skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
According to CBP, there were about 100,000 "encounters" on the southern border this past June, which is a 42% decline from the month before and the lowest since February, 2021:

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-rele...

(It's not immediately clear to me whether an intercepted group counts as one "encounter," or if each individual in the group gets logged as a separate "encounter." My hunch is that it's the latter.)

100-150k/month * 36 months = between 3.6 and 5.4 million individuals since Trump left office, which would make up a significant chunk—but not the majority—of the 21 million DNA profiles.

(For context, this is about the population of Dallas, TX or San Diego, CA entering the country illegally per year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...)
Untied Airlines: A Personal Perspective
As much as I love to rag on things, I would go so far as to say that the big problem with Python packaging is the fact that it tries to manage C/C++ packaging and integration.

If Python is only managing Python code, the issues to be solved are VASTLY simpler. Just about anything works.

Once it has to deal with dynamic libraries, compiled code, plugins, build systems, etc. the combinatorial explosion just makes life suck.
It's also fundamentally irrational to define malicious non-state actions as acts of war.

As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow.

Likewise, Poland has no interest in defining malicious actions by a Russian national or Russian Imperialism supporter as an act of war by Russia without clear evidence that The Russian state was directly involved.

Getting back to the original point though, I see no reason not to define attacks against infrastructure, regardless of who was responsible, foreign or domestic, or their motives, as acts of terrorism.
Not sure i follow.

> a group of arbitrarily defined "workers" lined up to fight the "management", another somewhat arbitrary group. They are inherently exclusionary and divisive.

So is _any_ group but "all". "For the people" doesn't literally mean "all people". Government would also not be "for the people" by your definition, given that we have no (real) global government.

If we get together and form a union, ie our joint effort towards a common goal, have we not formed an entity for the people (us), by the people (us)?

Your argument seems odd. "But it's not for everyone" is.. well, yea - nothing is. Literally. What can you say that is "everyone"?
Fish Scales: The Secret to Shimmer
I don't understand the muscle memory relevance?
How the pendulum has swung!

Rust doesn't even sport 'Class'
At least payment providers can plausibly point to financial risks and legal concerns as why they engage in what comes off as moral policing. It's pretty clear that any similar claim on HE's part would be pretextual.

>It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.

"Feels like"? This is clearly embraced as a necessary step to preserve democracy by a small-but-powerful segment of population.
> How many residential appliances benefit from three phase

Induction hobs, saunas, EV chargers, to name some.

> and is the benefit outweighed by the additional cost of more copper for the additional wires?

Additional cost? You don't run that many 3-phase circuits, so the cost is negligible, and your 110V circuits require substantially higher current than ours (meaning thicker wires) so if anything I'd guess the cost for wiring a US home is on average higher than a European home.
The issue is always the same: traditional banking is frictionless, very cheap and convenient for 99.9% of people out there.

Crypto isn't frictionless, it's not cheap and it solves problems that only the 0.1% has such as the need of transferring large amounts of "money", without tracing, in short times, across the globe but it undoes the benefits that the 99.9% has while bringing complexity.

Plus, nobody really wants a deflationary currency, they don't work, the incentive is to hoard and hold, not spend, which is why even Bitcoin's website dropped the currency narrative for the store of value.

People don't buy Bitcoin to trade or pay, but to sell at a higher price. Exception being drug dealers and few lunatic anarcho-capitalists.
This fine day, we are all old together.
Yes, as long as they label it such to the public.
I like Python, but most of the Zen has always been a meme, and not a guideline of design principles of either the language, or software written with it.

Besides the one you mention, I also find the "Explicit is better than implicit" line to be against everything Python stands for. The language is chock full of implicit behavior, and strongly encourages writing implicit code. From the dynamically typed nature of the language itself, to being able to define dunder methods that change the behavior of comparison and arithmetic operators.

I really like Go partly because of this. Not only does the language itself stictly follow the explicit over implicit and TOOWTDI principles, but it encourages or even enforces them on the programmer.
Doesn't seem similar to this. You receive spam unwillingly, but you have to enter that forum and participate on purpose.
Fingerprints on a gun means you atleast touched that gun at some point.

Some dandruff on a gun with your dna in it could mean that you rubbed against the murderers neighbor in the subway two weeks ago.
Essential internet infrastructure should not be content-neutral.

Content neutrality is a higher bar than you think it is. Content-neutral means the rules cannot take content into account at all.

If the content is millions of ssh login requests on thousands of servers with ec2-user and the top 10000 most used passwords, the infrastructure should be able to block that.

Content-neutrality would probably make it illegal to prevent DDoS attacks. At some levels of infrastructure, sure, but broadly speaking, content-neutrality seems like a bad requirement.

