skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> His goal was to help Google “maximize the opportunity” of rapid smartphone advancement [...] during a 2011 training called "Antitrust Basics for Search Team," Google also directed employees to "avoid metaphors involving wars or sports, winning, or losing."

Ah yes, "maximize the opportunity". I was wondering how all this wishy-washy generalized corporate-speak language starts, it's actively being taught.

> "We don't 'lock up' or 'lock in' our customers," and "we do not 'leverage' anything," Google told employees.

Eventually "maximize the opportunity" will be added to the list of banned phrases. What's next, invent completely new terms, resort to latin or other languages?

Criminal groups often invent new jargon so that the authorities, or strangers in general, can't understand what they are saying. So why shouldn't corporations do that? They can all learn something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenya and go from there. Prosecutors will never figure it out!
That's unnecessary hyperbole that brings nothing to the debate.
If it isn't already a "law," one should be that the more complex a software system gets the more it tends towards control over user actions. There is probably a network-related corollary that in a networked software systems, over time, as they get more complex they tend towards more user monitoring and reporting.
Are you not able to see this image on the linked tweet? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F58Gw06aMAAIKJo?format=jpg&name=...
I disagree.
It's not an engine problem if a game look like others. Most of the time, it's not lack of creativity too. It's often, not taking risk and applying what is already working.
Some day people are going to look back on this period of the internet and wonder why everyone had brain damage.
This is one of the many technological trends that are driving every part of American life to dependence on the government-business matrix. It would be less painful if the agents of the matrix weren't growing so incompetent.
Given the supposed usage numbers of Threads I presume no one is finding it novel these days...
So what? Laptops made 10 years ago are perfectly cromulent for typical classroom activities.
Analogue Duo: Portable FPGA Emulation
The Bogus CVE Problem
I disagree. To access my email, I need to do one of a few things:

1. Use a device I already have authenticated to access it (something I have)

2. Log in to my email again, going through Google authentication, which includes a proper 2FA system (password plus either Yubikey or TOTP auth code), and is protected by Google's relatively strong security.

3. Log into my domain registrar and change my DNS to point my email somewhere else. This is also protected by 2FA but is probably an easier vector to gain access to my email.

4. (hypothetically) Hack Google (either by hacking the password reset flow, or hacking their actual backends) and gain access to my email messages. This seems relatively difficult but I include it for completeness.

If I want to gain access to SMS sent to my phone, I need to do one of a few things:

1. Use a device that is already authenticated, my phone with its SIM (something I have)

2. Log into my T-Mobile account and order a new SIM

3. Contact T-Mobile support and convince them to SIM-swap or port-out my number

So I get where they are coming from, but IMO neither SMS nor email proves access to "something I have". Both have relatively easy recovery processes that allow someone who has _nothing at all_ to gain access to my messages. SMS just happens to be run by legacy companies that do not take security nearly as seriously as the average modern email provider. Outlook, Google, Proton, Fastmail, etc all have better security than T-Mobile. They (and other major carriers) are famously bad at ensuring that they do not SIM-swaps. Hackers buy access to low-level customer service credentials and offer swaps for $100 to $10000 USD depending on the target.

If you truly want to prove "something I have", then you need to go to a hardware token issued by a trusted vendor, potentially with a key baked into it. These were quite common in the past. TOTP and HOTP used on a hardware token predates their use on phones, and they are still issued for things like wire authorization by business banks, or even PayPal (I think). Or you could use WebAuthn or PassKeys or whatever they are called now, binding the token to the TPM in your general computing device, or using a specialized security processor like a YubiKey or Ledger.

I understand why SMS might be accepted as a "lowest common denominator" second factor. It is certainly better than nothing at all. It just should not be seen as more secure than TOTP or email IMO.
A2 is more correct.

A1 does not answer the question: "How can I enter the United States?"

A1 answers the question: How are admissions to the US granted?

