skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
About time! People picked this up soon after it was committed to the repository back in May, and the beta version of Signal has had dual keys aka "safety numbers" for a while now (maybe 1.5 months?). Happy to see they decided releasing a blog post about it after all :)

Pick your platform: https://mobile.twitter.com/Th3Zer0/status/166107804719636481... https://ch.linkedin.com/posts/dr-angie-qarry-397538127_add-k... https://chaos.social/@luc/111048883207848400 (disclosure: the latter is myself; there was another Mastodon post I'm pretty sure, but when I search for PQXDH there it only shows my own post)

The blog doesn't mention it, but based on a code comment, it seems that ~two months from now the new key fingerprints will become mandatory for peers to remain trusted after you update your client

From the blog post:

> We want to extend our sincerest thanks and appreciation to all the people who contributed to the development of this protocol upgrade. This includes the cryptographic research community, the Kyber team, and the following people who directly contributed to our whitepaper

All that behind closed doors, apparently.

There was scarcely a mention of PQXDH to be found on the web besides the Signal source code and the handful of people that picked up on it on social media. A github ticket about adding post-quantum support was responded to with "we have no announcements to make" and then closed due to inactivity. I suppose one only needs so many cooks, but why not have this whitepaper, the ideas going into the protocol design, the timeline, whatever goes into this security decision for an open source app visible, even if only read-only? Feels more like source-available than open source spirited, but I guess that's in line with "the ecosystem is moving" (Moxie's talk where he says that they can do better without a community developing more clients, integrations, federation, etc.)
Off-topic, I think, writing this down to see if the logic is sound:

If YouTube can demonetise a content creator at the discretion of YouTube (because they can), then surely it follows that an individual can de-monetise a content creator at their own discretion (because they can).

A platform demonetising someone is surely of much greater impact than an individual doing it. A platform owns their platform, from which the content is being delivered and so their discretion is justification enough. An individual owns the hardware and bandwidth upon and through which the content is being played, and so their discretion is justification enough.

Am I performing the mental gynastics of denial to make that leap?

Part of the differentiation I'm making in using the word "discretion" is that it's not illegal content that's being demonetised. Agree or disagree or find it as morally reprehensible as you feel the need to, the content itself (the very thing being demonetised) is not illegal. And, in fact, had been happily monetised for the past however long.
I went over the list and IMO the omission of any verification center at the airport creates a huge friction in your app's adoption.

Just looking at the locations, it's a 2-3hr cab ride in Mumbai/Kolkata between the airports and the transcorp centers during rush hours, and 1-2hr trip in Delhi. Also credit cards are widely accepted at most places except roadside stalls, etc.

This service would be beneficial to visitors and NRIs (like me) if cross-sold with SIM cards or in currency exchanges at airports, otherwise I fail to see a valid use case due to the sheer inconvenience of having to take such a long cab ride in traffic. Also a lot of international flights land at night so visitors would have to dedicate at least half of next day to go verify their identity.
Are you saying the comment's analysis was ... flawed?
Congratulations. @coatue, it would be great if you can share your email to reach out for Licensing details. I did fill up your form in site, but never received any response
Interestingly, Trusting Trust style attacks on compilers was later (theoretically, idk to what degree it's been put into practice) solved by "diverse double compiling": https://dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/
It's much easier on Android to setup all kinds of alternatives. You could setup a 'dummy' key that if entered would alert the police, for example. Failing that, you can setup different keys for different services with different levels of access, as well as have third party equivalents to 'Find my iPhone'.

Not being in the walled garden provides a lot of freedom and flexibility to setup contingencies.
This was the case in China too until Apple heavily expanded there. There were many knockoff Apple Stores with slightly lower quality outfitting. Here's an "Apple Store" in Iran: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-tehran-iran-16th-oct-2014-...
Whenever I say something serious I wonder if it wasn’t better to just record it. When I have a conversation with a vendor or investor, and don’t record it, I feel like I have to repeat myself again and again if we go with another vendor or investor, and all that effort where it went awesome is now useless.

And then write it down, and summarize it in a tree structure. So I can simply link to the final result instead of talking and repeating everything
Go offers a programming interface at a lower level of abstraction than languages like Python or Ruby. What you call boilerplate or housekeeping, I consider to be mechanical sympathy.

