skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, you can hide all the 0-9 keys. And add rad/degree buttons. And set whatever functions/settings you can have elsewhere in the UI as buttons. And add or remove columns/rows from the "keypad". The upper-left button in the custom keypad will always be to edit the custom keypad itself, otherwise it's fully modifiable by the user.
Isn't "Upset" training now mandatory for civilian pilots, partly because of AF447? https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/faq/44870
I believe it's probably a similar situation. Search for a restaurant in google, and click on the "Phone number" portion of the infobox. It often shows two phone numbers; The actual phone number of the restaurant, and a "Google number" that google puts as the primary phone number. I have no reason to believe these businesses did this on purpose, because they give out their actual phone number on menus and advertising. Why is google putting themselves in the middle of this transaction? How is that not a straight up crime?
This isn't remotely a solved problem in the congested city and suburban highways they're trying this for. What you're describing works perfectly fine for a two-lane rural highway running between cities where the average vehicle spacing is half a kilometer apart bare minimum. It's not viable during near perpetual rush-hour conditions to just tell everyone to not just one lane of the highway unless they're passing. When there are seven lanes on each side, how do they even get to the left lane to do the passing? Cut across six, pass, then cut back?
teraformos
Of course it didn't work; driving speed is primarily a function of road design, not law.
> It's tempting to blame the inexperienced first officers or their training but the blame for this crash has to land squarely on the atrociously bad UX of the Airbus cockpit.

The real problem is that someone who doesn't look at his most critical instrument* in instrument flying conditions, causes a stall, doesn't respond to stall warnings, doesn't communicate, refuses to hand over controls even though he doesn't understand what is happening, is in the cockpit at all. Either the training was inadequate, or deficiencies in Bonin's flying were overlooked.
Are sales slumping?
Thank you for mentioning this. Haven't heard of them before, but I really love the ethic they're advocating (and demonstrating in their pricing and payment options).

https://uberspace.de/en/
OK, I'll work less.
I don't think it is, as somebody who's spent maybe 100 combined hours reading AI papers mostly focused around NLP and image classification.

You have a dataset, symbolically represented in 1s and 0s. You have an objective function (e.g. classify the object as belonging to one of N categories).

The purpose of the collective neurons in the network is to "encode" the input space in a way that satisfies the objective function. In the same way that we "encode" higher-level concepts into shorthand representations.

Gradient descent is the optimization function we use to develop this encoding.

Beyond this, there are all kinds of tricks people have developed (interesting activation functions for neurons, grouping + segregating neurons, introducing a dimension of recurrence/time, dataset pre-processing, using bigger datasets, having another model generate data that's deliberately challenging for the first model) to try to converge to a more robust/accurate encoding, or to try to converge to a decent encoding at a faster rate.

There is no magic here at the lowest level – you can interrogate the math at each step and it'll make sense.

The "magic" is that we have zero epistemology to explain why tricks work, other than "look, ma test results". We know certain techniques work, and we have post-hoc intuitive explanations, but we're mostly fumbling our way "forwards" via trial and error.

This is "science" in the 17th century definition of the term, where we're mixing chemicals together and seeing what happens. Maybe we'll have a good theoretical explanation for our experimental results 100 years from now, if we're still around.
Extremely relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37052508

A rather popular app for macOS got purchased by some shady company and they updated it to include a botnet SDK. I'm guessing a lot of the potential buyers here have similar intents.
I hadn't even heard of that one until today. Thanks - I'll check it out.
Only 11 years after the competition! Courage
This is what ChatGPT said about the new name it suggested:

"Vagrunt" is indeed a clever and suitable name that closely resembles "Vagrant" while changing just one character. It maintains the familiarity with the original name while also indicating a slight twist that makes it distinct for your fork of the application. Well done!
Yeah but I assume that you'd be pinning the base image, in addition to whatever you apt install. If I install, let's say Debian 6, can I use `apt install package=version ` to install the 2011 versions of most packages?
See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.05087; the area around eq 3 discusses the attractive force due to Higgs boson exchange, and the paper as a whole discusses testability.
What evidence do you have that the "VPN will fix it" crowd isn't also involved physically in opposing what is going on? Do you have anything to base that assumption on other than the stated opinion?

It's possible for "VPN will fix it" to exist with "Do things to actively resist government overreach" in the same individual.
Yeah, I guess as someone who's had minimal instruction it seemed obvious. But reading the article it's clear that the junior FO was trained basically exclusively on the fly-by-wire Airbuses and probably didn't have that intuitive understanding when that protection was stripped away.
Uhh, this is really not compelling to me, at all. It's hard to understand if these differences are just differences or touted as supposed features.