A2 answers the question of entry. Enter from Canada, cross a specific bridge.
The anonymous authority, of course! ;)
Exactly man, we have to change that. Thanks for pointing it out.
If Apple has M&A aspirations about Unity, this reputation and stock price crash is a dream come true.
Pedagogically, it would seem the answer to that would be to have the classroom be a computer lab on the first day of school, and then make the kids work (running laps, taking quizzes on having done the reading) before they earn the laptop to take home.
Not so. Armed security guards are indeed legal and licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states[1], as well as in almost all European Union states[2], Japan[3], Australia[4], and Canada[5].

So, in nearly the entire 'developed world,' security guards can indeed carry guns.

[1] Time magazine even wrote about this a few months ago: https://time.com/6275440/insecure-private-security-replacing... -- it says that "about 30" states even allow guards to be licensed as "private police" with full arrest powers.

For an example, here is California's regulatory site: https://www.bsis.ca.gov/industries/guard.shtml -- California, one of the most notoriously anti-gun states -- allows properly licensed security guards to arrest people, as well as to carry tear gas, batons, and firearms.

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/use-firearms-private-security...

[3] https://dannychoo.com/archive/en/posts/firearms-in-japan

[4] https://multisectraining.edu.au/do-security-guards-carry-wea...

[5] https://novage.ms/canadian-laws-security-guards-need-to-know...
In my experience, ChatGPT tends to produce more fluent output, but is less likely to closely follow the input. For some high-resource language pairs, complete mistranslations are rare, but for other languages, not so much. Of the ones I can evaluate, Burmese is particularly error-prone:

ChatGPT translates ငါ့ကို ဒုတိယ အခွင့်ရေး တစ်ခု ပေးခဲ့တယ်။ as "I have received a second warning.", which is incorrect. အခွင့် https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%80%A1%E1%80%81%E1%80%BD%E... does not mean "warning", even though that is a likely completion of "I have received a second " in English.

Google Translate gives me "Gave me a second chance.", which closely matches the Burmese sentence down to dropping the subject (common in Burmese, rare in English) which makes the translation sound weird.

So any claim that ChatGPT is better/worse at translating really needs to specify the languages involved and what your goal for the translation is. (E.g. the benchmark paper you link seems to focus on the ability to steer the translation by providing additional context.)
I feel like there ought to be a really good open source game engine competing with Unity and Unreal, but I’m unfamiliar with any.
>Blueprints run at least 100x-1000x slower than equivalent c++.

they are slower but unless you are doing literal math in the blueprints this is a huge exaggeration... which is exactly what one AAA game I worked on did. sigh. And they wondered why we couldn't hit 60fps (tho, that wasn't even the biggest detractor to performance).

Now, BP's in general usage when you're not doing literally everything in them is about 10x slower. But when you properly use blueprints, you can mitigate this a lot. BP's in a large project work best when you expose existing c++ code to BP and make sure any designer code is piped through c++ first. The main exception tends to be UI code, but UI is rarely a performance bottleneck in large 3D games to begin with.

>This isn't even discussing working with multiple coders and version control, which is also a disaster.

yup, that's my 2nd biggest gripe. Nothing worse than trying to submit code and the BP you changed one node in is locked, with the owner of the lock being out for the day.
Ask HN: What are some book about video games and gaming history?
I just started reading Doom Guy by John Romero and it's one of the most interesting books i've read on the last years. What are some other books that one should read about video games and gaming history?
That film had the best technical advisors that money could buy. I saw it in the theater as a child, and a few months ago. Every technical element rang true, whether it was yesterday's, today's, or plausible future scope. I often recount how I loved the way David busted out of the office by using alligator clips and a microcassette to replay tones for the cipher lock.

