skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One reason CPUs don't trap on overflow is that it lets them use the same instruction for unsigned values and two's complement values.

The instruction can then set one condition code that means "if you intended this as an unsigned addition, the answer was out of range" and a different one that means "if you intended this as a two's complement addition, the answer was out of range".
Bitcoin is one of those technologies that I have been skeptical of for over a decade but within the past year it’s finally starting to click for me.

I don’t own any yet but I don’t think it’s ever going away.
Dowbvotes could very well be because GP is putting words in the paper's mouth. And not very good words either.
No need to guess what happens, Native American reservations are some of the poorest, worst places in US for various metrics: https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-can-we-learn-from-native-ame...
It appears that marriage and money are inextricably bound. After all, Melissa Kearney is an economist. And of course the success of children is related to the wealth and education of their parents. The article mentions money many times:

> Kearney notes that families headed by a single mother are five times more likely to live in poverty than families headed by a married couple.

> Most single mothers start from behind; they're less likely to have a college education or a high income. Single motherhood is a lot less prevalent in higher-educated women.

> Data also shows that many single mothers don't have help from any other adult, like a grandparent or other family member. That means it's mom who both supports the family financially and serves as the primary caregiver.

> many women don't marry the father of their child not because they reject the concept of marriage, but because they do not see him as a reliable source of economic security or stability.

This doesn't look like a "moral" problem (family values, yadda yadda). It looks more like a monetary problem.
Been doing it for more than 15 years.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
This and everything else shows that. It’s hard to find examples where trusting groups of people with power has worked out well in the medium/long term.

Singapore?
Some bad answers (and non-answers) to your question here. There are many studies on this with various conclusions worth reading, example set [1]. At a high level, US marriages (and potentially non-US long-term partnerships) bring stability, additional economic support, an additional role model (completely missing for boys growing up in a single mother household), additional attention & emotional support at home, and the ability to split parenting tasks as the need arises (ex. dad goes to a school event because mom needs to work late, or vice versa).

Also important to note is that parental attention has a large impact on academic outcomes of kids [2], so in single parent households where the parent doesn't have the time to provide sufficient attention, the kids suffer at school compared to their two-parent peers.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=two...

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131911.2013.78...
This argument is non sequitor. If wealth inequality was the problem, couples would be forced by economics to work together to bring in more together than they could separately and to share resources like housing to reduce costs.
Its effects may be more visible, because in previous iterations society condemned children out of wedlock so data on it was not as reliable. Naturally, potential solutions would result in rather unwelcome dystopias that could be encapsulates in a phrase 'oi you got loicense for those kids?'
I think the blame can be squarely placed on the cost of housing.
I do not believe the current Twitter ownership is motivated to present an unbiased view of the war in Ukraine, Putin, etc.
Too complicated. A big part of UBI fwiu is reduction in administrative costs, overhead, etc. Plus people don’t want a bureaucrat or politician deciding who is qualified or not
That's an excellent and important question.

And the answer is that prices will probably be expected to go up to some degree as a one-time thing, in a way that would be approximately a wash for those already with plenty of income, but where it still makes a huge difference for those with little/no income, which is precisely the point.

For example if it's a one-time inflation bump of 10% and UBI of $10K/yr., then:

Person A with income $100,000/yr, now makes $110,000/yr., worth $100,000 in previous dollars

Person B with income $10,000/yr, now makes $20,000/yr., worth $18,182 in previous dollars

Person C with income $0/yr, now makes $10,000/yr., worth $9,091 in previous dollars

Again, this is precisely the goal: the extra income isn't supposed to mean anything for those who already have plenty of income. It's supposed to help those who don't, or those who lose their jobs, etc. Without a big government bureaucracy trying to determine who qualifies or not.

And it's important to realize that the inflation is a one-time event. Prices will rise but then they'll stop rising. And if it were 10% inflation over a year, that's the same as the usual targeted 2% inflation rate but compressed from 5 years. (And the central bank might very well target 0% inflation over the following 4 years to compensate.)
One line in the oldest math text hinted at hidden universes [video]
You can place the blame for both things on the federal government.

1. Obamacare was promised to save families $2500 per year. Instead healthcare costs have predictably nearly doubled.

2. A few decades ago the government actively discouraged medical schools from enrolling enough would-be doctors because they had a misguided belief that the country would have too many.
> History, as written by historians, is applying source criticism to primary sources.

Unfortunately, most "source criticism" is absolutely atrocious and developed primarily as part of the publish-or-perish paradigm, of such low quality that "X was motivated to believe Y, therefore Y was probably not true" without additional evidence is a common theme. Perhaps worse, much of our modern "source criticism" simply consists of applying whatever moralizing ideological lens is currently in vogue. Even historiography is largely fad-driven. You can absolutely learn more about historical events by reading the primary sources yourself. Historians are not blessed with some rare critical talent that can only be developed via a history degree.

