wiki page is outdated (the last edit was made four years ago) and pointed to a different page, also titled Reddit Content Policy, which doesn’t define rules for NSFW.

This might sound a bit dramatic, but this once again shows just how far Steve Huffman has gone off the deep end. A few years ago it would've been unimaginable for Reddit to, as a policy, simply refuse to say what the platform defines as NSFW so that it can be applied completely arbitrarily. Even if this is not a rare phenomenon in itself, the blatantness is staggering.
> hardly anyone having a social media account.

Not my experience at all.

We are also often only privacy-obsessed, when there are big news articles about it.
It’s obligatory in France. Until recently the french ID was comically large which led to men having to carry massive wallets which gave rise to the ubiquitous “man bag”.
Are you shitting on peoples work just for the sake of shitting on it?

edit. this comment seems unpopular, my intent was to defend the worm against trolls :)
Both views can still coexist.

Parents can view higher education as a social badge, and the students as something they have to go through, yet get valuable and life changing insights as they go through the courses.

Anecdotally the courses that were the most interesting and left an impression on me where auxiliary units we could choose from to fill a unit quota to graduate. The very low expectations kinda helped choose courses that didn't sound super useful, only to realize afterwards why they mattered.

I thought it was random luck, but looking at how the graduation system is set and the way the teachers organized these courses, it was obvious after the fact that the university put a lot of effort into getting students to touch subjects they didn't understand as important.
Not necessarily. I'm working on an application that does exactly that, as we are rendering spheres. It ends up being much more efficient to rasterize the sphere in a combination of vertex and fragment shaders than to instantiate triangles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk&t=89s
I have never met a single normal person in my life who uses twitter
The ID is provided by the government for free, though. So I guess they will have to give you a phone for free, plus a free plan.
There were news articles insinuating that those pictures were live or close to it. The whole "discussion" back then was sad to see.
Sad that a feature that used to be part of the music player is now a thing people bake into videos so it can be posted to social media.

And these visualizations are ass. Yes, I'm allowed to say that.
That’s understandable unfortunately
I never thought of doing that, that's a great idea
I agree. It is difficult to say what happened exactly but I am certain that I got all the answers and very few canned responses. Whatever they did for safety has degraded the product.
> "What don't you like about the [blurry jpeg] article?"

It's valid at some technical level but I dislike it so much. There are so many things. If I had to pick only a few, it's that it encourages to see LLMs as a worse and static rendering of an 'ideal' piece of data that we already have. This is not how the LLMs are useful. An LLM can be at its best when it's explaining or imagining for example something like 'how could x be combined with y in the context of z.' The LLM uses its imagination to answer it. Some would say 'hallucination' which isn't so good description. But in the metaphor of 'blurry jpeg' its answer could only be described as a 'jpeg artifact'. Which is bad. The most useful help that an LLM provides is analogous to the worst aspect of a blurry jpeg. Ughhh I hate it so much.

I don't want to be only negative so I'll put an example of an LLM take that I think is good, it's the simulators essay https://generative.ink/posts/simulators/

Also I can easily believe that Ted Chiang is an excellent science fiction story author I have read almost none of his stories but I heard they are great and I want to read them soon.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/binance-plunges-crisis-senior...

Alternate link without paywall
> As a tech manager for an EU company, I can honestly say that it isn’t that hard to be GDPR compliant

It's pretty easy for a business to be GDPR compliant unless their business model or processes in some way involve collecting and processing or selling personal data of their users. Before GDPR a lot of businesses used this as a nice little second income stream, or just grew used to being able to freely analyze every aspect of their users private data that they could get a hold of. Suddenly they can't do this anymore, and what's actually difficult is not being compliant with GDPR, it's reconciling their business to a new way of working where they have to be considerate of their user's right to privacy.

For example, you have a deeply entrenched analytics system that you base a lot of your decisions on. Suddenly you have to basically gut it, or even throw it out entirely. No matter that's there's plenty of GDPR compliant systems to replace it, they don't feel as effective and it's easy to see why a business would make these changes begrudgingly and with a lot of complaining about how unfair it all is.
> You're missing the most important detail: especially in Western/Northern Europe, people are taught from childhood on that the state is there to protect you, and protecting yourself is a risk.

Yeah, and we call that “civilization”.