In a world where every other film is "hacker in a dark room wears a hoodie and cranks up EDM while CSS scrolls on the screen", WarGames appealed to nerds as an exploration of current tech, and a cautionary tale of a possible future.
The interesting thing about Xitter was the massive reach it offered over other social networks. So many people on there have Xeeted, "I can't believe this site is free!". I think this lead to other effects like news networks spending half their time covering what people are Xeeting instead of actual news. This no doubt made Xitter as possible as it is today.

I have two big questions about the future of Xitter.

1. Corporate media seems to want to destroy Musk, especially since he bought the social network they invested and depended on so heavily. Does this effectively remove Xitter from the center of public discourse? How will this impact Xitter usage?

2. Everything seems to be trending towards, "pay for reach", which makes it look more like all other social networks. While its certainly possible to build a successful business on this model as Facebook, LinkedIn, and other massive social networks have been done, will Xitter deliver other benefits that are more compelling than competing social networks beyond "lots of reach"?

From my point of view Xitter seems to be going in the direction of being another ad company. Reducing reach, hiring a CEO from the ad industry, and adding paywalls for subscriptions, etc. are all signals that tell me to start looking for a different watering hole.

What will be that next watering hole that gives away an absurd amount of reach in exchange for a relatively modest amount of revenue and corporate media coverage?
It's the same supply chain provenance question that's completely ignored all over our industry - Who made this? How do we know they're trustworthy?

I'm not saying they're not - My initial review of the contributors and contributions seems fine. There's some paper trail and evidence these people are qualified. The negative, and the only reason I mention it - This posting is not upfront that it's a fork. To be trustworthy you need to be upfront about things that affect the chain of trust, like maintainer changes or forks. The README is clear about it. That's points for it. The Release is not. That's points against, though a small quantity, because it's likely that the team expected you to be coming to the release from the Readme. This posting, though, is by one of the contributors, and points directly at the release and has a title that doesn't mention the fork. It's likely just enthusiastic oversight, but that's why I mention it; As much as a reminder to do better as a warning.
Google tentatively settles Play Store monopoly case with 30 states, 21M users
When McDonalds increases the price of a McDouble the messes don’t send death threats to the CEO. Something that used to cost X increasing in price and now costing 1.2X is not unethical. I’m just trying to understand what it is in this case that has people up in arms. I think the answer is the attempt by Unity to apply retroactive pricing.
The general solution, at least as done by some other countries, is to hold the seller/importer also wholly responsible for upholding all the regulations and warranties - so if the manufacturer is bankrupt, or not responding, or overseas, then that's the problem of whoever sold you the lemon and took your money (i.e. Amazon, Temu, Walmart, etc); if they allow shady sellers on their marketplace, that's their loss.
And using a game engine lets you take those risks because you can iterate and release faster.

Studios will take more risk on a $3m game than a $6m game.
Blueprints are not performant, they are potentially the slowest scripting language to ever be used in a significant way, worse than python even. If you don't believe this, try implementing some basic number crunching routines in pure blueprints and see how long they take to execute. Though if you're just using them to configure and glue together C++ classes, like most gameplay code is doing, then it's usually fine.

Reading other people's blueprints and understanding them is much harder than doing this with the equivalent code - having to follow the wires everywhere is a nightmare with all visual noise. I often jokingly call it a write-only language. Not to mention the part where you must have compiled the project and be running Unreal Editor with all the assets loaded to do this in the first place.

And then you can't even properly diff or merge them without using some special tool that doesn't properly integrate with your version control and only works reliably half the time.

Blueprints are fantastic for familiarizing yourself with the engine, since you can quickly discover all the things to do from the context sensitive search. They're also great for people to get started with their projects and prototyping. They're not at all suited for production work in a large team.

I really wish Unreal Engine supported a proper scripting language so the choice isn't between noisy node graphs hidden in binary asset files and raw C++ code. People keep shooting themselves in the foot with both of these.
One way to deal with this problem is to ask why do we use the arithmetic sum to calculate the total happiness?. There are plenty of ways this can go. Say, if you believe that two very happy people are better than four half as happy people, then you can define this sum function as sum(happiness_per_person) / number_of_people. Of course, this isn't the only way.