Viewpoint-neutral, however, is a better goal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/o...
*“…we must go and kill Wales”
Not as far as I know. I think any criminal action will be extremely hard, at least under US law, as they haven't really done anything outright illegal. There are all sorts of claims about "KiwiFarms has done this or that" (same with 4chan), but often there's no direct connection to KiwiFarms or 4chan, and some claims seem to just made up of whole cloth.

A civil might have a higher chance of succeeding, but I suspect this will also be very hard. "People say mean things" is neither illegal nor harassment, and outright organisation of harassment doesn't really happen on KiwiFarms, at least not in public. Trying to get damages from doxing (in a civil suit, because in most jurisdictions it's not illegal AFAIK) might be the best shot, especially for people who are otherwise non-public figures, but I'm not sure what chance that will have.
Researchers prep fentanyl, heroin vaccines for human trials
> Well if we swap "genetic curation" with "eugenics" I think you'd be hard pressed to stand up in front of a group and argue that in 2023.

Because we're a generation of snowflakes and I'd recommend to get a better set of friends you can talk freely about stuff.

People are so scared of being branded racist or nazi that common sense goes out of the door.

You're performing eugenics or selective breeding when you select a partner to have children with.

People with different ethnic backgrounds will have different characteristic and of course you want to maximise the chances of success for your kids.

Balancing them out (often by mixing races) and granting both parents advantages to the kids is the optimal solution.

For example, I got strong hairs from my dad and a dark skin from my mom so I'm not bald like relatives on my mom side and I can stand in the sun for way longer than my dad could.

What's wrong with that?
I'd say we're genetically predisposed for doing that already, without access to information.
Eg. I always liked blonde pale girls who are the polar opposite of myself
Your opinion sucks. People shouldn't be arrested for telling a joke that doesn't land well.
But that isn't what was shared on HN. Why are we talking about PWAs?
Hello, I'm not a sycophant, you can check my comment history.

In this case I genuinely believe the post was borderline criminal and grossly irresponsible given the situation the world was in on March 20, 2020.
Absolutely no one is getting a bilateral mastectomy or chemotherapy for DCIS.

This is by far the most inaccurate medical claim I've ever seen on HN. Where on earth did you get this from?

The whole point of diagnosing DCIS on screening mammography is that it avoids systemic therapy and mastectomy. It also wouldn't be bilateral.
Is everyone 100% sure it's McDonald's machines that are faulty? Couldn't it be that McDonald's specific ice cream mix or blend is just a little bit thicker, or stickier, or whatever, and that would increase the failure rate of any brand or model of soft-serve machine?
Can I quote zach's 15 year old comment on Python vs Ruby? Maybe it will have some relevant insights:

> Ruby has clever syntax. Python has pure syntax.

> Ruby has method aliases. Python does not allow a string to capitalize itself.

> Ruby uses Ruby methods within Ruby classes to extend Ruby. Python has decorators so you can write functions that return functions that return functions to create a new function.

> Ruby has strict object-oriented encapsulation. Python is laid-back about objects, because you probably know what's going on inside them anyway.

> Ruby lets you leave off parentheses so you don't miss objects having attributes too much. Python will let you mix tabs and spaces for indentation, but passive-aggressively mess up your scoping as punishment.

> Ruby has seven kinds of closures. Python has one, in the unlikely case a list comprehension won't do.

> Ruby's C implementation is a mess of support for language-level flexibility. Python's C implementation is so clean you get the unsettling thought that you could probably write Python using C macros.

> Ruby supports metaprogramming for cases when programmers find it more descriptive. Python supports metaprogramming for cases when programmers find it necessary.

> Ruby is expressive. Python is direct.

> Ruby is English. Python is Esperanto.

> Ruby is verse. Python is prose.

> Ruby is beautiful. Python is useful.

> I like Python, but coming to it after using Ruby for seven years, well, I think it's like dog people and cat people. You can like having one species around, but you're always thinking -- why they can't be more like the other?

-- This is one of my favorite HN comments of all time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=682364
I've been slowing learning the imperial measurement system and I would say that it's now natural to me in a very limited sense.

I grew up in Australia using the metric system. As a child, it was (and probably still is) common to throw around estimates in inches or yards, but anything precise was expressed in in mm or meters. So I've always had a sense of how big and inch or two is but like the presenter, for anything bigger I'd need to perform a quick conversions back to my natural metric measurements to understand what was meant.

I'm also a woodworker and use many vintage tools, produced before the world adopted metric. I decided long ago that I would these tools as they were designed to be used and not try to mess with metric, too.

At the time, I had no intuition at all about fractions of an inch. I didn't even know that 8ths and 16ths where how they were divided. I literally had no idea. I needed to pull out my maths brain to tell you whether 7/8 or 5/16 was bigger.