It's obviously true that reading only WW2 general memoirs is going to get you a very specific and limited view, but they aren't the only people who were writing at the time, and either way, within the limited parameters of military history, it's better to read what someone actually thought rather than reading what someone else thought they thought. Of course you will sometimes be misled, but at least you'll be misled in similar ways to people of the time, rather than being misled by 21st-century ideas. That's not to say there are no good modern histories, but the best are ones that quote very, very liberally and give you lists of the best primary sources, which you should still read.
> She doesn't need to grab the attention of conservatives because her findings already support their pre-existing beliefs

Not quite, because the other solution to the problem is giving people access to sexual education and birth control so that they can decide to have children only after they find someone they're willing to marry, which are so famously contrary to conservative beliefs that they've based 40 years of political campaigning around their opposition.
People who advertise with Google are used to losing a decent portion of their ad spend to bot views. People who use ad blockers are at least human.

And advertising to the guy who sees 100 adverts a day might have much higher impact than advertising to the guy who sees 1000.

From Google's perspective, they want to get paid, so the more ads the better. If the advertisers, users and content creators don't like it, why would that matter to Google? The farmer doesn't care about the turkey's opinion on christmas.
Honestly Austin and Portland are basically the same city to me

Hell, Texas and Oregon are basically the same state once you leave the big cities. Oregon has more trees and mountains though!
Why not both?

All people, kids and adults, have a finite level of emotional and mental energy that they have to “dispense” in everyday life. If you are a couple that’s dealing with marital strife, this is emotional overhead that gets diverted to dealing with that instead of your kids.

Same goes for kids. A child that’s struggling to comprehend why parents decided to leave each other will be using that emotional energy to process it instead of focusing on personal growth.

This is not taking into account the divorce process is costly, with money diverted to lawyers, instead of being pooled and applied to improve family life.

Also, persons who divorce early in a relationship may not have taken the time to understand compatibility with each other, may be emotionally immature and impulsive. The lack of insight might be something that perpetuates into other aspects of their life.

There are, obviously, relationship patterns where it takes a long time for one partner to realize the other one has gradually become more and more abusive and controlling, either because they have low self-confidence or self-esteem. This somewhat tracks the concept of emotional maturity, but this is difficult to talk about as this form of framing puts the blame onto the abused partner.
The article really doesn’t answer that clickbait headline, but it seems analogous to “Why Jews earn so many PhDs”. It’s mostly culture, which is a tangled and recursive process that can’t be deconstructed into some government funded social programs.
If I know what everyone's getting and I'm a landlord what's to prevent me from pocketing all of it?
Are you sure there is a causative relation between bringing it up and getting eviscerated?

Perhaps a third process correlates them.
Entries on a blockchain are auctioned of in an auction which allow arbitrarely low bids. So it is to expected that there is a long tail of bids with a low chance to win.

If a mempool clears, that just means there is limited demand to use the chain, even for free.
? So the wealth inequality right?

How do you think the wealthy got wealthy without selfishness?

You seem to be implying that it isn't the inequality, but that all those poor people should stop being selfish.

If only those poor people would stop being selfish, the wealth inequality wouldn't be a problem.

LOL.
It's a purity war that 'perfect' is the only thing that matters. The comment also has strong vibes of 'Mister Gotcha' from The Nib.

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
This looks more like a boot security event[0] rather than open firmware. Does anyone know of any other events that actually talk about open firmware implementations?

[0]: https://www.osfc.io/archive/2022/
Plenty of suburbs are walkable. I live in one with three grocery stores and a farmers market in walking distance.
Perhaps some day we will invent a society that does not require fairytale founding myth.
Not sure what you mean. Memory safety is one thing, provenance is another. Which spec are you missing?
You certainly can, but going by the numbers most people can’t.
This question is answered in the interview. She is saying that a household with a stable long lasting relationship is what’s driving these better outcomes. She’s also saying that in America marriage (unfortunately) seems to be the only way to keep people together for a long while (long enough for a child to not experience a parade of parents by the time they are 15 according to the article).

In my personal opinion. I think what she’s stumbled on is yet again proof of Americans hyper individuality rearing its ugly face. The Europeans can stay together longer without the marriage piece of paper because

1) Selfishness derived from hyper individuality doesn’t drive people to nope out of relationships at the first sign of minuscule problems or one side not getting their way

2) Since over there not everything is an economical benefit proposal people value the relationship with different metrics than our countrymen and women do.
So, bug bounty programmes sprung up as a well to help coordinate disclosure and help researchers engage in responsible disclosure.

