skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> They probably spent their entire lives within a few tens of miles of their birthplace, possibly within mere miles.

While the land area required to support a single human or human ancestor might have been as little as a square mile in ideal conditions [0] that is very different from the range of a human or human ancestor over a lifetime. For simplicity we can consider hunter-gatherer humans who at least would have had similar caloric needs.

For one, humans come in groups, which during most of our hunter-gatherer past would have been 150-300. If one is strictly gathering, this means all the resources around base camp would eventually be harvested and the group would need to migrate their base camp to another location. The group's foraging strategy could form a circuit where they return to their original base camp, but it's unlikely that every foraging location is as good as every other one, so the circuit will likely change over time, extending the lifetime range of a single individual.

Secondly, there is a huge variation in hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Fishing communities are more sedentary while hunting communities are more nomadic and might travel hundreds of miles over a year. This is what one would expect from a generalist species like ourselves.

[0] [David Pimentel and Marcia H. Pimentel, ‘Food, Energy, and Society’, third edition, (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008), p. 45-46.]
On the one hand icons can be a great crutch when trying to use a program in a foreign language, on the other, humanity has spent thousands of years developing a rich system to convoy meaning that is thrown away when going to icons only. Sometimes it feels we are back to caveman level tech.

My personal pet peeve are washing instruction icons. Yes it is a simple easy to learn consistent system. None of which helps me when I am at the machine trying to decide what the hell this squiggle is trying to tell me. If I were smarter I would tape a decode sheet to my machine.

the koan is.

A picture is worth 10K words -- but only those to describe
the picture. Hardly any sets of 10K words can be adequately described
with pictures.
the issue is, more of these sensors costs a lot of money, so can you get to the point that it's a business and not a science experiment if each vehicle costs a massive amount? if you can get away with some sensors and not others, you have lower costs. Of course, if cost is not a factor, more sensors is better.
Press releases are basically just advertisements.
Smart people don't always get everything right. With the information he had at the time, and the situational awareness he had at the time, he might have had reason to believe the coup could have succeeded -- or at least was the best out of bad options.

There's no reason why someone might have failed at a coup but also succeeded at faking his own death to avoid repercussions.

Not saying that's what's happened here, but I think your reasoning against it is flawed. People are complex, and do smart things in some situations, and dumb things in others. And sometimes the dumb things aren't obviously dumb until after the fact.
Hopefully saying nothing you wouldn't want IT to print out and sent to your bosses.
Since you know Finder, is there a plugin to display a treeview on the left of Finder instead of navigating in the columns for every level of depth?
Simply prompting the output with "Optimize " prepended adds your suggestion, and some others.
I highly recommend listening to this podcast episode. Lex Friedman interviews Andrej Karpathy (former director of AI at Tesla): https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lex-fridman-podcast/id...

1:32:39 Andrej explains why Tesla removed Radar and relies on vision. Part of it is that other sensors bloat and complicate the software needed to interpret data coming in. What if they get conflicting signals? There may be calibration or manufacturing inconsistency to account for. You need to normalize that in your software and the entropy quickly gets out of control. I find this explanation very compelling and feel like vision is the more "necessary" sensor anyway. After all, roadways are designed to be navigated using vision.
I didn't want to cheat by looking on S.O. but thanks ;)

Yes it makes sense (in the GPT code) that you'd only go up to i * i ... although looking at pythonic while: statements is just gross to me in this context, it would feel a lot more readable to say, e.g. in PHP:

for ($i=2;$i<sqrt($n);) {
$i+=($i==2 ? 1 : 2); //although the first one should just be outside the loop
}
The OP stated at the bottom that he was saving it for tuition.
Interesting. I had a very similar experience.

I had no instagram account, so I set one up to try out threads within the first week of launch. On July 7 I received an email from instagram stating that my account had been suspended for being in violation of community guidelines.

Where my experience differed is that I was able to review and appeal this without entering a mobile number into my instagram account. Very shortly after I submitted a request for review via email, my account was reinstated.
Not sure if this was addressed to me, but in case it was: I actually did my Ph.D. thesis on double-barred galaxies, and have continued to work on and off on barred galaxies over the years; here's a partial list of paper's I (Peter Erwin) have authored or co-authored on the subject:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3...
I have the same opinion. Someone trying to sell has a full understanding that you need to know the price. It's The fundamental of the transaction. The only reason someone hides a price is that they have something to hide, or they want to do a hard sell. I'm not interested either of those intimately related things, especially the tribulations that would follow.

