skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Mindfulness meditation is not merely a feel-good exercise or some mystical ritual. It's a practice that allows us to regularly enter a state of mind where we're not consumed by our incessant thoughts, which are constantly evaluating, reflecting on the past, or worrying about the future. This mental chatter is often the root cause of much of our stress.

Many people rarely experience a state of mind where they are fully present in the moment, where the past and future are irrelevant, and only the immediate moment matters. Some may have experienced this while watching a sunrise or after a moment of joyous exertion. However, through the practice of mindfulness meditation, one can intentionally enter this state of mind, which can be profoundly healing.

Mindfulness meditation is not goal-oriented. It's not practiced with the intention of achieving peace of mind or eliminating stress. The desire for things to be different, for wanting to be "there" instead of "here," is the modus operandi of our thinking mind. Mindfulness meditation allows us to enter a different state of mind, an observing mind that perceives things as they are. It observes the thinking mind and realizes that we are not our thoughts, or our thinking mind. We are much more than that, a meta-mind.

This concept may be challenging for many participants on this forum to accept, as they are entrenched in an outcome and achievement-focused mindset. They may have never experienced a mindful moment, and therefore dismiss it as nonsense.

It's nonsensical to "evaluate" mindfulness meditation in terms of results to be achieved.

Mindfulness meditation is not about striving for specific outcomes, but rather about embracing a set of practices that cultivate acceptance. It's about acknowledging and accepting our thoughts, feelings, and experiences without judgment. It's about observing reality as it unfolds, moment by moment, and embracing it in its entirety, with all its complexities and contradictions.

This practice encourages us to regularly connect with the present moment, to truly experience the 'now' rather than getting lost in the past or the future. It's about letting go of our preconceived notions, our biases, and our incessant need to control. It's about surrendering to the flow of life, allowing things to be as they are, and finding peace in that acceptance.
I got laid off at the end of the last year and had some savings which allowed me to live comfortably for another 6 months jobless. I enjoyed this time, worked on some personal projects, and learned a lot. Eventually ran out of savings and started applying in the spring – the recruiter will set up an interview for you very quickly, so there was no problem on that side, although the quality is low, usually, it is a mechanical interview for X/Y/Z 10000-employee conglomerate looking for 10001st with cosmic high expectations (from a 2007 methodical book), so you have to rely on the quantity a lot to find what you want (it's a good practice anyway). In the end, I was lucky to find my gem by leaving a short resume in an HN "Who wants to be hired" thread :) You never know when and where you will find your destiny – but you can always pull more out of the chance – if you advertise vigorously!
If one's position and circle is below the class threshold that cares for these things, such a stigma would be invisible - it just wouldn't be a thing that they'd have seen in their lived experience.

And, here's the hook to what you say regarding it being a regional thing: this class distinctions are also applied at the regional level. E.g. whole states can be considered "lower social class" (regardless if they have millionaires or well off upper middle class people and so on).

In "high class" states or circles within a state, though, the stigma would a quite real thing (even if it's just an inconsequental matter, as seen from outside).

It's not about wealth levels either, as class concerns are just as high in stressed-to-appear-appropriately-high-class aspiring classes, that make less than what a developer does, but their circles are all about class distinctions and their shibboleths. The stereotypical "New Yorker" reader would be a total weirdo about such matters, even more stressed and awkward about following all the BS rules than people actually belonging to the 0.1%.

But even if you are a billionaire, you can be the low-class butt of the joke to "old money" types.

(That's my understanding of the US class system on this matter - there are some quite good books about it, "Class" by Paul Fussell is quite good. It's also a subject that certain kinds of literature and journalism wont shut up about).
> Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all.

No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at?

No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?
That's super reasonable. And yes, the expectations and intent usually decide one's approach with this decision.
Have you downloaded the app? Have you seen how it works and what its options are? Everything you wrote is coming from a place of ignorance.
This is Western attitude right down to the implication that you have some sort of insight that invalidates what the parent is saying.

A society of people acting as isolated islands because they all think that they’re out to get eachother is how society crumbles.

You can put others first with boundaries. You can put others first and remain vigilant. The “look after yourself first”. It’s all a false dichotomy, and the basis for an attitude that especially on this website tends to just be privileged tech workers justifying their own ambivalence toward one ethical issue or another.
As a researcher in the field, I agree with this characterization.

