skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You are dreadfully confused. This has nothing to do with maximising health insurance company profits.
You don't have to choose one or the other - you could say "please open a GitHub PR if you have an account, otherwise feel free to send an patch to patches@example.com". It might feel a little messy to 'mix and match' PRs and patches like this, but in practice, as long as everyone uses good commit messages I have found it to be inconsequential.
I am not feeling smug, I am saying that there has been progress in the past 100 years.
That’s the power of a curated list. Consumer reports, Michelin, etc. It’s not you that’s advertising your product, it’s a trusted third party. Gaming search engine scoring algorithms is not the right way to prove your product is better. It’s the way to game a search engine to force yourself on to people.
I believe the SmartCut feature reencodes just the frames needed to reach the closest keyframe.
Which languages that are built on top of the JVM would have significant issues if generics weren’t implemented via erasure? I’m pretty sure Scala would be happier with reified generics. I think the CLR might not be as popular a target because of the Microsoft ties (and the main implementation being Windows-only and closed-source for most of the CLR’s existence).
Apache is what's serving the error page. It's whatever is behind Apache that is failing

I've had an Apache server running on a decade old laptop on the HN front page, serving a custom PHP+Mariadb blog without caching, works just fine. It's big projects like WordPress that reliably go down from more than a handful of visitors per minute with bursts to a few in one second, if you don't have a caching layer that turns it into the equivalent of a static page generator
Best Student Computer in 2023
It's not about linking to them, it's about supplying a comprehensive summary so that people read that and don't follow a link to them.
> If an instructor deliberately gives a student a problem that they know the student _cannot_ solve, then it rightfully destroys trust.

This does not destroy trust, but gives the student an important lesson: we only have the techniques to solve, say, 0.0000001% of the problems. So you have to learn brutally hard for the next many years (or rather decades) to have the minimal qualifications to be able to invent whole new techniques that no person has ever come up in history before to increase this ratio from, say,to 0.000000100000000001% (even this would trigger a whole new aera in the history of science).
I haven't ever seen cars from the same model all suddenly stop in the middle of the road for 15 minutes and refuse to move.
Comparing Content Platforms: WordPress vs. Contentful vs. Ghost vs. Medium
In this blog post, we'll conduct a comprehensive comparison of four key platforms: WordPress, Contentful, Ghost, and Medium.
In the end, it's the public that bears the costs.
This article uses the factorial function on Church numerals as motivation for discussing recursion and the Y-combinator.
Yet Church numerals have enough recursion "built-in" to compute factorials directly:

fac = λn.λf. n F (λx.f) (λx.x) where F = (λc.λn.n(c(λf.λx.n f(f x))))

For example, fac 3 evaluates as (writing Church numerals simply as 1,2...)

λf. F (F (F (λx.f))) 1
= λf. 1 (F (F (λx.f)) 2)
= λf. 1 (2 (F (λx.f) 3))
= λf. 1 (2 (3 ((λx.f) 4)))
= λf. 1 (2 (3 f))
= 6
OpenCopilot – Open source AI copilot for your own SaaS product
Google's New Feature Ensures Your Pixel Phone Hasn't Been Hacked
Speaking of the expansion of the universe, in a very distant future when the expansion speed is so high that most of the galaxies won't be visible from earth, their astronomers will be thinking the whole universe contains only a few galaxies. But wait, what if the universe we observe today also misses some parts that can't be observed anymore?

Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it more clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=436&v=TgA2y-Bgi3c

That's probably why it's called the observable universe.
Responds very fast for me! With an error page. I guess something else fell over and Apache is the component that's holding up here ;)
Is the “NY Times Book Review” a separate publication or just the books section of NYT? Because NYT and WaPo book reviews are hugely disappointing to me.
I was more thinking of React, the framework, with as little addons as possible. React's data model always seemed the most reasonable to me, if you have to use a framework or library at all.
With auto complete I rarely type more that a character or two of any single thing. I doubt it takes me much longer to compose a traditional program compared to array language syntax with modern tooling.
Guy Invents Crazy Skateboards for Custom Tricks
Thanks I even searched for this on YouTube and couldn’t find the link to the edited talk. Here’s another one he gave talking about the development of PostScript: https://youtu.be/DyXiC-MSzwU
Only 2% in exchange for the information economy. This is a fantastic trade.
> Combine a solar panel or a wind turbine with a heat pump

Two studies did that and mechanical heat pumps win. Here’s the links from the blog post:

https://elib.dlr.de/103317/1/20160224%20-%20Master%20Thesis_...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014811...
Apple’s anti-competitive tactics must be stopped
This sentence only makes sense if you believe data centers are exclusively used for social media.
It's an interesting possibility for sure but to me these concepts are not linked. With the recent LK-99 craze, I learned that theoretical optimal efficiency for computing is many many orders of magnitude higher than today. So: chips theoretically can get much more efficient. If we find a 1000x more efficient computer, do you still think we need to throw the same 20% of our resources towards it? What would we let those 1000x more capable computers do? The question we need to ask is: what can we do with computing, what would it give us and how much energy does that cost.

I don't want to sound like "384kb is enough for everybody" but saying there's a fixed percentage of energy that should go towards computing is weird to me.
https://archive.li/qxNSa
I've been running long comments like this through chatgpt and omg, it summarizes this giant wall of text perfectly. I swear this stuff is going to put therapists out of business.
Funny how you're being downvoted for stating a fact.
I also wonder what percentage of that share is due to crypto.
Or to the HN submission.
I've also noticed playback of DVDs is terrible these days too. Long ago I ripped my DVD collection to iso files so I could preserve the full experience of the menus, etc. But almost nothing these days supports DVD iso playback and menus, not even VLC! The only software I can get to work to play them is Kodi. It's wild how much DVD software has disappeared, I don't remember it being this bad 20 years ago.
Social media provides me with entertainment and connection to family and friends. It's not all wasted time.
You mean the article whose contents contradicted its title? Is that the one you're referring to?
In raw numbers (which is what I assume you mean, given that you linked to a fertility chart), the world is already dominated by populations that are religious and wealth-poor, and this has been true on a global scale for the entirety of recorded history. You appear to just be saying that it will be business as usual?
I think there's a bit of confusion here around "value semantics".

No C++ smart pointer has "value semantics", relative to its target T. You can see this because == performs address comparison, not deep comparison, and `const` methods on the smart pointer can be used to mutate the target (e.g. in C++, operator* on unique_ptr is always const, and yields a T&).

This is in contrast to Rust, where Box performs deep equality, and has deep const/mut. In Rust, Box is basically just a wrapper around a value to have it on the heap (enabling things like dynamic polymorphism, like in C++). In C++, the pointer is its own entity, with its own separate equality, and so on.

Const-ness of operations, operator==, and assignment/copying behavior all have to be consistent with each other. For example, if `box` was simply `unique_ptr` with a copy constructor (somehow, and as the table in the blog post basically implies), then you would have that after `auto a = b;`, `a != b`, which obviously doesn't work. This means that the hypothetical `std::box` would have to have its comparison and const-ness adjusted as well. In C++ terms, this isn't really a pointer at all. The closest thing to what the author is suggesting is actually `polymorphic_value`, I believe, which IIRC has been proposed formally (note that it does not have pointer in the name).

Also as an aside, smart pointers are not suitable a) for building data structures in general, and b) building recursive data structures in particular. The former is because meaningfully using smart pointers (i.e. letting them handle destruction) inside an allocator aware data structure (as many C++ data structures tend to be, and even data structures in Rust) would require duplicating the allocator over and over. The latter is because compilers do not perform TCO in many real world examples (and certainly not in debug mode); if you write a linked list using `std::unique_ptr` the destructor will blow your stack.
They are referred to as "multiply connected" in the literature on mazes. Essentially, this is the mathematical way of saying that there are "islands" of hedge, not attached to the perimeter.
What do you mean by revive?
Well said <3
> If you're careful with variable scoping and error handling, bash is perfectly functional for many uses.