Modulo extremes like Java, the bottleneck for programmers understanding code is about semantics, not syntax -- effectively never the literal SLoC in source files. It's not as if

for i := range x {
x[i] = fn(x[i])
}

is any slower to read, or more difficult to parse, or whatever, than e.g.

x.transform(fn)

in any meaningful sense.
When the Mac 'Ruined' Writing
Most of the superiority of reading (not writing - writing is only half a communication method) comes from editing for clarity and brevity which is harder to do with recordings and much harder to do with live speech
This is something I think is overlooked very often. I feel like a constant narrative I hear is that censoring media like this is a new-fangled concept when in reality this has been standard practice forever.
Yeah Microsoft is so incompetent they’ve managed to get only a near 3T market cap.
I'm sure there remain good use cases for message buses that you have to run yourself, where there really are millions of messages that can't be batched up and need real-time and whatnot. But you can get pretty far with:

1. Write a bunch of records to an S3 object.
2. Trigger a lambda to process — infinite scale out!

and if a queue really is needed due to constrained consumers, then:

1. Write a bunch of records to an S3 object.
2. The lambda trigger puts a message into an SQS queue with the S3 object's URI.
3. An auto-scaling group gets the message off the queue and processes the data in the object.

If ordering's important, then the SQS queue can be made FIFO. That has pretty low numbers in messages/second, but since records are being batched into S3 objects you can still have fairly high throughput.

It used to be that the elegance of queues for such systems would tempt developers into the operational slough of despond that is running these types of systems. Again, I'm sure it's warranted for some applications, but S3, Lambda, and SQS as above work nicely together.
The article is about performance or CPU time, not code size. Per the first paragraph, "In this blog post I’m going to show how, using the generics, we got a 40% performance gain in an already well optimized package, the Google B-Tree implementation."
or kafka, or any other publish/subscribe system
Drawings for parts should have tolerances called out. I did mechanical inspection for a manufacturer for several summers. Every dimension had a plus/minus value listed. Holes and screw threads had go/no-go gauges
I have 4 SIM cards due to living in different countries. Sadly only 2 can be active at all times.

It also a diversification for telco shenanigans. Just to give an example, Singapore regulator just ordered telcos to stop accepting incoming SMS from entities not registered with local regulator. This affected a lot of overseas services OTP.
Hose-resistant cryptography is possible. Secret sharing comes to mind, or a system by which even the principals can only compromise a key slowly.
The symptom is a cause of other problems
Surfactants can cause toxic chemicals in aerosols to last longer in the air
I for one resent the idea that having a Computer Science degree somehow makes machine learning less daunting.
There is no difference in pronunciation between time and thyme. Both will be pronounced with the same amount of aspiration. Why English maintains a th- spelling for some words of Greek and Latin origin instead of plain t- is a long story, but in English it makes no difference in pronunciation.
Here's a link that starts down there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Nine_Eyes
> I see this as more of a failing on the part of desktop OSes than anything.

I agree, and the reasons are ones that I think are also a failing:

- Sandboxing is used by OSs to take control back from users (whether that’s stopping them from building their own non-brand system or stopping them from ripping bit-perfect copies of copyright audio)

- Proper sandboxing is not implemented because it can be used to circumvent the anti-piracy measures that app developers use (specifically offline-friendly native apps). If all data can be wiped, so can the record of the trial expiration, for example.

- The commercial OS makers want a “no one can do it except us” policy and it’s been shown time and time again that any amount of “except us” becomes an attack vector.

- Clawing back permissiveness either requires a lot of expensive dev time or breaks older software (or both) and they don’t seem to be prioritizing users when going down that road.

And as much as iOS is becoming the standard for how to sandbox apps, did everyone know that iOS apps can communicate with each other (and persist data even after an uninstall) through Safari’s local storage/cookies?
I was hoping for a retrospective review of Musk’s neck tie collection.
I’m not following…what would it mean in practice if I, as an individual, decided to demonetize him?
How much are you planning on getting per year as reward for staking? Enough to hopefully get another 32 ETH, from what you say in the article, so doubling your money at some point.
Not really insane because it's not evergreen content.
The USA is resourced and practices to fight around two wars at the same time. With Russia being almost spent just fighting the Ukrainians and North Korea being basically bankrupt (while both South Korea and Japan are not slouches militarily), the USA will be fine.
As far as I can tell, Apple has never made that claim.
This. Scientific corruption probably correlates well with political corruption by nation and region.
There are no actual charges against him. Nobody has said under oath that anything has happened. The most recent allegation is for something that happened 10 years ago.

I'm of the opinion (and I know the law disagrees with me in the U.S.) that you should not be able to bring charges against someone for a non capital offense, where all the evidence is he-said/she-said. a decade after the event happend. Our memories just aren't good enough for that.
Fair point. I think advertisers understand people will learn to gloss over and mentally filter yet the impression is still something. And in aggregate that's enough. I don't think anyone expects people to feel like consumers must give their full, undivided attention, with eyelids taped open and hands bound.
That's hard to do such that it is undetectable to competent biostatisticians.

Edit: See the Dan Ariely drama for an example.
>so what the heck does that even mean?