A key part of responsible disclosure is the disclosure part.

Often researchers would disclose unpatched issues to put weight on companies, even large companies, to actually patch issues.

One of the side-effects of programs like Hackerone is that actually doing your own responsible disclosure is now frowned upon (often to the point of legal problems).

But part of the social contract of absorbing coordinated disclosure should be an expectation that hackerone allows disclosing even unfixed issues.

Hackerone should not be "beholden" to companies. They make the rules. They could allow disclosure of issues if they wanted to make that a condition of the platform.

It's companies sitting on vulnerabilities that birthed the concept of "responsible disclosure" in the first place. If H1 etc are allowing it then there needs to be renaisance of the practice outside the platforms.
If you have that attitude towards code review, then I'm sorry to inform you that the answer is no.
Any politically neutral articles for comparison?
That is the problem today, but we could also just have it be based on filed income and get rid of the bureaucracy instead. The issue is that some political parties are actively against helping the poor. The more practical idea is a universal poor stipend. The problem with UBI is that it would literally require everyone above income X to pay and extra $500/month in taxes just so they could receive a "free" $500/month in taxes.
Bitcoin needed maximum 'memeability' i.e. the idea had to spread as fast and wide as possible. That is why the 4 year halfing cycle and absolute scarcity was chosen. The 21 million cap is easy to understand and tell your friends about. The possibility of getting rich is the strongest meme.

You really need to get someone rich in order for the meme to spread. This is the only way. People have a natural tendency to not be interested in currencies. Thinking about currencies makes their head ache. It needs to be really rewarding. On the other hand, there was no precedent and it was really risky. Most people were throwing away bitcoin at the start, and they just wanted it to spread.

In Bitcoin the security depends on the price of the currency. If the price doesn't pick up, the network won't be secure enough. It has to be rewarding, it has to spread as an idea, it has to be secure. The more secure it is, the more plausible it is to succeed, and so forth.

Most people don't really understand the disinflationary model as you explained, although I agree that in theory it is better and more elegant way to distribute coins. However, I think that if Bitcoin had chosen this model, it wouldn't have taken off. This model has too high inflation for too long, and the meme and security would have died off.

If the inflation is too high for too long, the meme won't spread, and the price will stay very low or nearly zero. Then a single miner will mine all coins and no one buys them, or only a single rich dude buys them. So in the end the coins won't get distributed as widely / fairly and the project will fail.

I think that Bitcoin succeeded in it's distribution as fairly as possible. I don't think that this can be replicated. It's impossible to create a new cryptocurrency where someone won't scoop them all off cheaply in the start, and that's why the creators typically own most of the coins, which will eventually doom the project. The infinite disinflationary model might be the only way to succeed in distributing a completely new currency, because no one wants to invest in it. But it has to have some other properties in order to spread widely.
Nothing. This is exactly was happened in France where there is welfare money for housing (APL): landlords raised prices saying that rented are helped anyway. In the end the situation is better for landlords, equals for people getting the welfare money (not everyone), and worse for people who don't.
"Universal" would be too easy to automatically apply and reduces scope for exercise of bureaucratic power, therefore is unacceptable, as is any idea that such a scheme could possibly replace as opposed to augment existing provisions.

UBI or negative income tax to replace the minimum wage and other welfare provisions would be a huge win for Canada, but there are too many people (left/right, federal/provincial etc.) that think they're getting something out of the current situation for it to ever go anywhere.
The race to save our secrets from the computers of the future
One day I hope there's a city building game that looks like this. Lovely work.
I think that's it in a nutshell.

Divorce is also more common for selfish and self-centered people, and I would argue that those traits do not make for good parents. (which is not to say that a good person should remain married to such a spouse --- arguably the only thing worse than a good divorce is a bad marriage)

Ages ago, I worked at a school for boys, and one could pretty much map negative trats of the parents to corresponding unsocial behaviours on the part of the child.
Proof that we need more "family values"; more religious conservatism?

This is what a lot of people seem to believe --- people who've never bothered to look at the actual evidence --- or who refuse to accept it once they see.

A detailed county by county survey of the entire country shows that the most religious and conservative parts of the country have higher divorces rates by far.

Getting married in the Bible Belt and giving money to the church seems to *create* a lot of one parent families.

https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2014/01/16/imp...
To be clear, this is not BifrostNetwork.com which seems to be a cryptocurrency thing. The logos are different.
In addition to BBS, online text file, and earlier computer ASCII art, there was also IRC, where ASCII art would typically fit within a few lines.

Sometimes there were add-on scripts for IRC clients to generate these.

