skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The market forces are sufficient. If the FP rate climbs too high more people will disable the feature, easy

do you have any evidence this is true? it seems like a hypothesis that you totally made up just now

it's hard to even imagine the feedback loop that would convince the average user to enter their browser settings and change one of them just to view a website for a product they're interested in but google wrongly blocked them from seeing

indeed, if it were so easy to convince a user to do so, google could make the feature opt-in, with informed consent that the feature might wrongly block them from seeing sites they want to see, letting the user decide for themselves if they want to enable it

no, it seems common sense that they'd just move onto another website/product, and market forces would never actually come into play
It’s not about being anti-car, it’s about having OPTIONS. In most of the USA, you are forced to drive. There is no good alternative.
Watch 80 talks, tutorials, and socials from Python Web Conf 2023 on Six Feet Up's YouTube channel. Explore videos about Python, Django, Kubernetes, AI/ML, Big Data, CI/CD, Serverless, Security, Climate Tech, and more. Learn a new tool. Inspire others to use technology for good.
Sorry, that is a very narrow point of view that's only popular as of relatively recently.

People who block housing in cities because they don't want the cities to be "overcrowded" are ridiculous because:

1. Cities are by definition dense areas

2. If you don't want to live somewhere dense, move where fewer people want to live

3. Your right to your own property doesn't extend past it

4. You are destroying productivity and allowing landlords to extract excess productivity from the whole population, so the effect is almost definitely not the one that you think it is.

For smaller communities in ecologically fragile areas, there are more nuanced arguments, but even then those people should prefer managed density because:

1. Density keeps sprawl at bay and is better for the environment

2. Residents won't be able to afford to live on their little patch unless they own the land

3. Even then their area will become a museum around them and they certainly won't be able to preserve the idyll they wish to.

In any case, most of the supply problems can be solved without major changes to what people often refer to as "neighborhood character". Everything from ADUs to just allowing a few extra stories does quite a bit to increase the capacity of an urban area.
Maybe they should base the rates on net worth.
For me the walkability benefit in Europe is almost offset by the overabundance of diesel exhaust fumes.
read the article, and the potential for this to become a / part of, a grooming manual is a concern.
In my neighborhood I can walk, bike, or take the public transit almost anywhere I need to go (20 min bike ride to my office). There are shops, restaurants, a nice movie theater nearby. I live in a rowhouse surrounded mostly by other rowhouses and 2-3 family buildings, so I do know most of my neighbors. I grew up in a suburb and wouldn't go back for anything.
Yes, but walkability goes far beyond sidewalks.

It's easy to find US cities with plenty of sidewalks that are hideously unwalkable, as well as many streets in Japan with no sidewalks that are still highly walkable.
> There is not enough electricity for everybody, and it seems like conservation is not an option.

That is not the issue. The issue is that distributed generation (i.e., rooftop solar) has become so popular that charging only by per-kW charges has become a subsidy from working class (who are less likely to participate in such generation) to wealthier segments who do.

> So these companies will try to squeeze the working class even more.

This proposal would reduce total bills for the working class, by splitting the rate into a mix of fixed fee and a (lower than current) is per-kW rate, and giving the working class a discount on the fixed fee.

It would raise total costs for those generating their own power (because of lower per-kW rates) and for the wealthy (who would pay above the average cost on the fixed fee, and particularly on people who are both.)

This would reduce the incentive to new distributed generation slightly (but then, given that both widespread adoption has been achieved and there is now a residential construction mandate for that, the effect of incentives is less.)
The authors _want_ you to use more power. But they think it's going to be in the form of buying an EV or an electric furnace, as versus just running your AC more days per year. They frame this specifically in terms of meeting our carbon emission targets. But this only can work if (a) most of the increased electricity use is supplanting fossil fuel use and (b) they can bring more green power sources online faster than people's electricity use increases.

> Achievement of California’s GHG reduction goals increasingly require more electricity consumption via building electrification and electric vehicle (EV) adoption. It is imperative that the Commission takes steps to reduce volumetric rates. IGFCs can reduce volumetric rates in a manner that eases affordability pressures on low-income customers and improve access to electrification, when done correctly.

from pages 4-5 of this doc:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energ...
Test automation is also written by humans, so while there are some improvements to be made for productivity, it’s definitely not foolproof, so it’s good to have multiple layers of defense.
I think people miss that there are living arrangements other than detached single family homes and tall apartment buildings.
This is a typical green propaganda dumbass calculation .

You assume that people drive BEV as often and as far as they drive ICE. They don't.

You assume people always charge BEV from the grid. People can also use solar panels.