It's great to see they freely added the price. I suspect they're not guilted of anything above.
Slashdot worked/works similar to this; with an additional "+1 Funny" that does not grant karma to the user.
Using on 3-4 projects right now. It's pretty sweet and you have the flexibility to switch UI frameworks w/o rewriting.
The longest word you can type on the first row
> I still don't understand why this is necessary. Why must code compiled with GHC 9.6 use base version 4.18.0.0? Why should the binary that is GHC care about which version of the Data.List module the code that it compiles uses?

Because the underlying data types might be different, so if different libraries linking to different `base` implementations pass each other instances of `Data.List`. Imagine for example a Data.List Data.List, could you append the results of functions out of two different libraries to that list?
I just remembered that I read a bunch of comments here back when Threads launched about how Twitter was dead and Threads would replace it. A few months later and Threads is effectively dead. Pretty funny in retrospect.
You really shouldn’t, though. If you use a dependency manager for some deps you should use it for all deps. Using a global/system cache would be great if dependencies were versioned and each script could specify which version is needed, but they’re not to my knowledge. And it’s all fun and games until some random install script somewhere updates a global dep and your stuff breaks and you don’t know where to even begin looking.
Rovers are assembled in a clean room and space doesn't sterilize all life. It is impossible to know with certainty that a rover is sterile. Even autoclaving the whole rover doesn't guarantee sterility.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bunch-of-earth-organisms-were...
Even then, you'd bias your sample toward people who use those trash cans (people who live near the trash cans you selected, people who don't litter, people who spend a lot of time in public if they are public trash cans, etc.)
How wealthy were his parents and family? How many other people have parents and family that wealthy, or wealthier? How many of them end up being $100+ billionaires?
> just spin up a VM and use it when you really need to. Always there, always when

and always charging you :)
Which presidential candidates get the most press?
They'd also need to be trained on piloting the ship. There aren't many of those ships.
That sounds like what the Java world calls aspect-oriented programming.

Also, GraalVM/Truffle has that sort of ability today, supported for any Truffle language:

https://www.graalvm.org/latest/tools/graalvm-insight/
This sounds like a LARP.
So I heard.

BTW, I wrote the article and I submitted it, but I didn't write the title. The editors often do not use writers' titles. :-)
In the classical sense of "a QFT" then no there are no ways to do QG. The computations diverge. In the extended sense where you let yourself include non-QFT-like things like strings and spin foams, then sure.
Instances of an application are created as part of the request/response lifecycle.

Allows you to build a compute plane where any node in the plane can service the traffic for any application.

Any one application can dynamically grow to consume the available free compute of the plane as needed in response to changes in traffic patterns.

Applications use no resources when they aren't handling traffic.

Growing the capacity of the compute plane means bringing more nodes online.

Can't come up with a use case for this beyond managing many large-scale deployments. If you aren't working "at scale" this is something that would sit below a vendor boundary for you.
Depends on the field, but what I work on generally evolves so much over time that by the time I'm ready for a rewrite, the "edge cases" I had to account for when I started are either solved, partially solved, or can be isolated into some tiny part of the codebase that could be ported over from the previous code.

Beside, "rewrite" here doesn't mean "new repo, new project, new everything" it means reimplementation, usually based on the lessons learned from the previous implementation, and that does include edge case handling, as well as expanded functionality to "underwrite" or justify the effort spent on the rewrite.
> It's a far cry from what some members of the tech community did when the government was trying to restrict code and cryptography in the 1990s.

So? All that means is that there were people who thought that was a just fight and don't think that this is a just fight.

> God forbid people break the law to protest bad laws.

That's a legitimate form of protest and I won't condemn it. But when you break a law out of protest, you are still subject to arrest and prosecution for doing that. And often, that's the result you actively want because it brings attention to your cause and gives you a platform to argue the injustice in court.

That said, it doesn't look to me like the accused here were engaging in civil disobedience. It looks like they were pursuing profit.
Last I knew, they were considered two separate domains?

I don't doubt there is some relationship, but that isn't the definition of domain. Otherwise we'd have 1 domain.
Yep :)

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's harder to implement those without Go's GC just working.

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=37254746
I definitely understand the model does not contain the images.

You gave a very valid description for probably the most critical copyright issue around it at the moment.

I'd say my point is more around the fact that the content will have different legal standing depending on whether or not something produced by the model is considered a traded good or a private creative work using some tools.

Copyright and likeness rights is only one area this impacts, but is a solid example. If the content is considered traded, then likeness is not allowed. If it is a private work created through use of a tool, then it is fine as long as it isn't traded or publicly displayed.

My argument is that since the model is heavily influenced by its training, and the user did not train the model, that a trade is happening. The untrained model is the tool, but a trained model is now like a commodity and everything it produces is also a traded item.