I used imperial measurements almost exclusively while woodworking in my shed. This was possible because I don't need to communicate measures to anyone other than myself. I also don't often need to take measurements of odd things that don't fall nicely onto an imperial ruler.

I'm now comfortable using inches for measuring things up to maybe 100" — I wonder if 100 is only an obvious stopping point because of my metric upbringing — I still have no concept of a mile or yard before converting to metric.

But I do still do use metric when I need a precise measure of something that can't be expressed easily in inches. So I'd use 12" rather than 304mm, but I'd use 300mm rather than 11 and whatever inches.

Also, it's made easier due to a lot of hangover in stock wood dimensions. It still comes in thicknesses that are more naturally expressed in inches, for example 19mm (3/4"), 25mm (1").

I've been working this way for about 10 years and can now think in inches without any conversion. I doubt I could flip all units of measure to imperial without changing the world I live in and the people I work with.
My painful, futile quest for programmable slideshow animations
It’s part of the privatisation of the surveillance state.

Money isn’t the only motivation factor.
An upset child 20 rows away is massive better than an upset child next to me.
Sounds like they know something transpired systemically that we don’t, hence this new guideline out of the blue. Somehow I doubt sudden uncalled for acts of benevolence from the NSA.
For Internet harassment there basically isn't law enforcement. This needs to change but I'm not sure how.
> assumption that internet discourse is a "discussion" is pretty implicitly wrong…many forums

We aren’t on many forums. We’re here. I wouldn’t think twice about that comment on e.g. Reddit. But that’s why I’m no longer there. The people who go into “loud public arguments” and win often had an adult discussion before. That an increasing fraction of world chooses to only engage in the former is creating problems and the necessity of moving important debates, including political debates, away from them.
I mean, to be fair this doesn't really pertain to the sort of Constitutional legal questions that the ACLU famously takes a hardline stance on. I don't think the ACLU endorsing private censorship is clearly at odds with their overall mission. (As opposed to say their going soft on hate speech laws, which clearly has 1A implications.)
I actually hope that AI can allow people to have "child" pornography without children being exploited. If anything, that should be encouraged and made legal.

As the kiddie porn crusaders like to say, "think of the children."
> Why develop for OS/2 when you can use protected mode from DOS anyway?

GUI? Multitasking?

But was it even viable to use anything but DOS for gaming back then? WinG/DirectX took a good while to show up, and I'm not sure if OS/2 ever developed anything comparable.

Windows gaming was mostly things like chess and solitaire until then.
This comment was very helpful.

Part of my question is why Python was used as a successor to Perl and not Ruby, but it sounds like Python was established as a competitive scripting language 5 years before people were talking about Ruby.

I can’t find it now, but there was another comment that pointed out that the languages weren’t contemporaries.
Too bad it weighs so much :s

Also, stepping on one in the dark is a… life changing experience! Definitely pretty solid though.
The TSA misses huge percentages of weapons during the passenger hand luggage searches in repeated blind testing.

This means that the standard movie-plot methods of hijacking aircraft are ridiculously easy to carry out: just bring weapons on a plane. There's only a 50% chance you get caught.

This means approximately no one wants to hijack airliners.
When you work in a very large and complex codebase you encounter a few things that this author doesn’t seem to consider or thinks are very minor:

1. Refactoring something introduces non-negligible risk. Consider a class with many fields and multiple mutexes it uses to control concurrent access to those fields. Even just consolidating those mutexes introduces the hard-to-conclusively-find-in-testing risks of introducing a deadlocks and livelocks. And that’s like the base case of refactoring the class: anything involving splitting the class up, moving data fields up or down the stack, changing the way member functions (which acquire locks) call each together is even more complicated and risky. It is just not worth refactoring this thing unless you have a very very good reason.

2. A function or object often has a many-to-many relationship in what it touches: it is called or accessed from multiple places and it calls and accesses many things. Non-trivial improvements to abstractions typically involve changes at both ends: which may be “as simple” as updating all the call sites to take a new argument or handle a different kind of error (hopefully all your call sites are structured so error handling is compatible with their abstraction!) or as complex as completely refactoring multiple levels up and down the stack to reflect better-abstracted semantics.

No you shouldn’t lazily copy-paste around such problems when they are straightforward enough. But it can so so much less work (and again, less risk of breaking things) to use composition + wrappers, or inheritance, or to copy some little chunk to code than to do things the “right” way.

