skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> My stake here is just to alert people that their municipalities are taxing them for using the Internet, and hiding it in "fees" that most customers assume are Comcast soaking them (see: this very thread).

This is what surprises and concerns me most about the ISP's dispute. Why wouldn't they be excited to "pass the buck" and blame the government for your higher bill?

While these pass-through fees probably are a logistical nightmare for them, the fees themselves don't seem to be anything new thing so they must already be dealing with them anyways and the rule is just telling them share that information with the customer. Unless they've been absorbing the fees them as a cost of business and just charging higher service rates, in which case they aren't actually being passed through. Which seems like it would either make the whole conversation moot, or is something they could get in trouble for.

Maybe I am just being cynical, my opinion of ISPs has been soured of late, but I suspect there is more to than just logistics. Possibly, people are being charged "unfairly" paying different rates for the same service regardless of location, but in the other direction: I.e. "Everyone" is paying $X for Y Mbps Down / Z Mbps Up, but some of them are paying $10 in pass-through fees while others are paying $20, and the ISPs are pocketing the difference.

Alternatively, particularly if there is actually competition in the area, it may reveal that where ISPs appear to be offering comparable services at a similar rate have actually negotiated different pass-through fees are just charging more for the base service instead of passing those saving on to customers.

It's probably debatable whether these things are actually bad or just the market at work, but it does make sense that ISP wouldn't want people catching onto them. In general, the current ambiguity would work in their favor because every time your bill goes up they can just hand-wave it as, "Oh, that includes various government fees and so on" where not the bill would have to actually say who's rates are going up.
In Britain, standards can sometimes be obtained for free via your library subscription (which would be orders of magnitude cheaper than the standards are directly, due to government subsidies for libraries).
lol,

Is it "a thing" that you post your stuff in Reddit, Dev.to, and a random "Awesome" repo on GitHub and then use that as "social proof"?

"Seems legit." - Some guy on Yelp
The real question is: can I configure it with a CloudFormation stack?
MOOs, like MUSHes, were much more social spaces than games, though some of them had games built on top of them (e.g. LambdaMOO’s RPG). Unlike other systems, MOO was built on a remarkably powerful, multi-user runtime with its own programming language and object database.

What really made it special was that it exposed that programming language to its users, encouraging them to build wild and amazing new objects and interactions in a text-based virtual world. To program MOO, you didn’t need wizard/admin powers, you just needed Programner permissions, which were much easier to come by. Just follow a tutorial to get started (such as yduJ’s ever popular Wind-Up Duck) https://lelandra.com/joan/moocode.htm

The object runtime had some basic permissions around both ownership and types of interactions. They weren’t great, and a determined attacker could usually take the system down if they wanted, but they were enough to prevent most basic (and more importantly, accidental) kinds of mischief.

When you give the users of a social space the tools to build and play and extend the world, amazing things happen. With enough users, six ridiculously imaginative things happen before breakfast. There were games, bulletin boards, puppets, creatures, vehicles, and those are just the basics. I remember an IRC client that appeared as a pair of headphones: don them, you’re in a channel.

The wonder of what I'd seen stuck with me for many years afterwards. I ended up working at Linden Lab, the home of Second Life, because of it. SL, while amazing in many ways, was nowhere near as simple and fun as MOO. If you want (say) a goldfish-powered helicopter to crash into your room and transport you away, Second Life demands hours of modeling, coding, and animation. In MOO, a text-based world, you just type an emote.

The MOO programming environment made it wonderfully easy to glue verbs (i.e. object methods) to existing objects. I didn’t do much with it myself, but I did take a “throw” verb from a snowball, which could be thrown at anyone across the MOO, and attach it to a Creature, resulting in Fluff the Throwable Sheep. Others did far more interesting things; I’ll never forget Tabitha the Living Room, who reacted to things being said and done by the players sitting in her.

In 1993, LambdaMOO showed me what the internet would bring. While the World Wide Web took the concept of a shared, user-programmable social system a billion times further than MOO could ever dream of, I've never seen anything else demonstrate the idea as simply, consistently, and playfully.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll take a look at rewording that better. It's not clear, as you say.
I think it's much simpler: make sure the content isn't legal to begin with. doxxing seems to broach on 4th amendment rights and we're no longer in a day and age where we will freely give out our address in newspapers. I don't know the fine legal details, but make a DMCA equivalent of private information. If you request a takedown of your identity and they don't comply, throw the book at them.