Utilitarianism opens a lot of questions about comparability of utility (or happiness) of different people as well as summation. Is it a totally ordered set? Is it a partially ordered set? Perhaps utility is incomparable (that'd be sad and kind of defeat the whole doctrine, but still).

Also, can unhappiness be compensated by happiness? We unthinkingly rush to treat unhappiness as we would negative numbers and try to sum that with happiness, but what if it doesn't work? What if the person who has no happiness or unhappiness isn't in the same place as the person who is equally happy and unhappy (their dog died, but they found a million $ on the same day)?

A more typical classroom question would be about chopping up a healthy person for organs to fix X unhealthy people -- is there a number of unhealthy people which would justify killing a healthy person for spare parts?
Contra four-wheeled suitcases, sort of
Which "how" we're talking about depends substantially on context. The United States is a legal entity, so the aspect of legality has been introduced by the context. The duck is a physical entity, so it's physical.

If someone asked "how can I eat soup with a fork?" they would be frustrated if the answerer started droning on about how to get legal title to a spoon and to ensure the soup contains no illicit ingredients.
(useful to note all those surveys are 2019 pre-pandemic, before there was severe partisanization of the phrase "trust in science". I wonder how hard it would be to construct a neutral methodology post-pandemic, now that even the basic vocabulary itself is loaded with associations.)

Even then, the 2019 Pew article is depressing reading: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/partisanship-...
Describing a 100% fee waiver for studios that start a new engagement with one specific service as "discounts... for those using other Unity products/services" isn't exactly being forthcoming.

This isn't my car insurance giving me a discount on my homeowner's policy, this is my landlord threatening to jack up my rent unless I use his garbage disposal company.
TOS is here:

https://code.visualstudio.com/license

What, specifically, concerns you?
I hadn’t heard that about Singer’s philosophy (unsurprisingly as I’ve read very little of his work). It’s interesting for me in that it lines up with Kahnemann & Tversky’s “losses loom larger than gains” heuristic in psychology.
> licensed to carry firearms in almost all US states

Now look up authority to dispense lethal force. Much more limited compared to police.
Yes, more generally, I’m reminded of David Chapman’s essay, “No Cosmic Meaning” [1]. Thought experiments are a good way to depress yourself if you take them seriously.

But I think that utilitarianism has a vague but somewhat related problem in treating “utility” as a one-dimensional quantity that you can add up? There are times when adding things together and doing comparisons makes a kind of sense, but it’s an abstraction. Nothing says you ought to quantify and add things up in a particular way, and utilitarianism doesn’t provide a way of resolving disputes about quantifying and adding. Not that it really tries, because it’s furthermore a metaphor about doing math, which isn’t the same thing as doing math.

[1] https://meaningness.com/no-cosmic-meaning
Internet Explorer's market share was 65% in 2009. In 2015, just before its slated deprecation to Edge, it was 19%. That isn't because it wasn't the default, it's because it wasn't good enough.

If Google Search, as the default search engine of Android, wasn't good enough, nobody would use it.
Awesome project, feels very refreshing even for me being a great fan of Vite and Astro.

Just curious, how do you handle the client side reactivity? Does it use something like virtual dom with diffing or do you compile everything like Svelte (or even some other strategy)?
I would add:

3. Science, the mass psychological phenomenenon.

Like many ideologies it behaves a lot like a religion, and online discussions are chock full of artifacts.

In my case, I have a negative view of "science" because of this phenomenological aspect of it, which I consider dangerous because it results in irrational, tribal thinking (see: covid, climate change, etc)...and it ain't only the "deniers" who are guilty.

> Yes, there are very much limits to what we currently know, and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong, subtly or catastrophically. There are definitely huge limits and uncertainties to Science the body of knowledge!