You assume gasoline forever has to be fossil. It does not need to be.

You forget the carbon footprint of manufacturing of either kind of cars.

You assume all people can afford buying new cars. They don't.

You assume there will be as big second hand market for BEV and it is now for ICE. It won't be, because of the battery degradation.

You assume that current grid can handle simultaneous loading of all BEV. It can't, and you don't include the carbon footprint of grid extension and increase of the generation power in your calculation.

And last but now least, a typical green propaganda trick, you are only calculating one variable and ignoring negative effects in another variables:
- people waste more time waiting for charging
- people forced to switch to inferious means of transportation
- people reducing their leisure travels
- a two-class mobility with the lower class of poor people living in apartments without own charging possibility who cannot afford a BEV or are forced spending hours per day charging at public stations, and the higher class of home owners with solar panels, charging their cars for free
- higher prices for taxi, delivery services (and therefore all retail prices), facility management, mobile nurses, construction worker and other people who drive more miles per day as one over-night charge can give.
- special service vehicles like firefighting trucks, police cars, military vehicles, super-heavy trucks etc. cannot use fragile battery energy only, and need to use gasoline, which becomes very expensive and hard to get, if 99% of other cars are BEV and so all gas stations are closed.

So you should either stop publishing shit or invest a lot more time in your calculation.
> IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment, but also actively harmful to the people that live there, especially children.

Spicy take. I grew up in a neighborhood that would've been considered "suburban" I guess. I had no problems because there were 20 kids who lived there and we all played together. We also went to the same schools. Never had any problem with that though the fact my family moved for work did distance us from our relatives. I was never "extremely isolated". Ever. Bullied, perhaps, but never isolated.

I think the terminally online always connected culture of today is doing far more damage. Compound that with people having less children, housing being transient due to a rental economy, etc and you have the destruction you're looking for. I don't think the implied solution here, giant multi-story multi-family housing, is the solution either. Packing people in like sardines is not effective. You only need to look at Asia to see what happens when you let this form of housing reach its natural conclusion. It sure is nice having my own 4 walls, a garage, etc. It's a space I control and I would fight to keep it. I do wish my area was more walkable. However, I will take what I can get. There's a park about 10 minutes from me and a few coffee shops.

I am simply not a fan of this anti-car, anti-natalist, anti-detatched-housing trifecta that seems to be polluting more progressive social media. I don't understand it. I don't think I ever will.
It isn't misleading. I state this in the first paragraph.

> I ignore the potentially, important environmental impact of the manufacturing processes of the two types of vehicles.

And in the second paragraph I discuss it further.

>This is a naive and simplistic approach but it is a starting point and allows us to highlight this very important aspect of the topic. Furthermore, these values are still relevant in more complex calculations which take into account other factors like manufacturing, maintenance, longevity, etc
I remember seeing you on the EleutherAI Discord I think
There are less severe actions than invading.
> Darn that global Internet, allowing people to use unauthorized chat clients with impunity!

The use was not the problem; the name was the problem.
Well, another comment here from a guy of Sammi ancestry notes potential polymorphism in GHC1 as possible (and likely) partial explanation.

I would imagine that there are a variety of potential genetic differences that could generate a wide range of altitude-adaptation differences.
I'm not the original commenter. I was just tossing in a hypothesis based on my experience.
Survivorship bias is a hell of drug.
Can't they? How much can they fine then?
The danger of massive fines in Europe and being sued absolutely everywhere, I’d assume.
The TIL-framing is not integral to writing and publishing little snippets. You can always omit a framing and stick only to the information.
> ... IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment

As opposed to packing people like ants in high-rises in cities, which is the most environmentally friendly?
Google “Trademark”
Rescript
Is there enough lithium in the ground to make enough batteries for all these cars?
Well, you do happen to be searchable...
> You can see the user “rejectfinite” has replied to you with a flagged comment which demonstrates how people still try to act out this kind of toxicity

A point made well. I saw that post.

I myself have been generously downvoted, which is understandable given the audience here on HN.
Feds Want to Pay Farmers to Change Pooping Habits of Cows
The solution is soulful apartment blocks.

The US is really bad at apartment complexes. I commonly saw way nicer, less depressing ones while living in the outskirts of Munich.
Remember that this is a policy choice: we chose to enrich Boomers who own houses, at the expense of these people.

We could build more homes on golf courses, we could build affordable housing, we could build up, we could get rid of parking mandates. All of that would cost The Boomer, and so is forbidden.
Almost every time I had a coding-type question for SO, I would diligently search through previous SO answers and 98% of the time I could find the answer to my question by doing so - but it would always take a long time. LLMs are just a lot faster, and while double-checking their output is necessary, that's a much quicker process than trying to hunt down answers starting from little knowledge.