Likewise, death threats and that kind of harassment isn't protected by 1st amendment rights. I don't think sites should be sued by consumers over user submitted posts, but they should be held accountable for at the bare minimum removing that harassment in a timely matter when asked. If it doesn't happen often enough, fine them.
I think this claim has some merit. Perhaps the only thing missing (or perhaps intended to be self-evident) is that ad-hoc polymorphism is also useful and pragmatically, this situation doesn't come up too often. In particular, encapsulation reduces the frequency that such errors can be introduced. In the article's example, the `Setting` struct should (idiomatically) have private elements and use a method in the struct's impl block to expose the (optional) length of the field. And, to support the author's point, you wouldn't use ad-hoc polymorphism for this either.

The author's concern should be considered when introducing ad-hoc polymorphism, especially when the type bounds are "loose" or commonly defined by many types.
Looks like those haven’t been made in a decade, so presumably not the competition.
New owner claims he's going to keep the old number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEnnsylvania_6-5000
poor people have more kids so your entire argument is nonsense
> There is no corollary hill worth dying on.

A quick Google search would reveal that "This is a hill I will die on" is in fact an extremely common saying.
I recently read this book review [0] where a mathematical proof was described as a dialogue between two semi-adversarial but collaborative actors, the Prover and the Skeptic, who together aim to aquire mathematical insight.

I thought it was an interesting perspective.

[0] https://jdh.hamkins.org/book-review-catarina-dutilh-novaes-t...
That's part of the problem: everyone has their idea of what Planning Poker, or any other practice in Agile, is supposed to be and whether it works. Some people will say you are doing it wrong because you use time as story points, and others will tell you that you shouldn't use days but hours.

There are too many assumptions: for example, we assume that the group estimate is more correct as if everyone had the same knowledge of the code base, everyone was at the same skill level, and technical debt will not slow us down.

The story was supposed to take two days, but it took the whole week in practice. Whose fault is it? Is the estimate updated, or does it stay the same? And if it needed to be more accurate, what use was it?
This is not an Oil company issue though, this is a voter issue. If voters were concerned about global warming and wanted everything electric they would vote that way. Instead it appears that only about half want it or at least vote in a way that supports it. Others may support it as well but see other issues as more important and vote accordingly. Until the voting public actually acts like this is a major deal, it will be business as usual.
HDMI 2.1 is not currently compatible with an open driver (although there were rumors that AMD was working on the licensing issues). In the same vein as it's not really productive to complain about NVIDIA wanting to link proprietary code, it's also not really productive to complain about AMD wanting to link proprietary code.

Buy a DP to HDMI active converter and stay open, or else accept the proprietary software into your stack. If that is not possible, look elsewhere for your software, GPL is not for you.
Worth noting that also from experience that applies to the amount of effort they put into services. Most of the non-core ancillary services are buggy garbage. I'm wondering if we're going to cause an integer overflow on the support ticket system the way we're going.
This is making me feel like I should turn in my Certified AWS DevOps Engineer badge.
I just tried to search for "falloff for Google search results", as an example of random quoted string from your comment. Google Search returned one result - your comment.

Then I replaced 'Google' with 'Bing', and Google returned results without the quote which were irrelevant - but that makes total sense to me.
theres only so many outsiders and much of the west is already gobbling them up
None of this stuff looks like the Taliban's resistance or the Bolshevik Revolution. Besides a magnitude difference, the victory won was a moral one. No policymaker was afraid that they'd meet the guillotine unless they went along with the Wagner act. They were convinced, not coerced.
but not in the vacuum. At 60C on the moon, the water is just gas and would leave the moon a long time ago.
The Henry Spencer utzoo archives go back to February 1981.
Unfortunately, the necessary restrictions on data accesses to enable parallel execution are not required to hold true in the body of a DO CONCURRENT loop by its botched specification, and neither can they be verified at compilation time. And the committee has known about these problems for many years and has refused to fix them; Fortran 2023 still has them and the topic is not going to be brought up again for Fortran 2028.

So it is possible for a conforming program to be non-parallelizable, due to holes in the default data localization rules, despite the name of the construct and the obvious intent of the long list of restrictions imposed on code in the construct.

I summarized the two specific problems in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/flang/docs/Do....
I think they saw engagement dipping as people got bored with it, so they started filling it with algo stuff instead. If they went back to pure friends, I'll bet it wouldn't work.
I actually enjoyed this one more, since it was used to point out measured tolerances and problems with manufacturing (voids, bubbles, untrimmed flash, shavings, etc).
I correct people on this daily just because I think its hilarious they changed the name.
I'm old enough to remember my home phone number beginning NIagara-8 when I was a latch-key kid in !970's Kansas City.
> First, "created in a way outside of the federal government's enumerated powers" is a kind of unconstitutionality.

