skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see PowerShell as a tool for Microsoft not to cede space to Unix tools as it would end up doing if PS scripts were ported to less Windows-friendly tools. There are very few PowerShell users that don’t run mostly Windows.
Doom 3 BFG ported to DX12 and Vulkan using Nvidia's API [video]
try to produce the best outcomes for the greatest number of humans.

compare that to:

try to produce the best number of humans for the greatest outcome.
1) Because it was a better Perl.

2) The single CPU speed was doubling every 18 months almost. Wait a few years, stick the program a new Pentium III or whatever and you got a nice speed boost.

3) Batteries included. It was huge quality of life improvement. Want to traverse directories, parse ini files, send emails, socket programming, even edit audio files —- it was all there.

4) Repl. Huge improvement over other existing popular languages at the time. Especially when ipython came about.

5) No curly braces. People were sick of Java and C++ verbose syntax. They were seen as old and crusty by that time so they wanted something new. “Why do I need 30 lines of code to open and read a file?”.
The UK plug is the gold standard, and for me it's one of those things that would have been great if they concepts had become the norm.
I'd argue that there are legitimate safety concerns that trump speech in this particular case.

But I think EFF would have a stronger case if we had common carriers following net neutrality laws. Content decisions are in the hands of upstream ISPs because we don't have the right regulations in place.

EFF has clearly tried here. The case is strong. But it's the edge cases where we need the net neutrality regulations most.
For those whose muscle memory is all confused now there's OpenDoas: https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas
Never tried, but let me know how and I can give it a shot.
I wonder how well the poop/work ratio scales between chickens and oxen?
https://webstudio.com/

Steve Cochard passed away a couple of years ago. I miss his cranky self ...
Totally agree, although I'd maybe replace "knowledge" with "knowledge or behavior".
VFDs / "inverters" are happier on 3 phase as well, because the input rectifier caps can be much smaller. Whereas with single phase they have to be large enough to store energy for riding out the zero crossings of low power delivery.
Feels right, in the spirit of James Bond. If I'm going to be spied on, I want to be spied on by a gentleman.
Or just use a travel adapter
Python was released first
> That sounds trivial? I mean, you can do that in C, what’s surprising about it?

Here's the C version of it:

#include <stdio.h>

int addFive(int num) {
return num + 5;
}

int call(int(*func)(int), int value) {
return func(value);
}

int main() {
printf("%d\n", call(addFive, 10));
return 0;
}

It's still manageable, but not nearly so simple.

Even Perl doesn't let you escape having to consider pointers and references:

sub addFive {
return shift() + 5;
}

sub call {
my($func, $value) = @_;
return $func->($value);
}

print(call(\&addFive, 10));

Why do I have to remember to write `\&addFive` in Perl, when Python doesn't require it? Why do I have to write `$func->($value)` instead of the normal `func($value)` in this case? Why do I have to write `$value` in the first place? That's rhetorical: I know the answers. Still, this was the kind of thing that instantly won me over from Perl to Python. It's not that I could somehow write things in Python that were unwriteable in Perl (or C, or assembler, or ...), but that Python let me concentrate on what I was trying to say instead of how to say it.

In fairness, the equivalent Python code with optional typing is also more verbose than my original, minus the pointer stuff:

from collections.abc import Callable

def add_five(num: int) -> int:
return num + 5

def call(func: Callable[[int], int], value: int) -> int:
return func(value)

print(call(add_five, 10))

The key word there being "optional". Python lets you add that if you want to, but you don't have to. And note that the underlying syntax is identical if you delete the annotations. If you opt in to using them, you don't have to alter the code you're annotating.
It’s not trivial, but it’s also not a long-term maintenance cost if upstream accepts the patch.
The key benefits of an ECS system with large static arrays of data is (a) to avoid the speed overhead of managing memory allocation and deallocation - instead of doing it automatically or manually, these memory allocations/deallocations never happen during operations, allocated just once at startup and deallocated all at once; (b) avoid the memory overhead of having to store any metadata per each item, as your basic unit of allocation is "all items of this kind" and, very importantly, (c) ensure memory locality, that all the consecutive items are always in continuous memory in a cache-friendly manner, as you're going to repeatedly iterate over all of them.

No construction made up of any kind of pointers can achieve that, unless there's a Sufficiently Smart compiler that can magically fully eliminate these pointers.
> quite different to use it to identify/correlate migrants, particularly undocumented ones.

A persons status can change in their lifetime. Further, was there any problem with photographs and fingerprints? These have been successfully used for identification for a long time, what is DNA identification providing that we weren't able to achieve before?