If you cannot rely on the state for security, then you're basically living in the contemporary version of the pre-modern world (South America bas manu good examples of that, but the US isn't really, people do rely on 911 more often than not)
Mail them where? To do so, the company needs to provide an address where they would accept such correspondence and they may not do so.
Replicating something exactly is a lot harder than making something that does the same thing in a different way. We can build planes that travel far faster than a bird could but that doesn’t mean it’s easy for us to exactly replicate how a bird flies, so I don’t think this says anything about how far away we are from a superintelligence
Sorry for the rant incoming, but please no, for the love of God, no. Absolutely do not create a new component if it's just to abstract a CSS classe and a few HTML elements (unless you really really use it a lot).

I've been on a project like that, and the result was maddening: any page or component template would contain only references to other components and almost no plain HTML tag.

Each time you encountered something like a 'Title' or a 'Button' or a 'FooBarHeader' component, you didn't knew how much Javascript was executed behind each of those, or wether it had any side effects until you looked at the code (and sometime had nasty surprise on components used everywhere).

You also either had to look at its API or modify it to correctly use the web plateform (eg: how do I specify to my 'Button' is of type="button" or of type="submit" ? How do I add some aria attributes ? What if I want to add a 'data' attribute ?).

On top of that, the generated, runtime DOM would look nothing like the design-time template you are changing, which goes against the plateform, again.

And you also ended up with a huge 'components' surface, where this moderately complex (in term of essential complexity) had more than a hundred components, with some basic 'Button' component being monstruous 500+ lines of code under the hood (because of CSS-in-JS), all of it destroying the performance of the page.

On this particular project, I realized that the tag-to-component ratio was less than 1, even maybe closer to 0 than 1. In other words, behind each little <span> visible in the inspector, you had something like 3 to 5 component instances. I've called it "loosing your footing", as you couldn't touch any primitive, drowning in a sea of abstraction.

Somehow, I feel that it's more specific to the 'React' world which is a bit too trigger happy when it come to creating new component.
Idk if it’s a French thing, but you can be pretty sure that no customer-facing employee is going to engage its employer by writing anything.

They are probably not allowed to do this and if they do it anyway, it’ll probably cost them their job (or any hypothetical promotion).

It’s a cultural thing here that customers never really meet employees with powers to bypass the established process. It’s not limited to airlines but it’s pretty much the case of any company : the employee you talk to never have any latitude and you always have to escalate if you want to hope anything.

There is a reason we are known to be yelling all the time : it’s often the single and best way to escalate to a more powerful employee.

(btw, the employee isn’t at fault so the best thing to do is to be polite without yelling but insisting until you are bothering them to much in their job that they have to call their manager)
Binance feels like one of the biggest scams on earth.
I know about being required to have an ID (the case in Germany, maybe all of EU), what countries have penalties for not carrying them?

Also, the comparison is ridiculous.
Are you kidding?

They removed the Taiwan and Japan patches in the first trailer to try to see if China would bite.

China was never going to allow a movie that made the American military look so damn cool.

Then they put the patches back after the writing was on the wall.

Money over everything.
How much copy pasted code on stackoverflow has a license attribution? And on top of that, even more restrictive licenses wouldn't change the problem - neither with humans nor with AI.
> Belarus also demanded their nukes back, they never made any “Budapest Memorandum”.

>> The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

What? they are literally one of three named states alongside Ukraine and Kazakhstan that willing signed up to the NPT and gave up their weapons in the Budapest Memorandum did you seriously never look this up?.

> Why do you ignore the agency of Belarus, and conflate it with Russia building bases for PMCs in Belarus?

Literally no one has ignored the agency of Belarus, the agency of Belarus is a straw man you keep creating to have something to set fire to.

> Next, you conflate Donbas and Crimea. Russians had “little green men” in Crimea. They were allowed to have 25K troops there, according ti an agreement with Ukraine, but the “little green men” is just another red herring. They didn’t shoot or kill anyone.

More lies as usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Simferopol_incident

Multiple people died in Crimea from these 'little green men'.

As for the case of Dobass the Russians themselves admit it.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...

> At the start of this summer, 90 percent of the rebel forces were made up of local residents, Strelkov was quoted as saying. However, by early August, Russian servicemen supposedly on "vacation" from the army had begun to arrive, he said.

> According to Strelkov, the assault on the Black Sea town of Mariupol in September, which prompted concerns in Ukraine and the West that Russia has entered the conflict on a large scale, was conducted mostly by the Russian military "vacationers."
Exactly, these are the things that count. The cones are a short term nuisance. Basically, the people putting them will probably get bored/distracted pretty soon. Or run out of cones. Or get caught and fined. Etc. They'll grumble and stamp their feet for a while and that will be it.