“Loaded guns are perfectly functional for juggling, just be careful with the trigger and you won’t shoot yourself in the foot!”

You are technically correct but why bother with being careful when you could just avoid writing bash?
The argument isn't "economic growth has to be growth in number of atoms".

It's "if the economy grows at say 2% for say 10k years, without anything happening that today's physics says is downright impossible, then at the end of that time humanity will (1) still be physically confined to this galaxy and (2) be so wealthy that we will have as much wealth as the whole present-day economy times the number of atoms at our disposal; hence either (a) that growth will slow dramatically, or (b) something will happen that today's physics says is downright impossible, or (c) some other change will happen that decouples us from our component atoms so radically that it's possible to have a whole present-day economy's worth of wealth per atom or more; none of these options can reasonably be described as "business as usual".
>against known risks. Risks like death, which comes for us all. Risks like forest fires, hurricanes, and many other regularly occurring natural disasters.

These are clearly not known risks. If you knew when you were going to die, you would not purchase life insurance, as the total premiums due by the date of your death would equal or exceed the insured amount.

If you knew a forest fire was bearing down on your house, you wouldn't be able to insure against it. And in many areas prone to forest fires, you cannot insure against them, because they are so likely to occur.

Hurricanes and flooding are similar: build on a floodplain and you will either pay exorbitant amounts for, or be unable to purchase, flooding insurance.

> Risks like unemployment which will effect nearly everyone at some point in their life

This is not true, and even if it were the risk you are hedging against is that it will happen to YOU at an unpredictable time.

That is obviously completely different from insuring yourself against a risk that has a higher chance of affecting you than the average person and expecting that risk not to be factored into your premiums.

> If the risks were unknown, no one would know that they should be buying insurance to hedge against them.

Do you just pattern match against words? Do you see "known risk" and just assume it means something I clearly did not mean and which makes absolutely no sense?
Another step in corporations moving form just selling us goods and services, to controlling how we use those goods and services. They'd price tickets based on our surplus income if they could. They already try with various proxies, like showing different prices based on browser agent.

Is this the kind of innovation we want?
It is an impressive offering, couple that with some reimagined version of the Clover and bam! you've got yourself a deluxe custom coffee shop.

Clover: https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/kitchen/clover...
Ultimately, even the amount of matter/energy you need to store a single instance of a number representing the sum of all dollars in the ever-growing economy, will exceed the capacity of observable universe...
Is this similar to std::optional? It's a box containing a value. Copying the optional copies the value.
Since we're talking about implementing a compiler that merely uses C/++ as a convenient intermediate representation, it doesn't matter much.
"Multiply connected" is the topological term used in the English-language literature on mazes.
I'm suggesting no such thing.
I agree that mvvc sounds exactly right, but there is still the question of whether the view model is created in the back end (which is what the article is advocating) or in the front end (which is what you have to do if the back end serves the model like a general use API).

The MVC or mvvc or whatever paradigm is somewhat orthogonal to the technical back end/front end.
To help with some of the math required by general relativity, there's a good series on YouTube by the user "eigenchris" on tensor calculus, which I found helpful for a geometric intuition of what's going on. He also has a series on GR itself, which I haven't watched yet. If you're interested in learning GR and want specific information on the area of differential geometry you'll need to understand it, then this series is a great start.
> In a lot of cases, short session expiry is used as a hack around subpar authentication standards such as SAML/OIDC where there is no reliable backchannel for the identity provider to tell the service to expire sessions

Both SAML 2 and OIDC have standard mechanisms to expire sessions.