It means they'll ban anyone who is high profile enough to expose YouTube to PR risk.
Yeah loops don't get their own scopes (unless you add one using this thing I made as a joke: https://github.com/davisyoshida/360blockscope)
Do you know of any pictures of these Turkmen 'apple stores' online?
This is a great example of code that compiles, but would never pass code review at any decent organization. Specifically, you'd never assign a concrete return value like *bar to an interface{} and expect `x != nil` to behave like this code would imply.
Shein’s hottest item in Latin America is its plastic bags
Given the whole First Amendment thing the USA has had for a hot minute now, I suspect not. Baseless speculation aside, if you have genuine examples of this occurring, please show the class.
There are red colored outlets just for this case. It's just careless to not install them.
That the printf functions shit garbage into your output if you get the formatting specifiers wrong.

I'd much rather have a crash than silently corrupting output.
Does STEP not have circles? Because g-code has G2 which seems like it should draw an actual circle (G2 X0 Y0 R100 or similar).
All these actions will eventually lead to the birth of another video platform.
In this case I don't think there's really any mystery or hidden code, though.

Functions that operate on collections (or set-like structures) are what generics are most commonly used for, so there shouldn't be much surprise.
More so than snarky rhetorical questions and baseless accusations, I’d wager. But, by all means, let’s elevate the discussion.
Good way to piss off some people and encourage competitors. We need business reform, they do nothing in society to be deserving of authority in any measure.
Go definitely implements monotonic clocks correctly?

https://pkg.go.dev/time#hdr-Monotonic_Clocks
You're not ethical for consuming while also automatically bypassing even the possibility of an ad impression. It's the impression that pays for the content. No impressions. No content.
I'm not advocating in either direction here, but let's assume backdoors like this do exist: Just because they haven't been abused doesn't mean that they wont in the future.

Of the people I know that work with highly privileged materials, none would take advantage or abuse something like this, even with such a high payout. Even if they did, how would they continue to live comfortably? That said, it just takes one person under the right circumstances to act maliciously, which is why screening and compartmentalization is critically important for these organizations.
Right, the wild thing for me is when you mutate `i` in the loop body. So at the same time `i` is scoped to the iteration so that you can capture it, but also mutating it affects the loop-scoped `i` that is incremented between iterations and checked for the termination condition. The iteration-scoped `i` is assigned back to the loop-scoped `i` at the end of the loop body. So if you have a closure close over `i` in the loop body and mutate it, whether that mutation affects the actual loop variable depends on whether the closure is called during the iteration it was created in or during a later iteration. Kinda spooky, but sure, less of a footgun than the original behavior.
>Don't be confused by the situation and the precedent it establishes.

There are times it is very difficult to not be inflammatory on hacker news. Statements like this saying some new precedent is being set are are wild. Like have we even been on the same planet up till this point levels of cognitive dissonance.

Last week if the local paper would have written an article about one of one your co-workers being accused of sexual assault on a minor, and that the company "released them from duties the next day", you would have told me "Oh, that's the way it's always been, you don't want a rapist working for the company". In any right to work state accusations of impropriety are enough to terminate work contracts, end of story. But suddenly someones golden cow got tarnished and now we want something done?
In fact it's almost always the case, since the world is so complex with so many competing and overlapping models.
BBC Global News: Artificial Intelligence – Who Cares?
As we keep getting reminded on IRC, it's not the language that's fast, it's its implementation. After that, how it's used; minding space/time complexity - or not - impacts speed too.
> I see absolutely no evidence that the Go developers were particularly aware of theory

Rob Pike and Ken Thompson are theory-unaware. Sure. Yes. This position is good and defensible.
Optimizing Your LLM in Production
iPhone 15 battery health toggle prevents charging past 80%
.alt is no longer in draft and was given an RFC number.
FP are part of R, like Q or D sets. (I think it should be considered/seen as a subset of decimal numbers set.)
I think it's true that industry is more likely to produce reliable research compared to academia, but for a different reason.

In academia, you essentially have the student who does the work, the professor, and the person who funded the grant, and that's essentially the sum total of people supervising the data. There's not a lot of people to call you out on fudged (or outright faked) data, and all of them are likely to be very invested in the success of the research.

Turn to industry, and you have a similar set of people--the worker, the manager, and the head of the research department--except maybe a few more levels of manager (depending on the scale of the project). But since the goal is usually productization in industrial research, you usually have to turn to the product divisions and convince their executive chain as well of the merits of your research. And unlike everybody else mentioned so far, this group of people isn't invested in the success of the research. You might even be competing against other research teams that have different alternatives, and those people are going to be actively invested in the failure of your research so that their research makes it instead.
Some = very few in my experience over 40 years.
> ...to what may be obvious and a reflection of reality

And how exactly is it obvious that the guy is guilty? Just because he makes click-baity divisive videos, might allegedly have been a playboy in the past, and you don't like him, doesn't equate to "obviously he must have done it".
I don't know how commentors behave. I'm just making the case that taking without paying is unethical, and ad blocking is exactly that.