There's also the issue of people trying to improve their SO score because that can impact things like job interviews, at least on the programming side, and as with any such system gaming it for high reputation (points for questions, answers, upvotes) has some side effects on people's behavior that aren't always pleasant. There's also a saturation effect, e.g. many common questions have already been asked, and the 'archive of truth' mentality means that you're supposed to search past answers before asking anything, which again tends to take a lot longer than ChatGPT does.
Billionaires should exist. They should. Just as reasonable.

People have this idea that if we could just harvest all of that money and spread it out, the problem would be solved. Fleece the billionaires. So let's run the numbers.

Currently, there are seven hundred fifty-six billionaires in the United States. I'll do 750 for ease of calculation. Let's say they have three billion each (this is wildly overshooting it, there's some power law and they probably average 1.5 billion, since for every Bezos there are likely fifty people at 1.1 billion). What we get is 2.250 trillion dollars.

We could throw that out to each person (say three hundred million people) for a one-time boon of $7,500. That's it, it's gone. Whoosh. A little more than our COVID payments. Nice to have. Or, you could do about two years of our United States budget deficit. Or you could even knock a little over seven percent off of the $30.93 trillion US debt.

My question is: now that you've harvested the billionaires, what do you do next year? What's the follow-up? Be sure to include the knock-on effects of a lot of slightly less wealthy people hustling their money out of the country.

Billionaires are a glittering distraction to the crabs in the bucket. Hauling them down to your level is satisfying in a monkey way. It isn't much of a solution, though.
That's not really the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to say "what if" we had the climate scientist's wish and all gas car were magically EVs. Would that actually be better from an emissions perspective?
Had a fun conversation about language learning with an American friend who's learning German.

She asked me what "walkable" is in German. Then it hit me, we don't have this word because in Germany this concept is unknown.

Funny how societal factors have such an imprint in language.
> Worries about the climate might well _dwarf_ local worries, but they don't _subsume_ them.

In many ways they do subsume them. For example, an impactful strategy to combating climate change is increasing density of urban areas by upzoning. This reduces vehicle miles driven and energy consumed for transportation and heating/cooling. But it also reduces demand for housing in wildland areas, subsuming that environmental fight.

Similarly, reducing fossil fuel extraction by replacing that energy with carbon-free sources subsumes the problem of limiting the destruction of rivers from coal mining, and the mitigating the devastation caused by offshore oil leaks.
Why should we conserve energy? Why is it “morally wrong” to use massive amount of energy? Shouldn’t we make energy immeasurably abundant and essentially free?

Are we going to run out of Sun?

It seems like with the criticism of non-renewables, the current zeitgeist has convinced everyone of degrowth ideology wholesale. The debate about renewables and non-renewables is orthogonal.

Humans IMO should have an ambition to consume all the wasted energy radiating out in outerspace by the Sun and capture it for our use.

Energy conservation has religious cult-like faith-based undercurrents. Brainwashed.
I think of it as a less expensive gofundme. It's not really about (or at least shouldn't be about) getting rich but giving others am opportunity they might never had had otherwise because of the circumstances of their birth.
Why is the Internet archive choosing these battles?
The score can be edited just fine, though not in the way you're used to or prefer. It doesn't make your request or others' invalid, but it's simply wrong and preposterous to suggest that MuseScore doesn't allow scores to be edited.
I promise not to use any of the data I collect about you!

Except to improve services (ML training!), Advertising (We'll sell your data to advertisers!), and by government order (pick your favorite three letter agency.)

Alternatively: They'll just use your data anyway and not tell you about it. How is anyone going to prove their data was used as the source? It's like all the NDAs people sign when they join a company and they pinky promise not to use it at the next job where they land a big fat raise and promotion... suuure they aren't going to take what they've learned and improve upon it to try and get more promotions and raises in the future.

It can't be stopped.
Isn’t Apple Watch and other blood oxygenation just measuring saturation (a relative measure)?

Among other things, Acclimatization involves producing more blood-oxygen carrying capacity (or less if you go back to sea level), which is an absolute measure, not a relative one that the oximeters would pick up.
>you don't want old people on fixed income forced to sell their homes because property values are going up rapidly

>Yes you do. It's called downsizing and relocating.