One problem is that sessions are always a per-site, bespoke technology. Flagging a session as expired in a back-end database isn't going to help if the front-end uses cookies holding JWTs as an optimization.

So some sites prefer front-end expiry (which is also standardized by both). Some sites won't bother to support either.

Add on the inconsistent behavior of cookies across browsers these days, and it becomes very hard to support. It has been prioritized out of most things.

There is also the issue that sign-out doesn't make sense for many things. Logging out of Google in my browser shouldn't kill my Discord desktop session just because I chose the SSO option for authentication.

SLO makes sense in enterprise scenarios (where many big SaaS products tend to still not support it) and in single-party consumer scenarios - where SSO is used as integration glue to make something that "looks" like it is all one site, such as first-party Google logins.
IIUC, they are using a semiconductor and the photons are transformed by the crystal into electron-hole pairs. It's a very non linear material.
Please come and explain that to my young daughter. Some of the gaps are now arguably new pathways and it's all over in a couple of mins. For everyone else, save yourself the trip.
You can say atheist are smug, hostile, but in more serious circles one needs extraordinary proof if they have extraordinary claim.

Now, one can believe whatever they want, this is a free world, but I don't want to hear anyone playing the victim either because someone doesn't give a rat's arse about UFOs, lizardmen or God.

Right to belief comes to right to being criticised, and well, being laughed at. If that's too much to handle, just keep it to yourself.
I thought it was popular. Nearly all my childhood friends played it.
Opinions on abortion can be moral judgements, but allowing abortion is objectively the better option, since it's going to happen regardless. Not to mention separation of church and state being a thing.
I imagine that economists probably correct for inflation when putting this data together. I can't speak for these graphs 100%, but I think the real issue we're talking about here is not money or people but resources. Resources can be roughly mapped to people, with the confounding factor that each person consumes a different level of resources. As we approach the resource limits of our planet (and potentially nearby planets) that confounding factor becomes less relevant, because we eventually won't have enough resources available for anyone to consume more than they strictly require to stay alive.
Of course you can force somebody to do something that will cost them money. Why wouldn't you be able to? Why would it be immoral to make people do things even if it costs them some marginal income?
Is this another play to try and prevent people from using their phone how they want under the guise of "security"?
Mount the ISO as a drive and play it ? It's a double click worth of effort on windows, and probably one mount call away on linux
> We have to move away from this idea that level of education == intelligence.

I agree, but I'm not saying that. Education however does grant a better understanding and allow for people to make more informed decisions.
What if we at least add text to the alt tag on the spacer image in the black bar? Just make the width 100% and give it a title attribute so you can see it on hover? Maybe dupe for the alt as well. It could also be a link to a relevant article or news.

<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000">
<img src="s.gif" height="5" width="100%" title="Name and brief bio of deceased here.">
</td>
</tr>
Interestingly, winter has the highest windspeed of all seasons, summer the lowest.
There was a proposal for such a thing in 2014

A Proposal for the World's Dumbest Smart Pointer, v4 - Open Standards https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4282.p...
Two men die in Ironman Cork competition in Ireland
Well, no. The target audience is people who find this funny.
Ah, yes, NonCompete. When's PewDiePie going to the gulag--err, "reform centers"[0]?

[0] https://youtu.be/Hmy1jjRnl8I?t=609
Do stand up or improv
Well, jets then and jets now are two different things. As for medicine, 1923 was around the time when anything resembling medicine begun to form, and people actually started to understand what they're doing. This is one of those fields that only begun in the earnest in the last 100 years.
This is cool, I would like access to the code contents as well, not just the issue. Is that possible with airbyte? If so, how?
Being an asshole to people about things that matter deeply to them isn't convincing. Neither is the obvious public self-gratification such behavior constitutes. And too, it hardly helps advance one's cause to comport oneself in such a way that people who otherwise agree with you find themselves risking embarrassment by the association.