I understand the need to identify people. I do NOT understand the need to do it by recording my genetic code. There's a lot of private and exploitable information contained in my DNA.. much less so in my fingerprints.
It turns out you can make a bullet out of a turd....
And we also can't sue the electric company whenever someone uses the electricity they provide to post a scam on Craigslist, which is the sort of liability I'm saying the ISP should assume before they're allowed to start mucking about with their customers' traffic.
You're young enough to have never dealt with write-only Perl code ...

Be glad.
Too bad it lacks "boing boom tschak"
A Minecraft-esque game for the TI 84 CE calculator
Not sure if I should respond, but are we really debating if preventing someone from experiencing the risks and pain involved in pregnancy and childbirth is a bastardized concept of “good”? Should we remove the option for women to receive epidurals, lest they get to miss out on a “core” aspect of humanity?

What other kinds of pain and risk do you think people should be subject to?

FYI, evolution does not care about the wellbeing of the individual, nor is there any inherent reason the mechanism that evolution comes up with should be held up as the ideal.
With the introduction of CBDCs, FedNow, and platforms like TFA, it's starting to look like TradFi is getting the second-mover advantage. Cryptocurrency introduced programmable money, which is great, but it also came with other features like self-custody, extreme transparency & privacy, and immutability that have ended up being more than average users are willing to accept as a bundle.

TradFi entities now have the ability to pick what they like out of the mix and offer that to customers while also benefiting from the convenience of trust assumptions, something cryptocurrency eschews. TradFi is building atop thousands of years worth of UX improvements in how people can come to trust each other. It's difficult for cryptocurrency to compete there.

I still love the developer convenience of blockchain since it nicely combines serverless with auth with payments. But for the most part, given the existence of trust, these benefits could also come from a system like in TFA having a Wasm runtime and maybe a dash of WebAuthn. Like a mashup of Cloudflare Workers and Stripe.
> Some European houses even have a few 3-phase 380V outlets for heavy duty equipment, which would be exceedingly rare in the US.

My European 50m² apartment has two.
The US supreme court has narrowed down the few necessary exceptions to freedom of speech over 230 years. It's not perfect, but it's better then having ISPs make these decisions.
Here is a recent case, for example [1]

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12042495/Italian-gi...
The defacto assumption that internet discourse is a "discussion" is pretty implicitly wrong or at least very misguided. Most forums are much more in the mode of loud public arguments, which is why we have votes.

Even my own comment, by continuing this conversation serves in rhetorical, political, and philosophic capacities; many of which I don't intend but are implicit to how the medium is presented
The proposed Olympic sport seems like an elaborate reinvention of the standing long jump [1], just executed at an angle, and standing on a moving, unstable and elevated platform.

Clearly the author expects (and the interesting mathematical problem is) that the athletes would restrict themselves to the swing itself to gain momentum.

But nothing about the proposed rules prevents one from standing on the swing, and jumping forward at an angle on the backwards swing.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_long_jump
"Baby bonding leave" should still apply just the same to a child born at 18 months.
One reason:

Perl community spent most/all of its capital on the Perl6 debacle.

People waited for years (decades?) for Perl6 to come out. Most moved on (to Python). Perl6 turned out to be a totally different language when it did come out.

Mind you, I love Raku and use it daily but its development did cost Perl mindshare and marketshare.
Have you tried pressing down the special key?
Quintessential midwit take.

It never was absolute. We prescribed limits with laws.

Utility companies should be the last to declare them.

"Slippery slope" is you denying the causality of a relationship. But, it does. Heard of Cloudflare?
There's something to this.
Well, you sort of have to have the particle collide with something in order to detect it. When a photon collides with your retina, you see a flash of light (it causes a protein to twist, which generates an electrical signal, which is sent to your brain). The problem is the neutrinos tend to pass right through without getting absorbed by anything. No absorption, no change, no detection.

So the neutrino has to collide with something to get detected. Given that previous neutrino detections require a large vat of heavy water underground, while the current results are from a little box, the salient question is what did they do differently (and is it applicable elsewhere). The article completely ignores this.
Yes, and this is why R has become so dominant in the data and statistics spaces. R is free, and has gained so much momentum that it often has packages that no other language has. Yesterday I found out that there was just no way to easily reproduce mgcv::gam in python. There are loads of similar examples.

As someone who likes both R and Python, and had the misfortune to learn Stata; I am very glad to see R winning over these expensive dinosaurs. Maybe one day it will even displace matlab!
Perl's actually excellent at processing unstructured data, and it had a strong foothold in bioinformatics for a time. I don't think the decision was as obvious as it looks.
Pretty much every invasive thing starts out as a more acceptable less invasive and is stepped up one thing at a time.