I got carried away with an IRC client I wrote, and added a bunch of ASCII art as standard commands. For example, one command would send ASCII art of an airplane towing a banner with the user-provided message.
People with basic income have time to take part in politics, to regulate away such monstrous landlords. Landlords already know this, and will pay to prevent it.
> Marriage is not a magical thing that fixes economic problems, even if you want to keep turning the clock back and make certain acts outside of marriage illegal. The only thing that fixes economic problems is money.

Speaking as a parent, I’m not sure this is true. If I didn’t have my wife, then I would need to take twice as many sick days for my kids, which would be very tough on my career. I wouldn’t have an extra salary (or if she didn’t work, then a full time person caring for my kids). I wouldn’t have someone to split school pickup/drop off with, which again would be very taxing on my career. I’d still need the same amount of space in my home with or without my wife. And all of this also means that we have more time for child/parent interactions at home.

So yeah, I think there’s huge benefits to having a spouse around while raising kids.
You absolutely can. Our family does and many of my friends do. They aren’t all wealthy people.

It isn’t always a choice, but often it is. Many people can live on one income but choose a lifestyle that requires two.
You don't get it, maternity leave and socialized childcare is the devil talking. The downfall of society is because the liberal agenda to brainwash our our women and kids, the former with feminism making them think they can do things other then be homemakers, and the latter because those families with working women have to send their kids to childcare where they're taught collectivism, normalized sexual deviancy, and to disrespect their parents. /s
To be fair, this is mostly a consequence of women entering the workforce. Not that that’s bad, but it’s an unintended consequence that companies were then able to convince workers to work for less because people could survive on it still.
> Bitcoin failed all of those which is why it’s never had significant adoption as a currency.

Yet there is no more successful digital currency on the planet. If you think you can make one with "better" rules please go ahead!

> This is why deflation is so economically dangerous.

The idea that inflation and constant spending are the only thing that makes an economy work is faith-based, and bitcoin was intentionally not started that way. So far I'd say it has worked quite well.
There are plenty of suburbs where you can also walk to places.
Yeah, its a bad idea just to give money to people so they don't have to work....it has all kinds of corrupting influences on them. Make 'em work. That's why I support a 100% estate tax.
"Only 2" is very short-sighted, there's also Assembler, Pascal, Ada, Objective-C...

One general comment: it's kind of funny to see a C library being bashed right away at V1.0. As far as I can tell, nghtpp2 isn't even a CVE nest to begin with [1]. Some people must be desperate for "easy" targets.

[1] https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/15772/Nghttp2.html
Some things stem from wealth inequality.
I found a little paradise on earth near Wawa, on Lake Superior.
Well, found, no. There is also petroglyphs there.

But damn, the lake has small island, coves, beaches.

Absolutely stunning and mostly devoid of intense tourism. ( aka : no stress to find a camping spot, you can also sleep in most places if you are respectful)
Already discussed recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37931836 (19 points | 4 days ago | 16 comments)
> I’m not defending wealth disparity; simply suggesting there’s likely another cause for the marriage-rate collapse.

In the past that you're talking about, women were not allowed to be independent, i.e., own property or obtain jobs that could support a family. So women had little choice but to get married.

As long as non-marriage is a realistic choice for women, the marriage rates will never be as high as they were when society made women subservient.
Or perhaps people will decide that childrearing is too much effort in addition to all the other pressures put upon them and birthrates will continue to fall. Perhaps South Korea and Japan are examples.
You don't buy a marriage. If you try you are doing it wrong.

Finances are a component of marriage, not the driver.
Yeah see I think that’s part of the wealth being sucked into the 0.1%
Get rid of _some_ of them for now

It only has to be relatively less ad laden than the free version. Whenever ads get cranked up on the “free” normal person YouTube, they’ll get cranked up on sucker pay-pig YouTube in direct proportion. If anything, they have less concern about the small fraction who (amazingly) pay them for what they’re doing.
Their car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way they like it.
> Wrong. Organizations don’t exist without administration, as a necessary requirement for doing business. Part of your time, as part of that org, will contribute to that if for nothing else because a company is required to comply with baseline regulatory compliance (accounting, taxes, investor relations, etc.).

Where exactly did I say that organizations exist without administration. All I pointed out was that if the rewards are not shared with people, people will not do the work.

But since you are writing this from a org structure perspective, I can alsosay that administrative work can be done by HR. Eng management can be left to handle engineering direction and task. Specifically, the political org structure is not a necessity - it is only something that low IQ can understand. A smarter structure is technical leadership all the way up to VP + HR that manages pay and promos.
Go for Goggles: The Risks of Opening Your Eyes Underwater