Especially since you can self-host headscale...
Yes. A few years after this event I broke production of some software payment service while working at AirFrance. Some avoidable error not caught during testing and validation. We had to rollback after some time and nobody died nor talk about it.
Yours is a false dilemma. Being aghast at Mozilla’s non-profit mismanagement does not mean that one is using any other browser. A lot of us here are using Firefox but hoping and praying that the Foundation will be called to account or development will be taken over by some more benevolent and competent force.
Having driven quite a lot in the SFBA (SF Bay Area, right?) it's usually out of frustration with traffic clogging up the left half of the highway.

Lazy careless drivers leave the right lane underutilized, congregating on the left side because they can't be bothered with monitoring let alone handling potentially merging traffic.

So the right lane often becomes the only way to get around these clumped up clusterfucks, and to minimize time spent in the right lane while overtaking, it often occurs at quite extralegal speeds.
Why was it OK to be required to work at an office 4 years ago?
Back then, I seem to recall there was an issue with an example given in the documentation.
And we all know apples and oranges are incompatible in every single way. Even their physical dimensions or prices can't be meaningfully compared!

Seriously though: both of those products aim to provide secure tunnelling/network connectivity. They do it differently, which leads to different trade-offs including, among other things, at which level the OS network stack is intercepted. All of those things can be meaningfully compared (e.g., "do I need my favourite application Z to explicitly support and be configured to use a HTTP/SOCKS-proxy or will it 'just work'™?" — Tor and OpenVPN give two different answers).
I found it useful - we have been considering tailscale for part of our post-VPN strategy, and as tailscale markets successfully there, the direct comparison helps. That they were fair about the OSS & centralization comparisons without explicitly punching up was also great for trust building - good job whoever wrote that.
What doesn't support Android? Nebula has an Android client:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.defined.mo...
Ask HN: Thoughts on building an AI Twitter search tool?
Here's my dilemma: Twitter (to me) is fairly toxic and I get no joy in using it. However, it's still the best place I've found to find revenant news about topics I care about.

AI has had so many initiatives for creating content and pushing content into our feeds... seems really fun to think of how AI can help platform users for a change.

I'm hoping to build or find something that can search twitter for me and present a list of tweets, filtered on sentiment. Obviously a topic like "CSS" is full of rants and debates and self-promo, but I think current AI could actually do a reasonable job of surfacing the interesting bits.

Just curious if anyone could point me towards the "stack" they'd use for such a project. I'm a seasoned web developer but a bit novice about AI and struggling to sort where to begin. Many thanks for any replies! Plan to open source whatever I build for this.
No, because SOCKS terminates the "inner" TCP connection at the proxy.
The Dual Input alarm wasn't added, in fact it sounded several times during the Air France flight.

FDR visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a06A78iXnQ
Intelligence as compression is a well-established notion. An earlier debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24395822
Someone in my extended family works at Airbus as an engineer (hence the throwaway account)

When I asked him about this accident, I brought up this specific point - the mechanical non-linkage.

Sure, the Airbus is fly by wire (there are no "mechanics"), but you can still program one joystick to mimic the other joystick, right? As far as I know, the Airbus plane actually averages the inputs..?? [0]

Anyway, he sorta-angrily gave me the same explanation as I just saw posted here as well: it was a crew management issue. (which of course may have played a huge role).

I am not a pilot so I am probably missing something. But he (the Airbus family member) did seem quite defensive about this. What portion was internalized corporate-comm "we are not at fault" reasoning? What portion was engineering hubris of "fly by wire is unquestionably superior to mechanical linkage"?

I don't know. But I do find it strange... and indefensible. When does the average of inputs make sense? I'm open to an explanation. Is there a good one?

---

[0] See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4224707 from 2012.

"This input was averaged (read: canceled) with the other pilot's nose up input."

(and further down in the same sub-thread)

"The AF447 inputs were averaged."
Yeah it was, but the problem is the same.

The assumption that inability to get the transmitter or knowledge of how to do it is enough to protect your reciever.

As far as I know, relay satellites also did not use authentication in the past.
Particularly since, by my recollection, 20 years ago a separate staging environment was the exception not the rule.
> significant part of the value proposition of Tailscale is their very well designed web UI which makes managing their Wireguard based networks very user friendly.

I think this is an opinion. I don't use the tags/rules, and I literally only use their website to complete the oauth flow to auth a new client. Headscale is a perfectly functional replacement of Tailscale for me.
This isn't about fixing a bug, but about working for the customer when the organization can't.

For theoretical background on why companies grow in this manner, read the transaction cost economics literature on bureaucratic cost. That's what drove the auto industry to abandon the hierarchy for the M-form, with some internal contracting replacing hierarchy. It's why US companies are relatively flat.

In this case, everyone actually wanted the bug fixed. Problems really arise when some do and some don't, and when it's in the customer's interest but not the company's.

The solution here is not to fix the bug but fix the problem with test infrastructure. It's causing a whole class of hard-to-reproduce bugs to be ignored.

