skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> At the ISP level, does it really matter that they can sniff my queries/SNI? They're just as capable of seeing the IP4/6 I'm connecting to and rDNSing that to know the hostname.

Shared hosting breaks that. If I connect to an IP used by AWS, Akamai, Fastly, etc. there are literally millions of things I could be using but the SNI header will tell them which one.

As a practical example, if a school administrator in Texas sees a connection to 104.16.12.208 they only know that someone is connecting to one of the millions of sites behind Cloudflare. SNI tells them it’s Planned Parenthood and they can call the police to report an offense against the church.
Guess the Daily Beast didn't want to fall into Wikipedia's 'citation needed' trap!
The critical difference is that processes are isolated, they don't share resources like goroutines do. This makes it possible to separate the error handling from the business logic.

When you open a file, a socket, allocate memory, borrow a database connection from a pool, etc. you don't need to write try/catch/finally, or defer() statements, or logging, or any kind of error handling like that - if your code crashes, the VM will take care of the cleanup (because it knows what resources are owned by your process) and the supervisor above your process will log the problem and restart the process if necessary.

This makes Erlang applications much safer by default, and the business logic is clearer and simpler because it's not mixed with error recovery code (the "if err != nil" every other line that Go is famous for). The error kernel (the part of the app that must be carefully written to ensure reliability) can be kept really small[1].

This comes at a cost in performance, because data must generally be copied between processes, whereas goroutines can send pointers directly to each other. But if you can afford it, it's _very_ nice. Besides the error handling this also enables crazy observability (you can connect to a running app and inspect processes[2], kill them, send them messages, jump between nodes in a cluster, etc.), live code reload, and a bunch of nice things like that.

[Process isolation also enables clustering, where processes running on different machines can talk to each other as if they were in the same OS process. The copying means it doesn't matter if the other process is remote or local.]

[1] https://medium.com/@jlouis666/error-kernels-9ad991200abd

[2] https://github.com/zhongwencool/observer_cli#demo
I recently came across this video showing how to use Gaussian splatting: Getting Started With 3D Gaussian Splats for Windows (Beginner Guide) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXtuigy_wYc
I have an alias that I use as a git status replacement that gives an actual tree of the changes

exa --long --no-permissions --no-user --no-time --no-filesize --git --tree --color=always | rg -v -- '--' $argv

Looks like for eza, I need to add a '--git-ignore'. I guess exa used to imply that from --git.
I think it’s very much this latter.

The multiplying force of technology has made it extremely difficult to overthrow a government by force. I do not think it is possible in the West.

Governments have never had so much control over money and information. They’re not losing control, they just keep tightening their grip.

I don’t know if this Democratic experiment can survive in that environment. I certainly hope it does, but bills like this give me doubts.
Heh, was once able to get chatgpt to give an articulate explanation about how the single electron model of the universe would explain both 1. consciousness and 2. why elephant breasts look like human breasts.

It's such a good bullshitter.
I never understood hard determinists who also claim they're not fatalists and spend their lives discussing morality (eg Sam Harris). I guess they have no choice whether they do...
Let say you have a cool pretty printing library on one end and on the other end you had a new kind of in memory data store that is an order of magnitude better in performance and efficiency while providing exceptional horizontal scaling.

What I'm getting at with "interesting" are projects that look more like the latter.

There are plenty of exceptions where you have projects that fits (barely) into the interesting category while staying just below the complexity threshold that it can be maintained by one guy and a few community contributions.

Yet they are still the exception to the rule and even then you often have one of the following outcomes:
- The features or the project as a whole get stolen/integrated by FAANG, hobbyist burns out and hobbyist ends up depreciating/archiving the project.
- The project gains a lot of momentum and gets supported by FAANG.
- Hobbyist burns out and depreciates/archives the project
- Hobbyist commercialises the project.

P.S.
Entropy is a ditch and this is what many of the HN utopians fail to understand, it takes a immense amount of work to build a somewhat self-sustaining entity to fend of entropy. I have theory that its one of the blindspots of being young and technical. You see the world as a massive legacy monolith that you have to refactor into these cool edgy microservices which is super easy and all the problems will be solved and happily ever after. While I don't disagree with parts of the original claim, the solution IMO will end modern civilisation as we know it. I have a bunch of labels for this kind of thinking and the people who preach it but I know señor dang wont be happy about it so I digress..
We only pay because we are part of nature.
Oh, I mean we started a non-profit to support our particular project (https://overte.org/), not that we've got a general purpose organization providing service to whoever needs it.