That's not a problem rationalism in the contemporary meaning really has, although I'm not sure this constitutes an improvement on net over its predecessor movement given how much the gloss of scientism tends to make its flights of fancy look more worth taking seriously than they deserve.
The length of time an access token is a delegated authorization, not an authentication session. For first party mobile apps and the like, they might act similarly, but for other use cases they will not.

The access token may be so my account at an event coordination site has free/busy access to my Google calendar, and that authorization might last for years.
To be honest, the quantum groups are my fav formalism in that general field http://sporadic.stanford.edu/quantum/
They are empirical in practice, regardless of people's opinions. We know it is better to allow abortion for example, because it's going to happen regardless, and making it illegal only makes things worse for everybody.
Personally I find Common Lisp in some cases slightly uglier, but clearer.

(define foo (make-foo))

What is it? A function or a non-function?

I prefer the Common Lisp version:

(defvar *foo* (make-foo)
"*foo* is the current input/output foo object.")

It's clear that DEFVAR usually defines a variable and not a function. Bonus: we can document the thing in a standard way.

For functions I would define a define macro.

(define foo (make-foo)
"foo is a function with two arguments of type bar, it returns ..."
(ftype (function (bar bar) baz))

Which would expand into a (setf fdefinition), a type declaration and setting the documentation.

I prefer the uglier, but better standardized and slightly more practical language.
Excellent thread.

I take this as a warning to carefully consider ANY medical treatment (especially novel ones) where some corporation stands to benefit hugely.

Scientists, just like politicians, can be corrupted.

Science, particularly “expedited” science, can be manipulated to demonstrate whatever policymakers (and thus lobbyists) want it to show.

There’s one thing that cannot be corrupted - a healthy human body that I keep free of novel interventions.

If I’m on my deathbed and there’s a novel form of immunotherapy that was patented yesterday, then fine, I will try it.

But if I’m healthy, and and I’m offered a novel form of vaccine of an entirely new technology I will question it. Especially if it causes my own healthy cells (including heart, lung, brain and reproductive cells) to express a protein that leads them to be destroyed by my NK cells and cytotoxic T cells.

Now I’m sure there will be a authoritarian minority that will jump on this post and try to remove it, and who will try to remove me from HN. I’m sure you think you’re doing society a good deed. But bear in mind, the suppression of critique of novel technology can also contribute to widespread suspicion about that technology and the people pushing it.
The History of Windows 2.0
Hahahahaha. Falafel and llamas. Did they finish k8s migration?
> You don't use [Navier-Stokes] in most fields that are generating physics PhDs in the 2000s and beyond.

That's because physics degrees don't include much on fluid dynamics. If someone wants to get a PhD in fluid dynamics, they probably get a PhD in some variety of engineering. This goes back to what I said about the physics curriculum seeming weird to me, as it it's not about "physics" in itself. It's more a random selection of topics that exists for historical reasons.

> There's only so much time to teach somebody in four years and there are significantly more important things that are also being left out (e.g. more thorough courses on group theory).

In another comment, you said that you don't know what the Navier-Stokes equations are. Given that, I don't think you're in a good position to judge their value.

I have a couple of group theory books myself, and I don't agree with your assessment that group theory should get priority over fluid dynamics.
I'd guess that's due to self-education being more possible now than ever. Also the GOP has continued to become increasingly embarrassing.
Types that are self-referential in one way or another, e.g. a graph where nodes point to each other, or a "main object" containing subobjects which point back to the main object. There is no way to implement an efficient move for such types (it would need to adjust all pointers), so implementing move operations would be misleading. If you want to be able to pass around ownership of such a type, it needs to happen through pointer indirection.

But you might want to allow a copy operation that recreates the entire structure. The proposed box<T> offers exactly the desired copy/move semantics.
No they aren’t. During the release period, they pretty much stop getting updates altogether.
I was trying to play it on Android devices and can't mount it unfortunately.