I think it's more accurate the say that GPT and then BERT massively popularized and simplified the idea/approach. Prior to ULMFiT/GPT/BERT, fine-tuning usually meant freezing most of a model and tuning a small layer on top of it. (ELMo also fits somewhere in here, being a kind of halfway step). ULMFiT was a relatively lesser known work but to my knowledge one of the first to do 1) LM pretraining and 2) fine-tuning all the layers, albeit with some complexity (gradual unfreezing/different learning rates for layers).

GPT simplified this massively by simply tuning all weights: no nuance about it. (Also added a classifier on top). BERT took this a step further, benefiting from the larger size of BERT-large and bidirectional attention, which works really well on the NLU datasets of the time along with a classifier head. (It's not until T5 that seq2seq for general tasks became prominent again.) The idea that you tune all the weights of what was then considered a massive model was considered somewhat excessive at the time, but BERT so massively dominated every other architecture and approach at the time that everyone switched over to it. (Adapters (alongside PAL), one of the first parameter-efficient tuning methods in the Transformer era of NLP, came out shortly after.)
This seems to be a custom pcb replacing the internals of the google mini with an esp32 plus stuff that offloads stt and tts to another device. Looks amazing.
It's pretty silly in how society deals with different minorities. When it comes to race, gender, or sexual orientation, there's often a massive focus on being inclusive. When it comes to accessibility, the argument changes to "explain why we should spend money on x% of people".

Imagine the outrage, among progressives at least, if someone were to install automatic security doors that only work on white people. It mostly affects black people anyway and there aren't that many black people working for the company or being their customer, and changing the system would be expensive. I'm pretty sure you'd be under heavy fire from all kinds of different groups within society, and rightfully so.

Propose the same thing but talk about the (legally) blind, and suddenly the "waste of money" argument gets a lot fewer criticism. The law states that a certain minimal amount of accessibility is required, but even that is often implemented lacklusterly (useless wheelchair ramps, trees in the middle of tactile pavement).

I'm not so sure those shiny new interfaces are faster than accessibility can be, if people put in the effort. The spatial awareness and way of thinking many blind people are forced to develop is extremely underutilized. Yes, the blind are limited because they can't see, but that also means they're not restricted by the limits of displays. An immense amount of oxygen and nutrients is spent on the virtual cortex that becomes available for other purposes when you can't see (anymore); that brain power doesn't just go away, it enhances other sensory processing but also alters the way memory and the motor cortex operate. Call me naive, but I believe with the right tools and the right approach, blind people can have an advantage in many jobs. The same may also be true of deaf people, whose brains are forced to develop systems for recognising visual cues for their lack of hearing, though they'll be able to work most office jobs and navigate places on their own already.

It's so sad to see such unused potential go to waste and cause despair among the disabled. In a world where it's cheaper to take away incompliant tools than to make them accessible, I'm pessimistic for what the future will bring (i.e. the whole saga about that college that published years of recorded lectures without subtitles, and took them down for everyone when someone noticed they weren't compliant with accessibility requirements). Hopefully future legislation will force companies to make their products more accessible (in a way that taking down existing services/content is not an acceptable alternative) and hopefully some company will be able to unlock the potential of a human brain unrestricted by the requirement of visual cues, but I fear it's going to take a long time for that to happen.
It's not exactly about "here" or "there".

It's more about people in peer groups preoccupied with class distinctions, vs, say, 90% of Americans who could not give less fucks about it.

Region plays a role in the distribution and size of such peer groups though.
Explain the contradiction of terms, otherwise this reply is worthlessly vague
“Impossible satellite” is ready to fall back to Earth
I've had similar experiences with UK recruiters, and heard the same from colleagues and friends in the industry. Recruiters there seem to gather a lot of applicants for a role, promise the world, then drop most of them.

I have had good recruiters in the UK but they're few and far between.

