skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can't relate to this - with most things I enjoy, the more I am able to do them, the more I want to do them. When I go without for a while, I forget about the pleasure something brings.

Backpacking for a year didn't get me "traveled out", it made me want to travel more.

I married young and certainly would have found a lifetime of monogamy challenging. At the same time, I don't believe I could have gotten the desire for different partners out of my system before marriage. It's an itch that doesn't appear it can be scratched. Fortunately my wife and I discovered swinging, and get the best of both worlds: a lifetime partnership built on a deep love and years of shared experience, and the occasional opportunity to have sexual variety.
It's not even the swear word, I'm very fond of calling bullshit on things to make my point bluntly.

it's the combination of a swear word with the pomposity of en____ification. I get that Doctorow is trying to make a point about tech marketing as posturing about intellectuality of effort and nobility of purpose, while actually producing shit for easy money.

But what works as a clever inside joke among friends limits it for a wider audience, and makes anyone saying it sound like a snarky nerd trying too hard to be clever. This is a good way to get (metaphorically) stuffed in a locker, ie to have your valid concerns ignored and mocked.
Where did she do this? I haven't found anything in her twitter feed
Climate change increases the likelyhood of such extreme events. That's part of the predictions.
And what if corporations and government/authoritarians are (loosely) the same entity and pro-business libertarians are on a paycheck/indoctrinated :)
> The correct answer should be: none.

Uh, what? Why would human beings not have rights?

> When you’re born, you have parents to take care of you and food and clothing. And you’re cute, our brains are wired to care about that part because it’s important. Because when you’re born you’re also damn near useless, and also expensive and annoying and stinky. These unfrozen people will be as useless as babies but significantly less cute.

Jesus Christ. The reason we don't kill babies isn't because of some genetic preference for fat small things, nor is there a desire to kill them due to their... lack of utility. They're human beings with rights. It's that simple.

We also don't just strip rights away from the disabled, so if your argument is "these people are effectively useless and therefor should not have rights", you should seriously examine the ethical framework that led you there.
What is up with all these comments (this is the 3rd one I've seen on this thread) that start with something along the lines of "the BBC which is supposedly a world class journalistic organization"...

First of all, it makes your overall argument much weaker than you think it does. If you had just stated something along the lines of "Note this data only begins in the 1980s", which the graph also clearly states, I would have considered it a fair observation. I would still agree with the general conclusion, primarily because there are so many other data points this year, that we are "generally fucked". And my "generally fucked" I don't mean that Earth will become uninhabitable, but certainly many regions will be. Count me as one of the "climate change immigrants" - I'm started the process of moving out of my Southwestern US city because (in a reverse analogy), this is just the tip of the iceberg, and this summer has been brutal, and I'm generally used to brutal summers.
I, for one, and super excited to see how Rich and Clojure evolve post-Nubank. Clojure and Rich's talks greatly inspired me and improved my software thinking skills - I can't say thank you enough!
Currently in crisis because I simply can't handle communication in remote work. For something I do for the majority of my working day, I feel devoid of human interaction to such an extent that it's massively affecting my mental health.

I regularly find myself clock-watching until the next time I can talk to someone because everyone is always busy - there are no water coolers or coffee breaks to stitch in between.

Even if you create the virtual coffee break and have a chat with people, often we're pushed to abandon it - presumably because it's flipped from an opportunistic (oh, we're all of the phone, let's go grab a coffee) to a scheduled event which a) gets dropped and b) doesn't naturally recur.
> 3.5% per 1000km is respectfully, basically nothing. You'd get 85% of the power out of a line from SF to NY.

But why connect SF to NY - what's the advantage? What about connecting a place where it's midnight with a place where it's noon? That'd allow you to use solar arrays instead of local coal/gas/nuclear power plants.
what are you talking about? Valve has advanced wine lightyears since jumping into linux with the steam machines years ago, and their wine patches have lead to countless forks that people use for better compatibility. Wine was terrible before valve stepped into the linux space
Funnily, studies have shown that people spend more time on chat and less time in face-to-face communication when working from an openspace office than when they work from home.

Hopping on a quick 5min zoom is frictionless at home. Walking aaaaalll the way over to someone’s desk and disrupting the entire office with your conversation, or god forbid finding a free conference room, is way harder. So you smear the meeting on slack across a 1 hour back-and-forth pingpong instead of doing a quick 5min sync.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180718-open-offices-m...

Private offices solve this problem of course. Wfh is the easiest way to get that.
Rust Server Components
We're talking about criminal fraudsters. I really doubt they just walk into 7 figure jobs at a bank after this kind of thing.
Twitter account was created just to tweet this

Google searching "Institut für Sonderanwendungen" gives only the twitter account as a result

I am very skeptical
> I do not think you can actually achieve much politically at this point in time, without angering and alienating a lot of the electorate.