In a bureaucracy, the bug will get fixed but the problem will persist. In a healthy company, middle management will work together to fix the problem.
It's also even easier to drive without a license. Chances are you can go a long time without needing to show your license, better to have them easy to get so people have them when, than a high barrier and many unlicensed drivers.
> I had to provide audits of our licenses of libraries we use in our code base to investors and attest we didn’t have AGPL code in our code/software in our stack.

A little off topic, but how are these audits usually done? I'd like to familiarize myself

Not necessarily your specific case, if there's a resource online that'd be fine
Funny enough that’s exactly what happens here in Oregon. Most of the wetlands were drained for farming, or just because we could. Turns out our selfish human geo-engineering had benefits to humans.

Whenever we restore a wetlands, the area goes from “surprisingly low amounts of mosquitoes most of the time” back to “fuck I can’t go outside”

https://www.opb.org/news/article/restored-marsh-breeds-swarm...

There are ways to somewhat mitigate this through more intelligent wetland design methods, but ultimately no way to even mostly resolve the problem without more intensive control methods, which sometimes end up being pesticides.
> people get so upset when even very gentle criticism is leveled at their pet language (which in large part is positive! I literally said Haskell is a great fit for a whole area of application)

As a real world programmer your comment is just another "Haskell isn't good for real world IO heavy problems" argument that ironically doesn't hold up in the real world.

Your concession of "good for pure and mathematical" just evokes "ah yeah, the ivory tower language unsuitable for real world applications". It ends up making your view seem balanced and authoritative while bolstering your overall point that you shouldn't use Haskell for serious non-academic things.

Haskell isn't my pet language, it's the language that pays my rent :)
There's a professional version.

https://www.neoncaptain.com/
Or they could make Deployment Manager not just facepalm dumb: https://cloud.google.com/deployment-manager/docs/configurati...

But I'm guessing no one gets promoted for DX improvements, when there's AI editors to screenshot launch!1!

I know CloudFormation gets shit upon, but for a lot of use cases it is very low drama, and (most important to me personally) it enables one-click deploys into customer accounts https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGui... without involving "first, open your terminal ..."
echo "everything" | sed s/every/no/
> A flywheel can provide frequency stabilisation, or it can provide energy storage, but it can't do both at the same time.

Ah, that's a good point to know. I thought flywheels could to both at the same time. Do they also help with keeping the load resistive? I guess their high inertial mass would add some inductance, which is how they stabilize the frequency?

Do you have some resources about this topic to share to a layman like me?
Isn’t it about control? An asteroid coming down is random as in no one caused it. What we’re doing is different: it’s a conscious choice and course of action (collectively). We didn’t really know in the beginning but we’ve knows for decades and collectively chose to continue mostly unabated. By that token we as a species are fully responsible for what’s happening in my opinion.
Another very common failure mode, and really all you can do is mandate an SOP that the crew member vocalizes which engine they're turning off, and the other crew member verifies that it's the correct engine.

The other answer to "people do stupid things under stress" is the common maxim that every emergency procedure in every aircraft starts the same way. Somewhere in the cockpit is probably a standard-issue mechanical 8-day clock, and the first thing you do in any emergency is stop and wind the clock. Not because it does anything to the aircraft, precisely the opposite. It makes you stop for a second or two for the "oh shit" moment to pass. Then you analyze what's actually going on. The other saying that's always briefed is "no fast hands in the cockpit." You may need to be expeditious, but you still vocalize what you're doing with your crew or wingman and methodically go through the emergency procedure. You get in a lot more trouble flipping switches willy-nilly based on what you think you have than if you just stop, breathe, and look at what the aircraft is telling you. I still can recite the steps from memory:

- Maintain aircraft control

- Analyze the situation

- Apply the appropriate emergency procedure(s)

- Land when conditions permit
It was never ok. I've been working remote for over 10 years, it's always been superior to being in the office. Post-pandemic the leverage went to the worker to demand better working conditions.
Isn't this a common problem for building a solution for "now"?

Isn't the goal to use your vision and think about what the world is going to be like in 2 to 5 years and focus on building that?

Those are the products/solutions/businesses that generally win...not people jumping on the hot new thing...
i'd rephrase that, rightsholders should not get stuffed, but these are not rightsholders because their rights are not being infringed by the mere existance of youtube-dl
I'll just add my two cents:

1) I resonate with the spirit of the change, that too many companies are making vast sums of money on the backs of open source contributors who work largely for free

2) Changing open source licenses is just exactly the wrong way to redistribute wealth

To me, these little jabs against conceptual simplicity undermine the spirit of human progress. They're like code smells. So for example, GPLv3 thinly veils DRM, which opens the door to monopoly, surveillance capitalism and big brother because it can never be made to work without infringing on individual freedom in some way.