Does this argument make sense?
It's actually the same for many other organs.
>>> The missing piece was understanding how startup companies work from the perspective of stock. Stock, and stock options, are the jet fuel that powers Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs need to understand that.
Fair enough. Guess this was the pop science press preemptively hyping an arXiv post then.
At least from the way it's presented in the article, I don't see how this makes any sense at all. Maybe someone else here can explain it better?

Because the idea the article presents is that if you have matter that is being bombarded with energy (e.g. electromagnetic radiation) and is in an environment where it can dissipate heat (like the ocean), that this leads to self-organization of that matter to more efficiently convert the energy to dissipated heat, and that this could explain the early evolution of life.

Key quote:

> "Particles tend to dissipate more energy when they resonate with a driving force, or move in the direction it is pushing them, and they are more likely to move in that direction than any other at any given moment. This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments,” England explained.

But there's zero explanation of why. It's not like the matter has some goal of dissipating the energy or becoming resonant in order to do so. It seems far more likely that the matter just absorbs or reflects or transmits the energy, and that it heats up to the extent that it absorbs it (and maybe melts a bit or something, e.g. becomes even less structured). But I don't understand what principle would lead the matter to become "resonant" or structure itself to "more efficiently" absorb and dissipate the energy. Clumps of atoms don't care, do they?

It's like the article is relying on some new physical principle of "desire to dissipate energy efficiently" in non-living matter but without naming or justifying it. Can someone else point out what that principle might be, or if there is one at all? I've gone through all the links in previous submissions and can't find any mention of it. Or am I misunderstanding or missing something here?
I don't think you can even implement indirect threading in Go. Go supports neither computed goto nor mutually recursive tail-call optimization (only self-recursive).

Jump tables for switch statements was only implemented last year. If you squint that's close to indirect threading, but still with at least one unnecessary conditional per op.

For the curious, here's their giant switch: https://github.com/platypusguy/jacobin/blob/c508ec50f55ef381... In practice compilers have always been finicky when it comes to coaxing them to emit jump tables from switch statements, and I bet this is especially truly for Go.
CXL: What’s All the Fuss About?
There's quite a few results in google for "iBlockchain", plus some "Blockchain and AI" articles. Unfortunately I don't see any that mixes all three, or any of them with "HD".
I hear the distinction you are trying to make. I think it's been argued before but I don't remember where. Something like "if you use our tool you must credit us - we are part author." That attempt wasn't successful enough to leave much of a mark on me :-)

I don't know that the arguments you use are the right ones. Being "under control" has little place in the definition of a tool or medium. Many are valued specifically because they are not under control - with an output too complex to have been under control. Splashing, color mixing, watercolor, impasto, some kinds of paint brushes, lens flare or daylight and weather in photography, rain patterns, all the way to ...

"Generative art" which has been around a long time before LLMs and is hard to control, IMO, because the primitives are not humanly intuitive, or add up quickly past what we can intuit. Much of generative art is a matter of trial and error while holding a highly unstable process by the tail. The human artist is responsible for selection and taste but the richness of the output is often entirely the "work" of the process chosen. - Sharing responsibility if you will but the question of who is the author is not really argued anymore. AI generative art seems well in the continuation of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Do you use this approach?

If so, are you willing to share an example robots.txt file? What bots would be allowed? Google, Bing, ...? Those?
Folk history judges people by the quality of their skin (to the dismay of adolescents in particular). You see it in hollywood and in literature: the hero has clear skin while the villain is surprisingly often described as being disfigured. This could stem from a long practice of disease avoidance before modern medicine, even when no disease is relevant (a birthmark, recovered from smallpox, etc).

Years ago I worked in dermatology (pharma side) and I started out thinking that apart from skin cancers it was just about vanity. Wow, I could not have been more wrong! The point I started this comment with was pointed out to me. And because of that phenomenon, people with skin issues often do restrict their social activities because of it. In some extreme cases (say, fungal infections that you can't even catch from other people) they even become shut ins. Terrible.
Push to Kindle is a pretty nice solution for this https://www.pushtokindle.com/
Somehow I don't think they would've written the headline "american astronomer discovers..." If the person had been american. To me it kind of seems like "oh look Spanish people trying to do science, so cute".
Is this the most criticised draft EU law of all time?
I'm not sure... Are you saying Firefox is the only ADA compliant browser? Years ago when I dealt with ADA and web accessibility I found gaps across all the browsers. There wasn't a one-size fits all. Rather mileage varied with each website.