So I'm not sure we're we're a good fit, in that we're neither something comparable to Code Shelter, nor unmaintained.
Even if hard determinism is true then the act of 'communicating a logical argument' is still part of the deterministic chain of events and could potentially influence the beliefs and actions of others.
How managers do not detect it?
Now it is search for XYZ and/or a picture of a rounded box with XYZ and a magnifying glass. Of course search === Google in this context.
Considering I do most of my critical listening in front of the big system, I would love a tvOS version. While Atmos can be a bit of a gimmick depending on the mix (I am here exclusively talking about listening with a full surround system, and Atmos really should not be judged on how it renders to headphones), multi-channel can be very nice for bringing the concert ambience to the listener. I have been buying multi-channel FLACs from Pentatone [1] for years, but a streaming service would be neat.

[1] https://www.pentatonemusic.com
If you’re looking for an exciting elevator, then you want Paternoster doorless elevators. https://youtu.be/Rvvbn7O1nus?si=kwZsCp4OtkRfhE9A
Some (many?) elevators allow to deselect with a long press on the button.

Some elevators also have a cheat code that bypasses any selected floor by pressing the button of the floor you want at the same time as the close door button.
When you're torn between 'Software Engineer' and 'Software Developer', just remember: Titles are just syntax, it's the logic of your passion and skills that truly compiles.
The New York Times still has their list of AOL Keywords here!

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/info/help/aol-ke...
My Mum was 17 when she had me, my father was an asshole who left her standing at the altar, but the one entity that screwed my Mum and me over, more than any other, was our own government ..
The heyday of AOL keywords was before SEO or search engine relevancy was anything that any company cared about. Search engines existed, but this was mostly pre-Google and they were not great. A lot of discovery happened in other ways - the AOL keyword scheme was basically their attempt to tie web discovery to their products so people who left AOL wouldn't know what to do.
> Even a single cave spelunker or rock climber or hiker could have spread this

This seems to be evidence against your thesis. If it's that easy to spread, it's going to be impossible to stop based on giving people rules.
I wouldn’t have thought that there were many people using computers who weren’t already familiar with audio CDs. While most portable players were top-loading, I remember the majority of home stereos having the slide-out tray. I would have thought anyone using computers at the time would also have been familiar with home stereo/hi-fi systems (even if they didn’t own one).
https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/ld7w0VJtHjYIPEtRL-QyKI...

It even has an (almost) identical UI to the iOS version
I have given this some thought. I believe that:

If something has (a) a robust temporal-spatial sense, a "reference frame" in time and space, (b) physical boundedness, (c) a robust and general predictive function which is capable of abstraction, (d) independent volition, and (e) behavior that is non-deterministic in the weak sense that its actions cannot easily be foreseen by any arbitrarily powerful computer within the universe that it resides in, then: That thing is conscious.

It's possible to imagine entities that don't necessarily satisfy all conditions and are nevertheless somehow conscious -- i.e., a sufficiently powerful AI that has no clear physical bounds and a poor (but not entirely absent) spatial reference frame, but which possesses independent volition and can independently simulate concepts -- but if all conditions are clearly met, then an entity is unambiguously conscious.
And they continued to pay their US based employees more (including employees relocating from cheaper locales) because CEOs believed (whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) that there was a significant advantage to having them physically collocated with their teams in the US.

Essentially, US workers have spent the last 2 years screaming at CEOs that no, they’re idiots, there is absolutely no benefit to physically collocating employees in the US and they should not have paid them anymore.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.
> Like the White House, the EU confuses its stated goal of helping the software market work more efficiently with an attempt to control what can be in the market.

Control would make sense if governments had a clear, flawless track record of developing software; that state of perfection could be attributed (solely) to a bunch of existing government guidelines and the only problem would be that developers fail to meet those guidelines. We're not there.
A/S/L "Dox yourself please, and I might even hit on you as a bonus"
For another really interesting take on human/fungus interaction from an anthropological perspective, I highly recommend "The Mushroom at the End of the World"

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mushroom_at_the_End_of_t...
> The fact that more and more experienced teams are moving _away_ from TS and not towards it certainly cannot and should not be ignored.