The more autonomous cars fail to do any harm whatsoever, the less of a case against them people will have. Most of the current fears are fueled by minor incidents, weird little bugs that these systems still have, and lots of irrational outrage and fears. And of course there are lots of armchair "experts" providing all sorts of reasons why the autonomous cars should not and cannot possibly work, even while they can easily be observed to be working just fine. That disconnect only stretches so far before it breaks.

Raw economics will do the rest. Insurers will penalize manual driving and scrutinize things like liability when accidents happen. The raw math insurers use is already against manual driving and they already like cars with lots of safety features. Cities will want to reclaim the space occupied by useless parking spaces (i.e. expect to pay for those). And drivers licenses will become much more expensive as those are no longer required to get from A to B and will come with a lot more scrutiny.
I have a hybrid, and it’s definitely noticeable when the engine is on. Maybe it’s a lack of space for a decent muffler?
The objection comes from the nature of Google as a data vaccuming company with loose ethics.
CS is rather unique in that regard (along with maybe economics and business, though to a lesser degree).

For everything else, the vast majority of incoming graduate students intend to get a job in academia and then "settle" for a high-paying job in the private sector that doesn't really use their skills.

> If public funding returned to higher levels and the number of tenure-track jobs was increased, then the oversupply would not be quite so bad.

This is unrealistic. You'd need to increase tenured faculty by at least an order of magnitude to soak up all the grad students currently being produced... But that doesn't even solve the problem because all those professors are going to want to do research, and they're going to want to have graduate research assistants. So now you have the same problem as before, but an order of magnitude bigger.

The only real solution is to reduce the number of PhDs produced over a professor's career from ~20 to ~2. Which of course means reducing the number of grad students.

> This is a sector-wide change that graduate worker unions could push for at each of their individual institutions, especially if they worked in tandem with the unions representing adjuncts

Universities will never go for this. You have to understand your counter-party's BANTA. This is like Brexit: If your position is that you want terms that are strictly worse for your counter-party than if you just don't exist... well then you're not going to get a deal.
>you can't compare a for profit company collecting information on ALL its users, and a police service collecting information on a few thousands people after a judge allowed them to.

I'm not entirely sure about that. If data is legally collected by a company, who's to say the government can't legally purchase it for their own ends?
You treat the whole EU as if it was one single person. You heard different news over the years, but they are from different fractions of the EU and Germany.

Yes, there are weasel politicians who will jump at the opportunity to give more power to themselves and big corporations even if a poor right wing factory worker in East Germany hates big tech surveillance. Yes, you'll find people who prefer the convenience of G Street View and are willing to give up some of their privacy for that.

But there will be people who see this as one more concession to the surveillance state, so they will fight it. Give an inch and they'll take a mile. Germans remember this from Nazi Germany, WW2, and the mass surveillance of East Germany (and some now have even more paranoia after the COVID lockdowns).

So no, I don't think you'll have too many people who are seriously upset about Google "scanning" the whole country but are happy about having cameras everywhere and governments installing spyware onto our phones.
Ah right I see.

That sort of thing sounds OK for primary/elementary school. You'd expect science at that level to be focused on soft stuff. Expecting kids of that age to do real experiments or care about the philosophy of science is too much, if you can get them out into the garden and looking at insects and flowers then that's a good start.

I think there's a subtle difference between viruses/bacteria and what government officials mean when they talk about infectious diseases. Obviously any good biology curriculum will cover viruses and bacteria at the microscopic level. But when governments talk about "infectious diseases" what they really mean is the macro scale of epidemiology and other social sciences, because they're constantly being told by rich NGOs that we now live in an age of pandemics, and they think about disease purely through the lens of social policy and enforcement. The response to COVID was widely condemned as un-scientific because link between what academics/civil servants recommended to governments and what was actually scientifically known about viruses was nearly non-existent.
As an amateur scientist with an interest in neurodegenerative diseases, I am interested in neurons simulations. As a model with neurons and muscles, Openworm looks very interesting for application in ALS (Lou Gherig's disease).
I think it's not a margins issue - plenty of good money making machines doing this - but definitely a not-enough-competition issue.
Allow me to clarify:

Event Loops are an old technique and not a hype. I am aware of that. One of my earliest C experiments as a kid was writing a snake-implementation for the terminal. I still have that code, and it uses an event loop to process the input.