Have things changed?
My first ever PC release. Possibly Endless because it would take in my calculations 30-50 years to see all possible levels.
Can I ask which meds did you get?
You should do a cost comparison between buying a house between 2008-2020 and now. Selling your house would lead to a massive increase in living expenses. It would need to be truly desperate.
If you pick 100 people off the street, line them up for a race for a million dollars, and fire a starting pistol... the one who crosses the finish line first doesn't do so by luck.
On propulsion::::

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.1200

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEPWsdo-UE

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36165/why-will-sta...

I don't know if it's cheaper because it's something im not particularly familiar with.

But there's people who think SpaceX isn't launching (internal costs) for less than 60 million anyway and reuse isn't saving money
> These people live such uninteresting lives.

They own real estate. They don't care!
> I would urge everyone to reconsider your reliance on Twitter, and reinvest in decentralized options such as blogs, RSS, and email.

None of these suggestions replace what Twitter offers as a whole. Suggesting blogs, RSS, and email as a replacement really is just another way of saying you don't know understand the domain. Which is fair, considering who the person is.

This is not to say that blogs, RSS, and email can't work for him, you, or me. But then, we aren't trying to solve the same things.

And more importantly, if you want people to use these tools, you first have to accept that they absolutely do not solve for the things Twitter provides. So, if you want to have people use that, make something that does that with blogs, RSS, and email.
This sounds like a helpful way to ease into the practice and I'll give it a go in my next several showers, certainly. Thanks!
Right after the dotcom crash? Probably not.

Sure was safer back then, though. Don't come crying to us when you get robbed.
Runme – Interactive Runbooks Built with Markdown
Are they wrong though? Is this not like a tobacco CEO getting caught telling his own kids not to smoke?

It's funny. Before Covid, Zoom was first and foremost a sales and marketing tool - collaboration was an afterthought. The idea that it's a replacement for in-person teams was kind of thrust upon them. And ironically, it was their marketing department that ran with it.

I'm an avid WFHer, but I must admit that there is a LOT of stuff that has gone out the window. Not enough for me to want to fight traffic in a coastal city again, but I completely see everyone around me checking out on their jobs.
I've been hearing people complain that "downvoting was so much better back in the day!" for as long as I can remember, on pretty much any site with downvotes. For example you can find comments from more than 10 years ago in [1]; e.g. from 2011: "Glad to see the downvote-disagree is becoming ever more prevalent!"[2]

[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403589
I remember those days. It was exhausting. Especially line after line of opaque DATA entries containing opaque numbers.

At least with BASIC instructions it was possible to make some sense of things.
That's interesting: I don't think I've ever been unsure of why people downvoted anything I've said.

I don't think we should make it any more complicated. You might benefit (on the margin) from some feedback, but that makes the conversation more noisy for everyone.

I can say that personally, if I downvote something without also replying to it, it's either because I don't have time to write a helpful response, or because I know my own contribution would make things worse.
I might interpret "when icons carried inherent meaning" as something like, "when the physical office desk metaphor was the only game in town". I didn't get much out of the article, but I would agree that the trajectory of icon symbology is necessarily towards the more virtual and more subtle (if that's a point the author is making...).
I have also heard it, and it is quite weird.

- Them: oh, your country also have four seasons?

- Me: Of course, Spain and Japan are on the same latitude, why wouldn't we have seasons?

- Them: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!

Seriously, the average Japanese person lives in a bubble, they have very limited knowledge of what goes on outside their islands.
Thank you for noticing. I am always trying to explain to vehicle dwellers, off the grid users, and housed people who have solar how DC -> DC rather than DC -> AC -> DC is the way to go, but people can't seem to understand beyond the AC that they get in a usual house from the energy company.
No.9 Site of Departure, Part Two
FWIW, AWS a1.metal instances are pretty small and thereby reasonably cost effective for working with virtualization tech.
I remember when Instagram started asking for your date of birth in order to use it, which prompted me to take a nice break from it. The next time I checked in, they made it so that you could have a "shadow birthday" tied to your age and the current date. I wonder if that'll affect me in the event I have to go through the kind of ID verification hell I see reported everywhere (including replies to this post).
He "forgets" to make a point of the number one reason they don't use lidar: cost.
Yeah, I've seen snow in Tokyo but you go farther south and snow becomes very rare. So imagine mainland would vary a lot too.
Yup, the incentive should always be to direct people toward high-value conversations.
Does he think Zoom sucks for building trust, or conferencing tools suck for building trust?

---

Like, what's next...a pastry chef thinking that pastries suck for eating healthy?
No, we had a group chat on Telegram that we used during meetings for our snarky comments
My Solution to the Dev Skills Crisis: Much Smaller Teams