Maybe if the self righteous pragmatists like yourself had spent as much energy reminding the electorate that, if we don’t solve this problem then our standard of living will be forced even lower whether we like it or not as you do attacking the only people trying to do something about the problem we’d actually be able to make some headway.

> I think democracy only works because it averages over all these very different groups to get a solution that satisfies nobody but is somehow pointing in the right direction.

Then you can only come to the conclusion that democracy has failed. Climate change has been a known problem for 40 years now and all that democracy has achieved is complete impotence. It’s not pointing in the right direction at all, it’s stuck to the status quo of the careening towards the edge of the cliff.
> it is a little surprising to see such political news on HN

In my experience, currencies have been of consistent interest in HN. At least, if you consider cryptocurrencies as such ;-)

> But this is a none-issue

> is meant to be a step against organised crime

Perhaps recent developments around the world would change your mind? The Canadian trucker protests of 2022 saw political protestors get bank accounts frozen, and more recently a famous politician in the UK got de-banked partly out of his political views. And these are democratic countries with rule of law. The situation in places like China are a lot more dire, where the government can easily make you cease to be able to function in society, simply by freezing your WePay account.
Wars can get started by stupid shit like this. I'm definitely not laughing. All it needs is one incident like what happened over Turkey. That one blew over but with the present climate I'm not so sure it will.
Do we have russian anime lesbians doing superconductor chemistry in 2023? I'm here for it.
Totally! I'm aghasted of how many people think LLMs are capable of reasoning and thoughts.

They would argue "but brains are just that, a big filter".LLMs don't get even close to what unicelulars can handle, and they don't have a brain.
If the host has no v4 it switches to v6 if possible. Disabling the support is not needed
I was searching for recommendations on a good resource for learning C.

The book '21st Century C' was recommended a few times on HN, and it has a good appendix on the basics, which is good for those who may not have used C except for undergrad assignments.

These lectures notes cover not only the basics of the C language, but also some things that are essential to learn alongside (like how to use assert, and how to step through a program with gdb).
So, from the screenshot on the blog post; it's exactly as fast as HTTP/1.1?
Unless you have an orgy each weekend, thousands migjt be a tad difficult to achieve. If you do so, well, I don't see why it would be a problem per se, no. Or we talk about sex workers, in which case again, I don't see why it should be a problem.

No idea where this fear of STDs is coming from, condoms do exist...
Explain how this is clickbait.
Yeah, I specifically meant the SPL Central location (I lived in Redmond, but didn't know about anything except SPL itself, and the two times I visited SPL were quite unpleasant so I gave up; I did like the online resources, but they're just enough of a hassle to use vs. buying things directly that I didn't keep using them.). I want this stuff to exist, especially for children and people who are on limited budgets (I used public libraries extensively as a child; 5-10 books/week from the local/suburban library, discovered interlibrary loan, etc.), but certainly wouldn't leave even a 12 year old unattended at SPL.
What makes cash special is that compared to other assets, it puts a bit more power into the hands of the individual and a bit less power in the hands of the government.

To count or seize the individuals cash, the government has to make some fuzz. Aka send men with guns.

There seems to be some divide in our world between people who consider individual power a good thing and people who consider it unnecessary.

Here in Europe, I have the feeling the vast majority of people consider it unnecessary. The vibe I get is "The system works, so why not let the government handle and control everything.".

I wouldn't be surprised if that is a global phenomena and holds steady throughout time. For example, even when the US government seized their citizens gold in 1933, there was no resistance.

That people consider "cash" something they "own" is already a sign that people don't understand and don't care how they are gamed by the government. The government can take the value out of that cash however it pleases by printing more of it.

And no matter how much the government does that, nobody complains:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGMBASE

Governments on the other hand understand very well that money is a sham. Thats why they hold hundreds of billions of dollars in gold:

https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/which-world-...

Way more than they hold foreign currency.

Gold is hard to pay with though. When Russia had their Dollars frozen last year, it was not like they said "No prob, we'll use gold then". Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if countries will shift their reserves to Bitcoin in the coming decades. As it combines the durability of gold with the usability of money.
Maybe I’m confused, but how is this different than an iron filing standing up in a magnetic field?
And it looks like the "solution" from their point of view is that you consume less, but pay the same amount of money or even more, so that the economy keeps "growing".
Your comment is talking about age, but the person above you is talking about attractiveness. As I get older, the type of woman that I'm attracted to also gets older. Nowadays, a mature demeanor and strands of graying hair are sexy. I look back on photos of my college girlfriend and think about what awkward, immature children we were.
Is there something wrong with someone decided to marry a person based on their wealth rather than on physical or emotional attraction?
Just to add on the "nonsense" line. Using the antropic principle to talk about the future is completely absurd.