It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously.

Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional".

> The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it.

And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific.

> Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.

There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.
Fake Spare Parts Were Supplied to Fix Top-Selling Jet Engine
Rust's iterability of Option is a good example for this because (1) it has actually bit me, but it wasn't too bad and (2) it is somewhere close to the border of where it's reasonable/useful to treat it as a sequence or not. Logically it works, but Option is not primarily a sequence.

Then the Rust code in the article funnily enough not use traits for the `.iter()` call at all, that's just duck typing (no trait for .iter()).
When did everyone become so afraid of what other people might say? Or maybe it's when did it become so fashionable to be afraid of what other people might say?
This lecture by Dr Finkel on how he discovered the original Babylonian version of the Noah's Ark story is equal parts fascinating and hilarious: https://youtu.be/s_fkpZSnz2I
I could be wrong but I think there was a period after the exchanges were used (no need to use full names) and folks continued using 2 letters as a prefix to a number because they were easier to remember that way (can still remember my cousin's 70s number to this day PL78750). You would look at the phone to determine the number for P and L.
> if you have 7 different architectures

GPU or CPU? If talking about the latter only two [four] should count (ARM & x86 [+ [* 2 64BitVersion]]. If you meant the former forget my comment.
Half-lives that long really begs the question to me - does every heavy nucleus (i.e. heavier than Iron-56) have a half-life? Does Gold-197 which is 'stable' actually just have a half-life of 10^50, or 10^100 years?
We've been chasing this rabbit since the beginning. It currently seems to be uncatchable for the use cases that would be most valuable to us - writing complex queries we've never seen before. Our use case seems to confound any notion of training or fine-tuning, since the cases we need the most help with are also the ones we have the fewest examples of.

Instead of going for generative, few-shot models, I am starting to look at the other end of the spectrum: Binary classification into deterministic query building.

With ChatGPT, you cannot realistically explain why you got some output in a way that anyone other than an AI/ML expert would find satisfying. With binary classifiers, you can precisely explain how some input resulted in some output in terms that a business person could easily digest - "You mentioned this table so it assumed you wanted to constrain on XYZ. Here's the trace from the classifiers...".

I've proposed a few schemes where you define groups of classifiers for each SQL building concern - Which tables are involved, which columns, is a join or aggregate implied, general context of business use, etc. Clearly, there are holes with this scheme, but in our domain we could plausibly fine-tune our humans to be a little bit more verbose in their use of the automagic SQL vending machine. Several hours spent training humans is probably a lot cheaper & easier than getting ChatGPT, et. al. to consistently play by our rules.
The difference is that the id devs had already come from the Apple II world first, so they had written plenty of 6502 assembly and were aware of the cycle counting types of optimizations, but chose to give some of them up to use C when they started on x86. That was, at the time, a relatively bold move.

By the time Doom was being made they definitely had a sense of what a high-level approach brought to the table, and that they could focus on just the "hot loops" for micro-optimization when targeting a 386. The process they were using to build their engine was ultimately iterative in nature, building some tools and some rendering and some assets, then gradually pushing each a little further: the introduction of the BSP algorithm came relatively late, for example.
> There is no good reason to react emotionally to professional criticism.

And yet when it happens (not a rare event), it can be quite unproductive for both parties. I would hope that you deal with other worst-practices in your domain with greater grace than a total refusal to deal with and prevent pathological outcomes.

Additionally, if you truly believe what you stated, then so long as I avoid sacrificing significant efficiency/productivity to keep my words from bothering people, then I do not see why it should bother you either. If I had to self-judge, I really don't think that the added conversational padding pans out to more than 15 minutes per day. That's worth spending to make sure that the people you work with are engaged with you and the task at hand in an accommodating way, rather than fearing being rebuked at each turn.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weh_Antiok_Khosrow
That is a tyop. The names were meant to be identical but for the dot position.

experts.exchange@gmail.com
expert.sexchange@gmail.com
Building on that, there are pipe organs which are purely mechanical: cables or solid connections connect the keyboard to valves on pipes. There are newer ones which use electronic contacts on key to signal electric-powered valves. I once owned a small organ like that.