"Oh okay it's just non-citizens" "oh okay it's just criminals" "oh okay it's just people that have been arrested" "oh okay it's just people about to go through the TSA but they don't store it" "oh okay they do store it but they take real good care of it" ...
A lot of games on the Mega Drive / Genesis didn't properly adjust their speed for PAL/NTSC, for example Sonic 1. They'd just run slower/faster according to VDP clock.
They would have had to create a bad implementation of half of Erlang to accomplish it. Or you could just fuckin' use Elixir.
I think that’s a pretty sharp observation.

Analogous to something like node_modules in web dev, for example.

The files could be gitignored and then generated both on local machines but also on the CI/build system.
My guess is the downvotes are coming because you are expressing a far outside of mainstream science opinion without any substantiation.
> I think Python was popular as a general-purpose language first

What I understand is that Python was popular in the anglosphere as a general purpose language first, Ruby was somewhat popular in Japan earlier as a general purpose language but didn't become popular in the anglosphere until Rails.
Retail marketers will continue using deceptive pricing practices to drive sales
Even ignoring the egregiously nonsensical numbers:

> The reason is that the gravitational force of the Earth decreases with distance, so as you go higher, the force pulling you back becomes weaker. This means that your potential energy increases as you go higher.

Saying “this means that” does not make it in any respect correct.
I've seen this video and while it's informative overall, it's also about 10 minutes or less of information stretched out to 30 minutes. super repetitive throughout and trying to constantly tickle you with the idea that resolution to questions are coming any second now.
I have absolutely blown people socks off with the quality delivered OTA via ATSC, it looks so good.
Import X/Twitter to Threads.net
Was tired of manually searching people on Threads that I follow on Twitter/X, so I've built a Chrome extension that automatically finds and syncs all your Twitter/X followings on Threads - lmk if helpful
if you're going off interpreted languages then PHP won. it's not as sexy or hot but it powers more websites than anytime else, or JavaScript which is also an interpreted language that is literally in every app so you could say it wins though I'd only count full stack js apps not PHP apps with a Vue frontend.
You seriously think that a brad pit zombie movie joke on facebook should be arrestable? By whom? On what grounds?
The 20M DNA samples is more than just migrants. Still, 100K encounters per month can add up fast: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/13/monthly-e...
The title had me wondering if it was a "if anything touches these caches they get SIGKILL-ed" kind of feature.
You don’t put the kettle away, it lives on the stove!
FreeTinyTools
The irony of course is a large segment of the people who are against net neutrality are exactly the people[1] who would have their online speech censored then complain about it.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/08/06/net-neutrality-repeal-re...
Python borrows a lot from C for its syntax and flavor and imperative style, it's not exactly like C, but it "feels" a bit like C (it's hard to explain why).

Python has a lot of native things like list dict sort join etc, you need library much less often your code gets very very short.

Python has some functional programming in it, which makes it even more flexible than C++ in my view.

Python is just so readable with its indentation style, very few language do it like this. I even started to make a C-ish language with indent-style scoping, it's a bit difficult but I did it.

Even if it's one of the slowest language out there, it's so good and simple that you realize that what matters is not the language speed, but what matters is what you write. A good and fast software must be well designed first, the language choice comes second.

Python is VERY OFTEN the best choice because its simplicity lets you write better software more easily, so in my view, a language like python allows programmers to write better software.

Programming language philosophy matters.
And before there was "doas" there was setuidgid and envuidgid.

https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/setuidgid.html

https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/envuidgid.html
I think a good part of the issue is that right around then, Perl decided to do Perl 6.

People decided to wait on doing anything big, since Perl 6 wouldn't be quite compatible. Later it turned out to be extremely incompatible. And Perl 5 would be dead long term, so why spend time on it, when you'd have to do a radical rewrite soon?

Meanwhile, Python was there.

And Perl 6/Raku took 15 years to finally arrive in some form, by which point Python had completely eaten its lunch.
1. Yes.

2. No, but if they completely botched the module, possibly yes. See 17:

17. The FBI Supernode Module and the Qakbot Uninstaller do not collect content from the infected computers, nor do they alter the functionality of the infected computers’ operating systems, files, or software, except as expressly provided in this affidavit.

Legally, hacking-back is a fairly new concept, and I'm not aware of the FBI openly doing it at a 'supernode' scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_back
U.S. banking is surprisingly far behind the curve, and hasn’t led the world from a tech or innovation perspective for many decades.

The UK on the other hand has actively encouraged new banks and new tech. It’s had things like instant, free, payments between personal accounts for almost two decades. Contactless transactions for at least a decade, mobile banking for decades, and government mandated banking API for almost 5 years.

In short, the UK has a very active banking sector that’s been rapidly (for banks) innovating for many decades. So the environment and ecosystem are well developed for further and faster innovation.