3. Let’s face it, your cool new abstraction sounds right in your head, but in a complex system it may just be playing abstraction whackamole once all the bugs and edge cases you’re not initially considering get addressed. It may be impossible to fully understand the entire system from beginning to end, without which it’s hard to be confident you’re actually improving things before embarking on your epic partial rewrite, or at the very least know you’re not changing semantics around some arbitrarily-drawn box. But if you’re not even changing the semantics, see point 1.
I think this is it. Love Ruby as a language. Have grown to hate the way Ruby developers write stuff. Stuff ends up with so much abstraction and indirection. End up yearning for a simpler time when you could write code that just did what you needed it to.
"The system is broken, we need vigilantes"
Old joke: why USA use 110V and UdSSR 220V? Answer: because half of it will be stollen in transition anyway.
In both cases Google regarded the technology as a competitive advantage in the business they were in (web search), so naturally wanted to keep it internal. Maybe almost as important, they were so far ahead on those technologies that making a viable product out of them would have been a huge effort with no benefit to search. Google tech has always been an "island". Even when they did release GCP, the offerings like AppEngine and transparent networking were incomprehensible to customers who just wanted to lift-and-shift their existing datacenter, not adopt Google practices.

Amazon, on the other hand, has no qualms about converting their internal expertise into products ("turn every major cost into a source of revenue" [0]) and giving customers what they ask for.

[0] https://twitter.com/BrianFeroldi/status/1284795114187919362
There's two issues here:

a) should online speech be policed

b) if so, who should do it?

We don't let phone companies police the content of phone calls, and we don't let delivery services police the content of letters/packages, so why would we let ISPs police the content of network packets?

Exceptions exist: you can't send most live animals by mail, packages are subject to inspection at customs borders, etc. But any sort of monitoring of content would need either clear evidence of danger, signs of abusing the network, or court involvement.

If this content is so terrible that it deserves to be removed from the internet by any means necessary, shouldn't the process be that a court of competent jurisdiction should be able to issue an order requiring the site to be taken down. If the proprietors of the site bring it up through another ISP, not a party to the original order, a new order could be issued as well as holding the proprietors in contempt, presumably.

Jurisdiction issues on content are hairy, but jurisdiction issues on ISP connections are easy, the connections happen in specific locations, and you can order the connection severed at either end of the connection (as well as in between the ends).
I can’t be the only one who started typing ‘doas’ on Linux/MacOS and ‘sudo’ on OpenBSD.
You can build features like reversibility on top of Ethereum. A draconian government chain that solves none of the important grievances is not needed. I do not need big brother freezing my funds, deciding what I can and can't buy, etc.
Indeed, the ACLU have lost their way.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210608004853/https://www.nytim...

> the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union...

> Beginning in 2017, some individuals claimed the ACLU was reducing its support of unpopular free speech (specifically by declining to defend speech made by conservatives) in favor of identity politics, political correctness, and progressivism.
false advertising is the enemy of both.
Not if they're organizing attacks on you.
Happens at every big company. The reason we don't hear about it more often isn't that big companies don't know this is a problem. Its just that the only solution they seem to be able to come up with is to enforce keeping unused breakthroughs secret.

We can be happy that at Google, at least, these things can seep out and be of some benefit to the rest of us.
> Python is not the best language for any particular task, but is nearly always the second best language for that task

The "second best language" is false, it's just usable for a wide variety of tasks. Just like many other languages, but specifically not Ruby.
This paper will need feedback and consideration from the community. To me there seem to be two major issues.

First, the paper starts with a detailed analysis of known information about SARS-CoV2 but then veers off into "unnaturalness" of genetic changes and "suboptimal" furin cleavage sites.

Second, there are already hypothetical explanation for these variations. Furin cleavage sites are common in viruses and exhibit quite a bit of variation. Specific to the observed "unnaturalness" this could be caused by someone being infected with a second strain after getting an advanced infection. While the long prelude following the appearance of different strains appears thorough what it actually demonstrates is that there were various strains appearing in different locations and then disappearing. Testing resources were not available to all especially during the critical time when variants were splitting off and spreading globally.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that coronavirus do not have a simple construction where genes code for proteins found in the completely reproduced virus, but rather a series of proteins and enzymes are produced that divide and reassemble. This process increases the variability of the result, for example in the structure of the furin cleavage site.

So all this is potentially interesting, but the idea that this proves labs were involved is a stretch. Known natural mechanisms could potentially account for what is seen, so more evidence will probably be needed.
"a mentally disturbed individual may take it seriously and decide to take the "law" in his own hands."

Are we going to arrest the entirety of the GOP and Fox news next?
"Procedure(s) for removing a [flaming] dirigible from high energy power lines, hangar masts, and other energy infrastructure" would be a good start
No, it wasn't arbitrary. A JIT language is much easier to pick up than something needing a compiler and an executable. The focus on a scripting language was deliberate

Edit: turns out the term I'm looking for wasn't JIT but an interpreted language.