There is a huge amount of what I think in unawarded debate about applying it to the past (IMO, it's very clear where it should be used), but applying it to the future is completely against any kind of logic.
There's a bit of a challenge today with chat, though. I work 4 timezones away from most of my team and we all prefer to swap e-mails, but chat seems to have stripped away some folks' ability to methodically go through topics, explain options and summarise next steps, leading to the usual "let's set up a call [to actually discuss everything in the e-mail thread]".

Reading through old mailing-lists (and even older e-mails from the same company, but from seven years ago) shows a markedly different communication style - you could pretty much take the last two e-mails in a thread and paste them into a memo that would neatly encompass all of the scope.

Not so today--there's a constant chattering of people who just can't prioritise or discuss more than a couple of topics in tow.
Seems a little short-sighted. Constitutions are meant to last for centuries, right? What's the payment landscape going to look like in 2400?

Even now, the enforcement detail is too much to put into a Constitution. There would need to be statute dictating exactly what vendors of what size selling what goods in what way have to actually accept cash. There's no sane way to require this of remote transactions. Nobody is mailing envelopes of cash before receiving anything. At best, a Constitutional provision could say something like "the government can't ban cash," which is great, but in a hundred years when nobody at all accepts it and banks don't carry it, you have a pointless, toothless provision in your Constitution.
AWS EC2 P5 Instances
You, like many others, never learned to love.

This sort of lifestyle is one that is selfish, self-indulgent, and exploitative. Consent does not change that, and people can also be mutually exploitative, even by consent. Consent alone does not bless an act.

To love another person is to will the objective good of the other. It is sacrificial. When two people marry, they promise to love each other until death. It seems many do not take this vow seriously, as if it were just a nice, but empty thing to say, nothing more than a sentiment. Liars and frauds.

Marriage teaches people not to be selfish, it teaches people what it means to love, because if you actually do keep your vows unconditionally, as you promised, you will be forced to learn, you will need to learn, you will have no other option than to grow if you want to live a full life. In the vast majority of cases, divorce is a failure to love, it is selfish, it is childish, it is weak sauce and pathetic (divorce motivated by abuse or whatever are the statistical exception). Lost people looking for excitement or thrill or some promise of happiness they can never find like the Samaritan women at the well. There's a reason divorcees are more likely to divorce again. They do not understand or honor commitment. They don't even care about their own objective good, only some selfish, subjective imperative or impulse.

Love is sacrificial. It is a cross to bear. For most of human history, marriage was arranged or contracted out of convenience. Romance was not a precondition. If it was there, fine. If not, fine, too. (Romance can also develop, on more solid grounds, as you come to know the person, instead of being fed by wishful thinking and fantasy.) Romance is not the purpose of marriage, only typically a nudge toward it. In some cultures, the non-romantic view is still the case. I do not suggest we return to arranged marriages. However, our ancestors can provide lessons for us regardless. If we remove the relentless, selfish demand for romance, the burdening of another with the demand to make us happy, if we de-center the emotional dimension that we seem to greatly overemphasize in our culture, and come to understand the objective good that marriage is, and the objective reality of married life, we will be better positioned to receive it for what it is. It will mean something, and we will become greater because of it.
The covering over the magnet is almost certainly to hide the array of electromagnets underneath. You can find a variety of electromagnet toys that will do this exact thing.
The media often does a sensationalist job of presenting climate change. It's always in existential terms, then social media runs with that, and you have public figures talking about how we're all doomed if we don't do something drastic in the next 5-10 years. Instead of it being a range from less severe to more severe with risk factors and tradeoffs increasing, along with possible mitigation strategies from more mundane to more risky.

It becomes a binary of we're doomed or we do something drastic right now (massive degrowth, abandon capatalism, quit fossil fuel cold turkey, etc) with little in between.
Not that this is really the core of your point at all - but I believe the state of the science currently suggests that pheromones in humans are a myth at worst, at best unproven. We only have a vestigial vomeronasal organ, which no longer functions - as I've understood it:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160509-the-tantalising-...
> Part of the reason it hasn’t taken off is because of the additional complexity it imposes on programmers.

My take is that it's specifically the additional complexity it imposes on _database_ programmers - the impacts across storage design, foreign keys and schema evolution when all data is bitemporal are profound. SQL:2011 introduced "temporal tables" but the design was arguably incomplete and implementing it ubiquitously requires a real re-think of database internals, so we're now over a decade on and these capabilities are still far from commonplace.