You have to understand how hard this makes it to engage honestly with your post. All useful conversation requires a minimal foundation of trust/honesty/charity - i.e. that both parties honestly want the best overall outcome for everybody, and the disagreement is only about what that compromise looks like and how to get it. When you write like this about people, it makes you sound like you don't give a shit about them.
1. Would be nice but that can potentially cause inflation to rapidly grow again. It should go down but it would need to be gradual once inflation has fully stabilized. And it’s not just the US that’s suffering heavily under high inflation.
2. Dropping support for Ukraine would signal to China that we wouldn’t have the stamina to support Taiwan if they were attacked. It was only a few years ago that a massive chip shortage hamstrung our economy and nobody wants to repeat that. Dropping support won’t have much significant fiscal impact, either. Most of the billions spent thus far is really the US clearing out older inventories.
3. We already do with tax incentives and other mechanisms. What exactly are you asking for unchecked COVID loans that were forgiven en mass?
4. Do you have figured that indicate ESG-based investing is a net negative and costly to the US? That redirection of such funds would have a notable economic impact?
So the answer to "why does Elixir require a dot?" is "because of dubious design choices for the innards", rather than any sort of reason that makes sense based on its actual syntax or features.
It doesn't, you'd have to unpin certificates in whatever application you're using. Browsers generally don't do certificate pinning though, they'll (correctly) respect your installed certificates, which would include the mitmproxy one.
Except none of those solutions are package managers, are they? The thing that's nice about nix is that you can just specify which packages you want by name, and easily get them in your path.
It doesn’t matter, the EU already has definitions for companies that are big enough to be of public interest.

The majority of economic value creation over the long run happens on the internet, it’s high time to adjust the laws to match physical reality.

You can’t just randomly discriminate against people in the physical worlds too.
maybe they were enjoying the song?
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/d661ed19a203000b7c54...

About five years too late, heh.
> The only fair system is to make everyone pay in (near) real-time for the actual cost relative to demand.

That's only "fair" if you're limiting your view to the specific transaction at hand.

The reason we try to make systems like this is because many of us recognize that when you zoom out, your definition of "fairness" has to change.

If you look at the whole current socioeconomic system, it's very clear that it is not fair to charge a family of 5 living on a minimum-wage salary (or even two or three) the same amount for a basic necessity like power as you charge a Silicon Valley billionaire—unless the amount you're charging is zero.
*nod* Aside from the obvious (compile-time guarantees beyond MyPy's ability to offer), the lack of pattern matching and an accompanying ecosystem that evolved in its presence is my number one discomfort when writing Python for things like my QWidget GUI frontends for Rust backends.
> And if you have a single edge not fulfilling the stricter structure's properties, you are left with a general graph.

And this is why it's not good to have a general graph as a baseline model, because one mistake or temptation to stray from a structure with given properties, and you lose all the benefits of a constraint.

"This object will be passed deep into a call tree, but never have mutable methods called on it from more than one place in a process, but it'll be read from multiple places". Good luck enforcing this in a general object graph.

But if you eliminate mutable shared state, say like Rust does (not that I approve the specifics of Rust exactly) then you don't have to worry about it. Rust doesn't implement just a general object graph where everyone can have a reference to everything all the time. It has constraints.

> That I agree with, but I personally believe it is too restrictive in case of memory models. Especially that the price really is not high -- modern GCs have insanely good throughputs with bounded latency, the only price being a slightly larger memory footprint.

However as I noted in the link, the GC is the smallest price you pay.

Also it's not a slightly larger memory footprint, GC languages typically take 2x the RAM.
Wyoming Couple Creates a Hiker Haven from Run-Down Pinedale Motel
Just write SQL and eventually you will reinvent 50% of any ORM
Suppose you had an internal combustion engine that functions well in 20.9% O2, but very poorly in 19.2% O2.

Then a mechanic shows up a lever you can pull that alters the way the engine intakes and processes O2. You move it a bit, and all of a sudden, the engine now functions just as well in 19.2% O2 as 20.9% O2.

Now imagine that the engine can measure its own performance, and can move the lever itself ...
Incremental ClickHouse Backups
https://twitter.com/friscolive415/status/1690281516935589888...

"A large festival posed wireless bandwidth constraints causing delayed connectivity to our vehicles. We are actively investigating and working on solutions to prevent this from happening again. We apologize to those who were impacted."
also the lurker's guide whih I think is how most people got that info.
No thanks, been there, done that. Writing SQL by hand almost never scales.
To me, the choice of Cap’n Proto means the developer looked at a colossal number of RPC frameworks in order to understand why Cap’n Proto is the best of them. While these things are subjective and also I cannot predict the future (ie actual adoption), it makes sense that being really opinionated and seemingly unorthodox is side by side to innovating.