Some of the organs for sale online have rather short pipes - you don't get the full power of pipes 20 or more feet long.
Thank you for posting this. Now I finally understand the PlayStation 3 (?) marketing... :)
The 909 area code? What, are you buying meth?
They should add a higher tier and the test is just this.
Exactly. They act like their responsibility is to dispatch one instance of an item. When actually it is to deliver one instance of an item. Sometimes that means they have to dispatch the item twice and that is not the customers problem.
Because Australia is not in the north Atlantic
Thanks. The core problem with making something like LambdaMOO multi-threaded is that once you introduce real parallelism you just end up with the potential for race conditions and deadlock. So you need some kind of isolation to make it work. And given that MOO is basically a ... database... it makes sense to crib from those notes.

These days, I'm not as huge of fan of the OO model MOO embraced. At least not in its pure form. While I'm implementing LambdaMOO slavishly compatible, it's more just to keep myself disciplined. I hope to go beyond it.

The 'fantasy' system I'd construct would be look more like a shared Prolog system than a shared Smalltalk/Self system. It'd be constructed around relations & first order logic. Relational but not crappy like SQL. You can build LambdaMOO on top of such a system, but not really the other way around. I just haven't mentally figured out what a sensible multiuser permissions model looks like in that scenario.
Why does squabbles.io now redirect to squabbler.co? Are you the same person who made both? Were discussions from squabbles copied over to squabbler or did people have to start anew?
Parent is talking about China. Note that the number is not pure battery electric vehicles, it includes hybrids.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/02/38-plugin-vehicle-marke...
If instead of changing the allow list from a vector to optional vector, it was changed, for whatever reason,to a vector of vectors, wouldn't the monomorphic example compile and silently do the wrong thing?

Even if you buy the thesis, the example is not terribly convincing.
Etleap (YC W13) is hiring a software engineer in London or San Francisco
Clearly one icon is six cubes and another is seven.
It absolutely, unequivocally, is one of the reasons universal education to a general level is a valuable investment for a society.

But it is not the only reason, or (in my view) even the most important reason.

Maybe before assuming people haven't contemplated what you're saying, you could try to contemplate what else general education might be buying us. Maybe by imagining how it would look if school was actually just job training starting in elementary school, rather than covering all these other things.
Apple’s Decision to Kill Its CSAM Photo-Scanning Tool Sparks Fresh Controversy
Facebook doesn't care about the tiny amount of content on Mastodon. And it's the wrong type of content anyway. Mastodon is for misfits, nerds, anarchists, Tumblr-style far-left politics, doomers, weirdos and very bad artists.

Instagram and Threads couldn't be more different. It's commerce. Beautiful people. Beautiful places. Shopping. Mainstream pop idols. Grifting influencers. Celebrity gossip. Lifestyle. Fashion. Interior design.

Facebook prefers the latter group as this is where advertisers thrive. The typical Mastodon user would have an anxiety attack when they see an ad.
If proton decay is real, all atoms will eventually cease to exist, but it is still an open question. More than one experiments are still waiting for an event.
Fine-Tuning GPT with OpenAI and Vercel AI SDK
When the plunger is at the end of travel and out of tension, the cap won't fit on.

I just tried screwing on my cap and it forces the plunger back into the shaft, compressing it.
The Tropical Island with the Hot Domain Name
> reexamine how the media/doomscrolling have affected your thought process.

No need. Except for Hacker News and local news, I don't read the news. I don't use other social networks except for a few small non-news subreddits and Github.

But my local environment is changing year over year, and it's concerning.

> We get to live in air conditioned houses

It's funny that you mention that. Air conditioners were almost unheard of where I live. But now we're regularly hitting 40C+ in the summer for long stretches and people locally are installing them. It wasn't like that 15 years ago.

To flip your advice on its head, maybe turn off the air conditioning and experience the change firsthand.
It was expensive. I ran an ISP on the mid 90s, and it took up an expensive server and a disproportionate amount of my time to ensure we had good enough feeds for people to be happy, and so the moment demand was dropping it was very high on the list of things to get rid of.

Had peering been more on demand, rather than a firehouse, maybe people would have kept them longer.

I for a while worked on an aggressively caching NNTP server as an option because of the costs involved.
It's a lot easier to teach many people how to receive communication in one style than it is to teach everyone to send communication in many styles. We can, and many organizations do, write style guides for internal communication. The most successful such style guides (eg. military, intelligence) emphasize the ABCs (accuracy, brevity, clarity) any to avoid extraneous verbiage.

If your coworkers respond negatively to a simple, direct question like "Why didn't you do it this way?", they can be trained to handle professional communication more dispassionately (more professionally).