> However, I think part of the reason it hasn’t become more popular, given the benefits it brings, is just the name.

No disagreement from me there!

Disclosure: I work on xtdb.com, building a new database engine where bitemporality is the default. I also spoke with Kent about this last week :)
> Rephrased the way I understood it to mean…

But your rephrasing doesn’t match the original. He says he would feel like a fool supporting a woman from 40-70 who was “giving it up easily” in her earlier years.

Can I ask if English is your first language? I don’t wish to be rude, but the idiomatic phrasing “Giving it up easily” does not mean walking away from relationships frivolously. It means she was having sex, giving up her virtue (or vagina, pick a v word). It is a phrase which presupposes that it is a woman’s job not to give ‘it’ up and that she is easy or a slut if she does. It means that when men came to her seeking sex, she did not turn them away as she should have (ignore the men though, that’s just natural and not to be judged).

It’s not about criticising someone for walking away from relationships, it’s shaming a woman, and specifically a woman, for having had sex.

This is classic misogynist rhetoric, casting a woman’s value as proportional to her sexual past, making it her role to limit access to sex.

And yes, this probably does come from insecurity, that doesn’t make it ok.

He also talks about the promiscuity of college-age girls, and how he is having trouble finding meaning in dating women his own age, and how he wants his partners to have had few sexual partners, where he himself talks about having been sexually active for two decades.

I think it’s fair to say there’s a lot going on here, but some of his comments reveal quite weird attitudes towards women. Wherever those come from, they manifest as misogyny and double standards.
You HAVE the code for the premium software. It exists. The code all works. You downloaded it when you downloaded the basic package. You pay the minuscule extra cost of downloading and installing the extra code you don't use.

That argument doesn't hold up. Nobody should claim they are entitled to the premium features if they only have the basic license/software.

I agree that I don't want death by a thousand subscription fees, but this isn't exactly the same situation here. BMW's offerings is. Frankly, if BMW offered it with only the one-time charge, I'd consider it similar.
pg has written about this dichotomy years ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
My comment directly addresses the naming concerns of the parent comment. My jets were never warm to begin with.
The problem is that, long term, native games also break if they are not maintained. I trust more the wine/proton developers to fix compat issues than random game publishers.
I think you're misinterpreting the second tweet, I read it as "I can't publish a preprint myself since I'm not the only one working on it now, and my team doesn't feel our work is ready for publication". Of course it can still be bullshit but it makes sense that a biochemist doesn't have the means to test this material and that a credible physics institute wouldn't want to rush publication if they aren't sure of their results.
Wasn’t that Mr Burns?
> The reality is that the "assholes" get the hottest women. I put that in quotes because that's the superficial impression, not a nuanced statement. It's valid though. There are women who get married to murderers on death row. These are sexy, beautiful women. Meanwhile "nice guys" are single into their thirties and complaining about it on Reddit.

I don’t find that to be the reality. Most likely, the “nice guy” has a number of qualities that are off-putting to potential partners and the “asshole” is only perceived as such by the “nice guy”. I don’t mean to say assholes don’t find partners, they do, but the general perception of “the asshole always gets the girl” seems more like a sophomoric projection of jealously than reality.

> Being "nice" and "polite" doesn't work. As a random set of examples, people here on HN will generally acknowledge either Trump and/or Elon as being unmitigated asses, right? They've both had multiple wives and a bunch of kids.

> What does that tell you?

Not much… I mean it’s not news that rich and powerful men have an easy time finding people. But tbh, all walks of life have partners. Tons of nice, polite people have partners, yet you ignore those examples for some reason and claim that “doesn’t work”. I suspect the root issue is a jealously/confusion/frustration that an ass like Trump can find women but you have yet to have the same luck. The reality is that it’s possible for pretty much anyone to find a partner and it doesn’t mean much. Being a likable person will give you the best chance, regardless of how many assholes happen to find people. Perhaps the only useful lesson from observing assholes having success is that assholes tend to have confidence and don’t care what others think, making them more likely to put themselves in a position to find a partner without fear of rejection.
"Red" means red, and not blue, by definition. "Shit" means "an exclamation of disgust, anger, or annoyance" by definition, but there's nothing that defines it as a swear word. Culturally, we view it as one, despite the fact that the way it is used, and it's meaning, is exactly the same as "crap", or "shoot". Why should we continue to put that word on some kind of "oh my gosh please don't say it" pedestal rather than just treating it as the same thing?

>But all three would be inappropriate as economics terminology. Using a smelly bodily function as an economics metaphor is simply gratuitous and unprofessional.

Why?