> But, acknowledging it is kinda the point, and the best way to figure it out that we are currently aware of is through scientific approach.

Pro-science people absolutely love this meme, I encounter it several times a day in the online spaces I frequent.
>What's next, invent completely new terms, resort to latin or other languages?

Worked for Pepys --

> Pepys was surprised by his wife as he embraced Deb Willet; he writes that his wife "coming up suddenly, did find me imbracing the girl con [with] my hand sub [under] su [her] coats..."
The example doesn't allow for any deterrent, because it's set in 1945.
automatic switching from A2DP (headphones) to HSP/HFP (handsfree) doesn't work most of the time [1]. the drivers for BT or other audio cards are bad as hell, so everything else isn't working as it should.

[1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/31...
Electoral reform is actually one of the biggest issues that the party seems to back. (For exactly the reason you mention.)
I'd love for someone to add this to rebar[1] so that we can get a good sense of how well it does against other general purpose regex engines. It will be a little tricky to add (since the build step will require emitting a C++ program and compiling it), but it should be possible.

[1]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/rebar
Cross field contamination a fantastic product of our interconnected world, but it's more fun to shit on people when they fail. I'm sure some folks here would've loved to tell davinci to stay in his lane.
In my classification, Tree-sitter is a building block (a parser), not a tool (compiler, editor, highlighter etc.) And as seen in this HN submission about implementing HTML support for Emacs, it's used in M×N integrations.

I didn't know tree-sitter-highlight exists though. It seems to provide M+N highlighting and includes a CLI tool. https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/syntax-highlightin...

Similarly, tree-sitter tags seems to provide M+N code indexing: https://tree-sitter.github.io/tree-sitter/code-navigation-sy...
> hyperbole

What do you think a death threat entails?
Wrong, Chromebooks aren't locked by default. But the owner/institution can opt-in to lock them.
> a situation that doesn't follow at all from utilitarianism

Except that it does according to many utilitarians. That's why it has been a topic of discussion for so long.

> you're imagining dividing happiness among more people, but imagining them all with the same amount of suffering

No. "Utility" includes both positive (happiness) and negative (suffering) contributions. The "utility" numbers that are quoted in the argument are the net utility numbers after all happiness and all suffering have been included.

> You're picturing a drudging life where people work all day and have barely any source of happiness.

Or a life with a lot of happiness but also a lot of suffering, so the net utility is close to zero, because the suffering almost cancels out the happiness. (This is one of the key areas where many if not most people's moral intuitions. including mine, do not match up with utilitarianism: happiness and suffering aren't mere numbers and you can't just blithely have them cancel each other that way.)

> if you can magically divide up some total amount of happiness, why not the same with suffering?

Nothing in the argument contradicts this. The argument is not assuming a specific scenario; it is considering all possible scenarios and finding comparisons between them that follow from utilitiarianism, but do not match up with most people's moral intuitions. It is no answer to the argument to point out that there are other comparisons that don't suffer from this problem; utilitarianism claims to be a universal theory of morality and ethics, so if any possible scenario is a problem for it, then it has a problem.

> you're ignoring the fact that people can create happiness for others

But "can" isn't the same as "will". The repugnant conclusion takes into account the possibility that adding more people might not have this consequence. The whole point is that utilitarianism (or more precisely the Total Utility version of utilitarianism, which is the most common version) says that a world with more people is better even if the happiness per person goes down, possibly way down (depending on how many more people you add), which is not what most people's moral intuitions say.

> It's crazy to think the total amount of happiness to distribute is independent of the world population.

The argument never makes this assumption. You are attacking a straw man. Indeed, in the comparisons cited in the argument, the worlds with more people have more total happiness--just less happiness per person.
I agree the idea seems solid enough, but accommodating the increased complexity of scaling it up sounds quiet difficult. Out of curiosity what did you learn about your coworkers? Something about their motivations for creating such an app or what?