In the U.S., it seems banks gave up on tech innovation decades ago, and decided that innovation in fees and punitive treatment of customers was their preferred approach. As a result there just isn’t an environment for new innovation, the incumbents find it much easier to crush competition, rather than compete. Why the same isn’t true in UK (which until recently had remarkably few distinct banks), is probably down to the nature of law and regulation, which gives customers lots of rights, and actively punishes banks that don’t uphold them.
They seem to point to high flux and high neutrino energy offsetting the weakness of neutrino interaction, with the neutrinos being the highest energy recorded in a lab environment.
If the legal standard for speech is "cannot be misinterpreted by an insane person" then... uh... how do we proceed?
tbh its for the best, abortion/birth control/sperm banks already made "a man" useless (not men, just any individual man). It would just have the same effect on women and then we can move forward with the complete commoditization of m/f intersexual dynamics.
For medical devoces its the manufacturer, and it's notified body.

It's no different than for the origami manufacturer.

It's all covered in ISO 13485 (and another similar standard for the software portion if your product contains software). It's called the risk based approach. You define what's called essential performance or your device, things it must do or the patient or caregiver is harmed. You then do a FMEA to determine what failure modes exist, and what the result of each failure is. You then make sure you have mitigation in place for each of those situations. You then document that all, get it signed off internally, by the FDA, by your notified body, and by the test house (for 14485, FCC testing, etc). All that makes up the stack of documents that allows you to sell a medical product.

It's no different if it's a generic product or a new novel one, same process same standards.

For food machinery it's also thr FDA for things like design and materials, and it's the local health department for those items. It's a similar but different ISO standard you need to meet depending on the specific machinery.
Google thinks opt-in is something you need to opt out of
I got an email from Google Fi yesterday:

> Notice about your CPNI settings

> [...] Starting today, we will opt you into the sharing with and use of your CPNI by Alphabet affiliates to receive this information. Your opt in will go into effect 30 days from the date you receive this email.

> You’re not required to stay opted in. It’s your right and our duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of your CPNI. If you prefer to opt out of letting Fi use and share your CPNI with Alphabet and Google services, you can do so by replying here or via Fi’s privacy and security settings at any time (instructions here). Opting out of CPNI sharing won’t affect your account or your ability to use any of Google Fi Wireless’ services. If you do not choose to opt-out within 30 days of receiving this notice, Fi will assume your approval to share your CPNI with other Google services and our affiliates.

Dear Google, https://www.google.com/search?q=opt-in
Gotcha, so I guess it'll only protect from electrical hazard but fire hazard is still going to be there...

Breakers are probably going to be a bit cheaper and easier than opening all the walls to redo the circuits though...
I don't understand this space of what I can only term ecological or economic antinatalism. Can you share your thoughts on the following?

Do you think unbeing is preferable to a potentially miserable life that would still likely result in them having their own children that didn't experience their own level of suffering? How many generations of potential suffering is required before having children is off the table? How many n+ future generations of having potentially joyful and regenerating lives would offset the former generations of suffering?

What level or type of disaster would trigger it? Would you have had kids if you knew that the Black Death was coming or, being a Roman citizen, that the Roman Empire was going to fall? If you were a European in 1920, fully knowing the outcome of WWII, would you intentionally have kids? What if you only had models that these things were coming in a fuzzy way?

My father-in-law told me don't have kids. My brother-in-law sees climate change as catastrophic to any progeny, and my best friend views human life itself as an involuntary evil inflicted on children, but I have difficulties understanding their positions on an intuitive level. I get the reasoning on a rational level, but I don't have the gut-sense of it and it hurts my relationship with my family and friends.

Like, my position is that I'd like to think that I'd undergo torture for my kids, and that my kids would do so likewise for theirs recursively until the number of generations outnumbered the stars. From what I can see, living-on is the only thing that actually lasts--everything else will fall away, improve, and fall away again, including what we mean by being human itself, but procreation is forever.

How can I understand your perspective? Can I understand it? It would help me build stronger bridges if you (or anyone else) could help me intuitively picture it.
I disagree. I think the issue is that we don't demand enough individual self-control from people. Individual self-control is supposed to be table stakes for being a mature adult and being treated as such. And teaching that skill (and it is a skill) to kids should be a necessary part of raising them. If "Just Say No" was not effective, I think it's because it didn't get enough traction in society--it didn't become standard operating procedure, to the point where it's just obvious to every adult that yes, you teach your kids to Just Say No to drugs, until it becomes muscle memory.
So these jellyfish aren't "beings" because they can live forever? Or do they magically become "beings" when they die?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

Also twice now you've said the equivalent of "it hasn't happened yet so no need to think about the implications". Respectfully, I think you need to ponder your arguments a bit more carefully. Cheers.