I highly doubt that this is the case. I also doubt that you can back this up.
Because of the username. Many people forget their own username, for example: my username is pineapple and someone else's is pineapple2. And they end up using their username to recover their password. If your username is a common namesake, word or homonym, this makes the situation worse.
Of course, in practice these terms are used interchangeably more often than not.
have been poking about some of the form inputs have names like `_mc4wp_honeypot`
I’ve never known these labels to be anything but interchangeable. My best guess at an answer is: an excuse to write a blog post.
Many elevators let you unselect with a quick double tap.
This kind of attack is already called an MFA fatigue attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication_fa...
New Musk biography offers fresh details about the billionaire’s Ukraine dilemma
If you have a mobile phone number, the domestic intelligence agency knows exactly where you are at all times and any LEO (without a warrant) can also find you. In addition, there have been numerous CCC presentations showing how insecure the global (excluding US) and (separately) US carriers are guilty of promiscuous metadata trafficking ($$) and insecure SS7 setups. As a consequence, for low $, you can go to any one of several shady websites and find the last location of almost any phone number (person unique ID) globally. There are additional varying exploitable vulnerabilities depending on the exact combination of {handset x carrier x country} to impersonate them, tap their line, reveal their exact location, and redirect their phone number through a third-party handset or even a PBX. These are more expensive and some capabilities are forbidden for all but a few selective intelligence uses.

Session (Signal fork) doesn't use phone numbers. It's pretty well-designed overall and uses an onion routing approach. It's already a superset of Signal except it doesn't use phone numbers. https://getsession.org

Also look interesting:

* (unproven) https://www.olvid.io/technology

* (unproven) https://simplex.chat

PS: Using regular TOR on home broadband or cloud servers is relatively risky and inefficient. Sybil attacks on it are common. And to network operators and security agencies it gives an easy "flow tag" of your uplink and exit node data traffic as automatically suspicious.
Another theory is they have an efficient way and or bypass facebook ratelimit to bruteforce reset victim's password token ... regardless, i would make sure 2fa is enabled for extra precaution... or maybe just take a break from facebook :)
There's absolutely no meaningful, practical, distinction between those terms pretty much anywhere in the world.
That's fascinating. It sounds like the system works as long as the judge really is an honest broker, and above corruption. And while it doesn't sound great, it sounds way better than the tribal customs they're used to.

Based on my limited experience with human people is that any position that relies on the individual acting in good faith and not being corrupt will immediately attract people who are unbelievably corruptable.

So that's probably not great long term.

Subsequently, I don't know if it's me being paranoid, a new spin being allowed, or just seeing behind the actual veil now, but I've been seeing more "maybe the taliban aren't so bad" stories lately. Interesting.
Very short answer, which is also a question: What makes you think those things aren't done?

Short answer to all your questions: it is a much a people business as it is process, tools and physical goods business. Legacy systems. Global customs. Auditability. Existing operations. Global compatibility of documents.

Long answer: Your local university library probably has some shelves of books on the topic.
If the content is good and nobody is hiding their affiliation with it then the correct word is just "posting". Otherwise it might fit within one of the categories you mentioned.

I agree that it would be better if they were up front with their affiliation, but hiding it (astroturfing) is not the same as not divulging.
Those numbers have to be very low now that we are post 2020.
You’re incorrect in terms of the space program. The US and Great Britain etc where very interested in rocketry and therefore spending significant sums before Sputnik. Which is how the US was able to launch a satellite in 1958 a year after Sputnik.

You don’t go from knowing nothing about rockets to launching a satellite in a year.

Further, the US slowed down but didn’t abandon its manned space program. It was spending a frankly crazy amount of money on a publicly stunt to get people to the moon, but we’ve continued to invest in the space program over the long term. Actually going past the moon requires long term habitation in space thus the interest in space stations.
Thousands may be disqualified in Mexico City Marathon – again
Because implementing TCP not just as a toy is incredibly difficult with tripwires that even subject matter experts struggle to get it right without decades of in field testing.
Rate limits do all of bupkis against a botnet. It's not possible to assume that each one IP or connection is one person. The crux that all of these initiatives like remote attestation are trying to solve is that as it is, one person may command tens of thousands of connections, and from a server-standpoint, there's really not much you can do to allocate resources fairly.
https://archive.ph/FlMOz
iOS App Store. Plenty of iPhone users never knowingly open a browser or search engine. The internet is apps to them.

Other wall-garden networks offered by Apple include: AirDrop, Find My, iMessage
People who like classical music probably generally have more money then average so they are good customers to have since it might be easier for Apple to upsell them all kinds of other subscriptions and services etc.

I assume recordings themselves are cheaper because of the reasons listed in the comment above.
In Afghanistan, it's not just a conflict between the West and the Taliban. It's also a tug-of-war between tribal traditions and religious rules. Surprisingly, the women, often seen as sidelined, might be the ones to watch as they navigate and challenge both systems.
"What exactly you think are hazards in 3D printing? And low-voltage electronics?"