The hype I am talking about, is an assertion currently "en vogue", that asynchronous should be the default method of doing concurrency.

This hype, imho, started with the ubiquitous use of JS as a backend implementation language. JS couldn't work another way, so this is what all these JS programmers used, and JS is super popular. So, it must be cool and great. And that's how a workaround for a language limitation became a popular paradigm.
I don’t think that works on iOS. If I recall correctly the mobius app can’t get access to logseq’s directories.
I think this is excitement, not sarcasm :)
Historians 200 years from now are going to curse our name.
Relevent concept: Zooko's Triangle [1]: it's hard to have a naming system which is decentralised and secure against spoofing without giving you long and random (or hashed) names, like with .onion services

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
The nested list objects, whose printed representation is called S-expression, are the representation of the source code of Lisp. This is important and primary in multiple senses of the word.

In version control jargon, only primary objects should (ideally) be tracked in a repository, not secondary/derived ones. The most common example of primary objects are source code files; and of secondary/derived objects, compiled files.

Programs first exist as source code; primary means first. The semantics of the language is defined with reference to the syntax, whose description refers to the source code form. Everything begins with the semantics: it is primary. Other forms, like compiled, have to produce the same results like the reference evaluation model over the source code. Expansion of macros is defined over the source code. Other tooling is based on source code, like text editing, tags generation and whatnot.

Compiled code is not primary in any way. It is non-portable, sometimes not even fully documented, and supports almost no useful operations beyond invoking it (calling a compiled function or loading a compiled file) and disassembling compiled code.

The representation of compiled code can change between releases of a Lisp; the worst that happens is that users have to recompile their code since old compiled files do not load any more. If you break the source language, there will be gnashing of teeth.

The basis of portability among implementations of the same dialect is always the source code.

Lisp programs can quote pieces of themselves as literal constants. Atoms can be quoted, as well as symbols and entire lists. These quoted lists have to survive into the compiled form. Thus, the syntax is important because any piece of it can potentially be a literal which has to retain its shape and content no matter how the program is translated.

Textual source code contains valuable information not found elsewhere: formatting and comments.

In Lisps that have programmable readers, like Common Lisp, only the source code contains instances of the original read syntax. For instance, in some implementations of the backquote syntax, the reader expands it, and this may be done in such a way that the resulting object cannot be printed as backquote syntax any more. Application-defined read syntaxes usually do not support printing back in the original form. Thus they appear only in the textual source code.

Primary information is already lost when we have merely read an expression into memory without doing anything else, like expanding and compiling it.
Not at all. You get web apps, services for providing them etc.

As far as I'm aware ICANN/Google (owners) put no restrictions on use case.

There is a restriction requiring TLS.
Maybe I need to refresh my memory. I should have some eggs lying around still.

The nematodes also come with the lake water?
Will listen-and-watch orders be send using operator cell-network or in-band using any OS-API through data-network ?
It is always a little bit bizarre to see things like this. Domains are generally for organisations, for good reason: they cost money to acquire, they're globally unique, and they cost money to run.

Identity is a funny thing, and certainly online it is ambiguous because most of us think of it as being in some way absolute: we have our identities regardless of context, and we want our technology to reflect that.

I'd argue in reality our identities are functions of association. Groups we're part of, etc. Online identity as-is is like that, but with a feudal relationship between the "domain administrators" and the people who associate with them.

The right answer isn't to atomise identity (that's technically pretty hard to do anyway) but to make those identity-and-means-of-communication hosts into bonafide associations, owned by their members, operated for their benefit, and operated as constitutional democracies with rights to protect minorities and elections to the organisation's board, committees, or key executive positions.

We in tech need to get past the idea that the social problems that have emerged from the internet have technical solutions. Maybe some do, but the vast majority do not.
You in twenty years:

“China could already do social scoring more more than 20 years already, it's nothing new, they are just catching up, crime these days is very well organized and tech savvy, they have to adapt somehow”
Your lack of solidarity for others means they will have a lack of solidarity for you.

The mindset guarantees your exhaustion, loss, and ultimately your oppression.

You don't have to fight the battle, but you should at least support those who self sacrifice and hold it in high regard and equally you should feel shame for running away.

Your privilege let you run away, but others aren't so lucky.