A better way to solve the problem of wealth inequality is to codify wealth redistribution into law. This is what taxes are. Rather than nickel and diming our psyches with licensing baggage, it's better for us as a whole to just feed some portion of our proceeds back into the system so that everyone else can eat too. This is the long game that we've been forfeiting since we put all of our chips into greed-is-good crony capitalism which started around 1980.

I believe that stuff like the current Hollywood writers' strike is a canary in the coal mine for capitalist history. With the arrival of AI, our monetary system is going to collapse between (pulling numbers out of the air) 2030 and 2040. Money will fall in value to such a degree that a house will cost $1 million while the minimum wage is still $10 or less. Because robots can work for free, we can't.

Enough with the personal responsibility dogma. It's time for systemic change.

Edit: perhaps it's unclear exactly how GPLv3 gets too nosy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/9m4n2g/lin...

So I'm objecting to the BSL saying "this is open source unless you're our competitor".

Edit 2: after thinking about this some more, I believe that in an information economy, code will become synonymous with the means of production. So UBI is an open source license that says a company can make unlimited money, as long as it gives some back to society. So there's no way to be anti-tax and pro-open source without cognitive dissonance.
> However, in light of the acceleration of European climate policy, which threatens to condemn Italy to irreversible decline, I feel it is my duty to enable the media to cover this discovery.

Yeah, he sounds like a legit researcher, rather than someone with a blog and a message the fossil fuel lobby finds useful.
It's what our corporate overlords and their pet politicians want, and they ain't gonna stop fighting until George Orwell spins in his grave, and prolly not even then.
Also was confused by this sentence. I have worked on several Node, React, and even PHP (albeit a long time ago!) applications, and every single one of them caught and surfaced internal server errors. Never was aware there were actually people out there regardless of language who weren't catching and surfacing 500s in a straightforward fashion to the user.
> It might be worth working on something open and new

Matrix is extremely mature and supports all of the things you mentioned and more such as bridging to IRC servers.

I frequently see people complaining about IRC and features it doesn't lack or warts in the protocol from age, but those same groups never mention Matrix as a viable alternative. Do you know why that is?
Wow, every time I check in on it it feels like its 10x the product it was the 4-6 months prior. Impressive!
Want?

Kinda neutral TBH. Governments set all kinds of rules, that's their job. Democracies somewhat align those rules with public interest, imperfectly and with partial overlap with the imperfections of the public interest alignment from free market capitalism.

Just because I can see edge cases doesn't mean I can tell what makes them systemically better or worse.
Mac users? Which specific Unix™ are we talking about here?
Didn't they let go the curl guy?
So could we maybe have them not get any privileges by default, but still work?
I am still waiting to see if Elon is going to pick up a Wegovy sponsorship for this fight...
Yes.

As a rough analogy that my lawyer told me early on, lawyers are like software engineers, and the law is like the operating system. A good lawyer writes robust "code" designed to deal with edge cases and unexpected conditions gracefully.
> You cannot find any evidence that the supreme Court justices are ruling inconsistent with their past stated constitutional understandings and inconsistent with their past rulings.

Yes, we can, and so could you if you were actually curious about the matter. You're actually demonstrating the exact same kind of "motivated reasoning" that afflicts the court.

Kavanaugh and Alito have both changed their position on stare decisis, going from "settled law" to "egregiously wrong" when it suited them in Dobbs. Kavanaugh changed his attitude on the rights of religious minorities.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/patrick-henry-mu...

Alito flip-flopped on textualism when it came to the EPA.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173028/samuel-alito-kavanaug...

Gorsuch abandoned originalism when it came to the rights of LGBTQ+ folks.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/will-the-real-justice-g...

There are many many more examples, for anyone not inclined to cherry-pick and turn a blind eye. Stop demanding ever more proof from other people, just because you haven't even bothered to study the reality yourself. Prove your own points or stop making these sweeping claims that are, frankly, tantamount to lies.

BTW, before you add strawman to the list of your crimes against curious discussion, nobody is saying that justices can't change their minds. They can and should, as circumstances or understanding change. Even long-standing precedents have been set aside this way, and correctly so. However, the recent changes in attitude seem suspiciously sudden and arbitrary, and go to the heart of each justice's claimed judicial philosophy (often the one that got them through confirmation). As Kagan said in her dissent on Dobbs, nothing has changed about the case or issue itself; all that has changed is the composition of the court, and that's a poor basis for such a momentous decision.

Again, we can't read minds. Maybe there have been several once-in-a-lifetime changes of heart all at once. OTOH, even if we consider such an incredibly unlikely coincidence, the court's recent decisions are far more consistent with a particular partisan agenda than with any recognizable judicial philosophy - even a flawed one. That's what sets them apart from any other court at least during my lifetime.