Fire and fumes. Even low voltage can start fire or create some toxic fumes if it melts the wrong stuff and when you have a cold and smell little, you might inhale enough to poison yourself, before you notice.

And I am rather afraid of electricity, than the chainsaw. Because when the chainsaw is running, it is obvious it is dangerous. But a broken electronic component with an open circuit can be hard to spot.
Yes but not if you need editing which is what WordPad can do.

In this case we have an improved fuction as instructions should not be editable.
Actually, I think you bring up some really good points.

If you believe the reals are countable, then your task is to come up with one, just one, scheme for enumerating them (i.e. putting in 1-to-1 correspondence with the naturals). If, on the other hand, you believe the reals are uncountable, then your task is decidedly harder: You need to come up with some scheme that, given any proposed enumeration, you can produce a number definitively not on that list.

Cantor's argument does the latter. Given any scheme---say a computer program---that claims to enumerate the reals, Cantor's argument shows us how to build a corresponding computer program to generate the digits of a number that are never produced by your original program. I.e. if you let the original program list out N reals, Cantor's program can give you an N-digit number that it has definitely not listed. The original program certainly might list it later, but by that point it's listed N+M digits and Cantor's program can give an N+M-digit number that's missing. The point being that Cantor's program always works, no matter how big N gets.

On the other hand, as another poster has pointed out, the Cantor scheme fails to work for an actually countable set, like the even numbers or primes. Cantor's argument will still work in a sense. It will give you something, but the thing it gives you will always violate some property that the original set of things must satisfy, like having only finite digits or whatnot.
> No idea why Brits are still but hurt by Napoleon, first they win

And don't forget that most Napoleonic wars were started by the British paying some other country to go to war with Napoleon.
I suspect someone might have noticed a flaw and is trying to take advantage of it. I've seen two reset emails this past week - one on Sunday and one on Tuesday, and they both had the same recovery code. Others in the Reddit thread noticed the same thing, so it's possible that someone is trying to exploit this some way.
> I absolutely love the trend of rewriting classic Unix utilities

I avoid them unless I'm capable of maintaining them myself. My primary reason for using classic Unix utilities is trusting that they'll still work in a few years. The initial stages of a rewrite can be a lot of fun, but I want to use it long after the excitement has worn off.
The problem is allocating resources fairly. A single human may operate tens of thousands of bots, and thus use disproportionate amount of resources, possibly all of them.
Other people with Osama were captured because they surrendered. The same would have happened to Osama.
SCIM: System for Cross-domain Identity Management

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_for_Cross-domain_Iden...
Yes, it is, in fact, illegal to pray in many locations of the U.K., and people have been arrested and charged for it.

Think about it: prayer, an interior orientation of the mind to God; not even any audible speech is necessary to commit a heinous, treasonous act.
> This is using gradient descent and “differentiable rendering” and all the other things that are way over my head.

then..

> And finally, they have resisted the temptation to do “neural” anything ;)

So, they are doing something similar to NeRF, in a sense, but using a different basis function, and a slightly different target. The whole "neural" or not "neural" is just about what you are optimizing, but it's not that different, conceptually -- they are optimizing a data-driven approximator of a 3d scene-related variable based on images.

The big difference of course, based on reading this, is that NeRF models the whole light transmission function ("radiance field") whereas this seems to model only the boundary conditions (what the light "hits"). So given the different modelling target, then yes, a different, and perhaps simpler, representation basis definitely seems warranted, and is shown here to give good results. But the comment, "they avoided neural anything" feels a bit smug, as if "avoiding the hype" is a laudable goal on its own merits. As if people are using neural networks for no reason but because they're cool, and not because they're actually an appropriate solution that are shown to work really well in practice. They surely are cool, don't get me wrong, but the hype is so often justified, because neural networks are really good function approximators. They are also not just one thing -- the choice and breadth of architectures that we happen to call "neural networks" is huge, so explicitly avoiding this huge potential solution space for some reason without good reason feels pretty specious; heck you could even consider having a Gaussian "output layer" to a neural network, which is called an RBF, being something like this "splat" approach. (This is in response to the blog post, not the paper -- I'm sure the paper has plenty of justification for modeling choices.) Having said that, of course it's interesting to also explore simpler, perhaps more efficient approaches, but I don't see "resisting using neural anything" as a good thing, just because they are popular. It ignores that they are popular for a reason.

(nb: This assessment is just based on the blog post and giving my impression from the tone of the introduction, I haven't read the paper yet, so might not be accurate with respect to the paper contents. I just found this off-hand comment in the post worth reflecting on.)