Best to treat them like company contacts. Let them apply for a role or two for you, and contact somebody else for another role. I used a dozen recruiters at any one time when I was last applying in the UK.
This is an overly paranoid response to someone suggesting to have compassion for others as a form of self-care. The idea is that worrying exessively about yourself can be harmful in itself, not "allow yourself to be exploited".
Interesting insights! The article's perspective on technology's role in society sparks meaningful discussions. Embracing ethical tech practices is vital for a balanced future.
Is guided meditation on cassette tape also hilariously weird? Or what about in-person guided meditation?
And stress is subjective and often temporary. The less we have it in our lives, the better. We can put that recovered energy in solving problems.
There are many books, but in the end this can't be thought in a book. Bodhipath is probably a good place, they also have lots of online things to read: https://bodhipath.org/.

It's more focused on the compassion part. The mystical is something which is easy to find online, but hard to find someone with the experience.

But there are different schools, more focused on study, mediation etc. Some are more formal, others informal.
I got laid off, started working for an unfunded start-up, they ran out of cash. Had to look for other jobs, it took something like two months to find one. I applied to probably the most jobs I've ever applied for whilst on a job hunt. Previous job hunts have taken like... a couple of weeks and I've had multiple offers to choose from. It really came down to one solid offer this time around. Most of my applications were just rejected immediately, without even speaking to anyone. It's easily the worst I've ever seen it. I suspect a lot of jobs are waiting to see if folks laid off by Google/Meta/Twitter would apply, hence why I was getting rejected immediately, having not worked for one of them. Just a theory though... but either way, it's really really tough at the minute. Hang in there, mate. You will get something, it's just going to take a bit more digging this time around.
I believe the market really is just bad right now. When I was job searching it probably took me 3 times as long. I noticed that there were hundreds of applicants per role when normally I'd have noticed less than 20 maybe? Even at my current company they told us that hundreds of people were applying. That's how many you have to beat just to get in the door.

I think it's caused by a number of factors:

(1) Investors are spooked about the health of the economy and are giving out less funding. Less funding = slower startup growth = less hiring for new roles.

(2) Since funding is slowing down startups can't count on future raises as much and are being told to preserving capital. Runway becomes more of a priority = also less hiring.

(3) ''"Covid revenue spikes lead to surges in hiring and lay offs when revenues reversed.'" I've been told it was only non-technical roles but I don't buy it.

I think what happened was companies needed to trim fat to satisfy scared investors and Covid was used as the perfect excuse to make layoffs seem like they were outside of companies control. But everything was about the mentality of scared investors. Investors were literally angry that more people weren't fired... So yeah, this is quite a toxic time to be in tech. But I do think it will stabilize eventually.
It's a cheesecake. They're stored chilled or frozen all the time in a normal bakery too. Freezing makes the most sense for a product that needs to make it from the store to your house without compromising quality. If it's simply chilled, it could start to make a mess before you get home.

Your statement isn't indicative of anything in regards to quality of the product.
Web Dev Without Tools (2021)
Thanks, the problem is that the name is very vague so maybe there are copycats or similar sounding options so I wanted to go with the publishers
> which powers their onlineshop or blog or whatever they run

50 years of support doesn't make sense for these usecases, as the world keeps moving on around them. A blog that still looks like it's 2008 won't sell your business in 2023. A webshop from 2013 won't accept the popular payment methods of 2023 in large parts of the world. If these products will be updated anyway, at a certain point building on an old stack causes more work than it saves.
The definition of material is the standard SEC definition of material nonpublic information and is not inherently linked to any of the hypotheticals you listed, except indirectly. It’s basically, would this significantly affect the stock price if investors were to hear about it? Executives at a public company should already be used to making that judgment call, and the only new thing as to materiality is that employees leading cybersecurity investigations at public companies will have to properly inform those executives in a timely manner.

This rule is not telling companies they have to rush to determine materiality - in particular, time from discovery of the incident is not what the four days in the article headline are referring to. The rule simply requires them to determine materiality “without unreasonable delay” after discovery of the incident. Only after such a materiality determination do the four business days kick in as a notification deadline.

So, if the delay is reasonable, then by definition it complies to take that long. In particular, a delay that is necessary to avoid disrupting a proper investigation would very likely be considered as reasonable. The company might have to be prepared to explain why both processes couldn’t overlap if the investigation stretches on a long time and no materiality determination has occurred, but okay, that’s fair enough to require.