If the very thought or argument makes people uncomfortable, even when they disagree, that is not my responsibility.
Is there any plan of having verification centers or online verification services in US itself ?
Have you looked for any evidence? There is plenty.

Sum types have been discussed since before the initial open source release of the language, at least according to some of the issue threads such as https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19412

If they're laughably simple, then please contribute a proposal for how to add them to the language. You'll find no one is really fighting against the concept of sum types.
But we are being told (in this thread) that we should assume that the allegations are credible.
AWS has some complicated features that they don't really explain well. In your case, you're talking about "Dedicated vCPU" having a $2/hr fee, and this was confusing to me because I don't recall this fee existing. It turns out they have two completely different offerings for dedicated hardware: Dedicated Hosts and Dedicated Instances. The latter has the $2/hr fee, but I've only ever used the former which has no fee[1]. I'm still not exactly sure what the advantages are for the latter and why those advantages cost $2/hr.

1: When you use a Dedicated Host, you won't see a "fee" on your bill, but you are charged more. As an example, in us-east-1, an m5 Dedicated Host costs 10% more than a m5.metal AKA m5.24xlarge. It's about $0.40/hr more expensive. You'd think it would get cheaper since you're buying in bulk, but I can understand this actually maybe is not preferable for AWS because it is difficult to find a completely unused server on demand.
The written word may be superior to speech in conveying information efficiently, but only if you assume that the recipient is willing and capable of engaging with the medium. Unfortunately, that does not apply to most people you will encounter. A significant majority of people will struggle with pieces of text longer than a couple of sentences while having no trouble at all receiving the same information verbally. That is just the world we live in, and thus, it would be pragmatic to opt for verbal communication unless you know your audience can handle communicating via text.
:D And I'm not sure there's some real need and use of that feature.
I’m reasonably sure that running it through godbolt or using a coverage tool would show the (reachable) part of the program is smaller.
I believe it: Thompson is old enough and Pike is arrogant enough not to have learned the relevant programming-language theory.
to be fair there are a lot of those people who would not shut up about "native" html and "use the platform". Anyone develops for more than one platforms knows that platform is always the first thing to be abstracted away
Yep it's pretty awful now. Being tech support and then a programmer, I've been googling very frequently for a long while and only in the last few years have I started to feel frustrated in trying to find what seems like basic info. Seems the variety in results has vanished, e.g. once I could search for csharp xyz and get a stack overflow result with a few solid 'sub results', followed by an msdn article, then a GitHub issue page, then a blog or three. Now, it seems like I get an entire page of msdn results, maybe a stack overflow result, a couple of those dogshit content aggregation sites regurgitating stack overflow content, and that's about it. What should worry Google (ha) is that I'm starting to break the muscle memory of going straight to google and instead asking chatgpt first. I set my custom instructions to include a link to docs for anything it mentions and even if ChatGPT is wrong, I'm usually at the info I want faster than with Google.
What I wonder is, since it is so easy for this one researcher to catch these flaws and lies, why are these not being caught by peer review?

Increasing seems like peer review is a waste of everyone's time, and it's be better to just publishing when you think your ready on the likes of arXiv, and let everyone examine and criticize it.

Run it up the flagpole, see if it gets saluted or shot down. Seems like there's be much more of an incentive to run confirmation studies.
Fundamentally, the problem of representing money as Integers is division. A set of integers is not closed over division and, as mathematicians would put it, set of Integers does not form a field. For example, 10/3 is not an integer. Making fundamental money unit small does not solve the problem, it simply limits the size of rounding error. Division followed by multiplication can amplify the rounding errors.

A clean solution would be to use rational numbers of the form y/x stored as a pair of 64-bit numbers. It takes the same 128-bits space as in TigerBeetle proposal but has advantage of exact arithmetic with no rounding errors.

EDIT: typos
You may have better luck testing your resulting crop.
Do you get your job back if your 'right to work state' if your accused of being a sexual predator and your job fires you... no, you do not.

Tomorrow everyone will be back at 'right to work' and 'freedom of association' around here on some other topic.
MacDo ? Are you kidding ?

What about that stock or crypto that Wall Street Journal article is talking about ?
Everybody’s enjoying Cuba for travel and accomodations except the US, and as usual in the US we only get the extreme perspective of whoever was a loser in their home country. Comfortable people don’t go out of their way to come here.

It really skews our perspective, the Cuban government doesn’t need to give in to anything. The article is about a German resident just chilling in Cuba, and picking up an iPhone in Miami on a weekend bender. Nobody cares about the US’ political machinations so that Florida votes swing in the desired direction, the rest of the world gives Cuba enough commerce and doesnt think anything of it.