The point of the “without unreasonable delay” restriction is because, without it, companies would just refuse to determine materiality ever, or they might do it slowly enough that the evidence necessary to declare materiality will usually have vanished, or similar bullshit. It’s to forbid circumventing the intent of the rule by sticking one’s head in the sand.
You can't set up a redirect, because if you leave a redirect in place, then people can send email to the original domain, and we're back where we started with the Mali misdirections. That's what the article is about.
The cheesecake factory is a perfect example, of corporatist food delivery to a table within a space.

to most people who arent looking that closely it appears to be a restaurant.
To people who are looking its a dirty factory of unhappy employees, with disgusting food that noone wants to eat.

But their mom dragged them there.

The cheesecake factory defined the disgusting corporate approach to insulting americans on a daily basis and will likely be out of business within a few months if its not already.

Also I would add, a big proponent and adherent of CF are people wearing GAP and OLD Navy Labels.

AKA: foreigners looking for a slice of american pie.

I wouldnt be surprised if they are cooking the books to go SPAC
The 600k monthly recurrent revenue makes it look like a very successful story

Launching a product in a walled garden, getting around 10 million recurrent revenue with a small team and almost no other fees, then stopping after a few years looks to me like a dream come true. Almost better than not having the pull rugged. Once you have that much money it's time and a stress-free life that I would seek.

The article reads a bit weird to me because there's a lot of complaining about Shopify including in the title, yet they also mention that they knew this would be the outcome from the beginning.
> Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not

Yes, it is:

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."

That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary would not take effect until the following Class was elected.

> Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else.

No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. You cannot arbitrarily deny property rights to Congress that are broadly accessible to the general public.

> The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.

We can debate securities law another time, but no, the interstate commerce clause does not allow you to restrict elected members of the legislature from all the same rights as private individuals enjoy, including the right to own and sell stocks.
> The only one bringing genocide AND THE LITERAL HOLOCAUST into this discussion are you. The parent said "Doesn't want people like me to exist" FFS

No, he said "Thinks people like me shouldn't exist", which is genocide.

Hitler wanted the Jews to stop existing. Now we have someone complaining that them being prevented from marriage to a partner of their choice is the same thing.

It's not. The original lobbying effort didn't make the argument that homosexual people shouldn't exist. It's an argument purely in the mind of the OP.
That’s a luxury only affordable when there’s a wealth of choices available. If my choice is between a boring job from an employer I don’t respect, or no job at all, I’m taking that job.
Not running Windows 10 or 11 I hope.
If you fall into the case where every team is forced to work around the platform and create their own solution, the problem is not enforcement, it's offering. The thing that is offered is not working for the teams and there is a negative impact because of it. Teams building their own solutions, for a while, after which they are consolidated into a platform offering is a healthy cycle. What is IMO unhealthy is a dysfunctional platform where product people are forced to endure it. I'd much rather empower teams to take on their own impediments then to suck away their motivation by not letting them fix whatever is holding them back.

Sorry in advanced if I state this a little bluntly, but this rhetoric of teams going off and building the same tools all over the place is in my experience not a fault of any team, it's that of the context/organisation they operate in. Framing it as such is IMO destructive for company culture. As if product teams, left to their own, will just degrade into building sub-par platform-esk tools that ruin the org. I don't buy it. Trying to make one thing do two things (the single source of tech complexity) is a trap often catching platform engineers who try to tailor to an audience that is not unified in their needs, still platform teams are incentivised to create just that.
P4wnP1-LTE [on a USB LTE Modem]
They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies. Also by the 27th amendment any increase must take effect in the following election.

> They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.

No, they cannot. That requires an amendment, not a bill, and amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures.

> The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.

The strength of our system of govt in part derives from the fact that it is not trivial to change the Constitution. It requires supermajorities (2/3) in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify any change. This is A Good Thing, because simple majorities are fleeting and temporary and allowing chaotic changes to the Bill of Rights, for example, would be devastating to the idea of liberty. Too often in history, democracies have failed because they buckled to the whims of simple majorities, or granted themselves or an executive branch too much power. Our system is the oldest continuous democracy in the world in part because of those supermajority requirements.
Show HN: The URL Space
Note on uniformization of information the URI scheme, their interpretation, expected inputs and outputs, and the different Interfaces.