skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The comment I screenshotted is passive-aggressive at best

It's polite and it asks questions that are very pertinent, given how you claim to manage your repos.

> How can the community support?

I've been involved in a project that accepted drive-by PRs and I get that that sucks. You know what helped? People who asked how they could tick something off my personal todo list before they tried to crowbar their pet feature in.

> Can we expect development by the maintainer?
> Are you open to PRs and reviewing them?
> What's your time commitment?
> Should someone just fork the repo?

All of these questions really just ask the same one: should I fork your repo if I want to make a change.

Your very next point discusses a repo where you don't accept PRs, don't reply to issues, but also refuse to say it's not being "developed". You literally ask for PRs in the README.md, but then ignore them? Are people supposed to figure out that you think it's perfect as-is and doesn't need more input in contradiction to that?. All of the questions other than #2 are literally just trying to get you to put that in writing.

Forks suck. There's no if's, and's, or but's.

At best the original project is dead and the fork goes on to be kind of a successor. But it never really will be, because 90% of people will stay on the original, 5% of people will move to the fork, 18% of people will post on both repos about how it's unclear which one they should use, and 7% of people will post on the new repo threatening to sue because they found a similar-sounding project in some disclosure and they don't agree to your imaginary terms that allow you to sell their private info to the Illuminati.

But the worst is when the original project isn't dead. You go and do a significant amount of work to fork it, and then the original author comes back with some pretty major changes that completely break the foundation of your fork. Now you're stuck on a legacy fork, or a ton of work to rebase onto the core library. If other people are depending on your fork that's a difficult question to answer.

This email is basically asking "should I go and do all of that work?" in as polite a way as possible. If you put together a canned response (cough CONTRIBUTING.md cough) that would solve 100% of this:

> Thanks for your interest in contributing. I think this project is pretty complete as-is. If there are breaking changes or zero-days that come up, I plan on fixing them. Otherwise I don't expect to approve many PRs. If you feel you need to get a change in, feel free to fork the repository and make your change there.
I've long had a notion that Christianity should be refactored to be spiritual rather than authoritarian.

It's clear that people are wired for worship (for those of no faith, we have celebrities). I liken it to atomic power, potentially beneficial when properly harnessed, or horribly destructive when weaponized.
I would gladly watch a debate between biologist Michael Levin and philosopher Bertrand Russell, although it's no longer possible.

---

"Free will is an illusion - a biologist explains | Michael Levin and Lex Fridman"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hB0pIrDtwY
I too have moaned and ranted about this the problem with installing "modern", dependency heavy apps -- it's to the point where it's borderline anxiety inducing. I take the upvotes as a sign it's widespread. There are examples of a really valuable package that myself and two coworkers independently have given up installing because the dependency nightmare was just too horrid (a C++ app).

When I started using Rust it truly felt like magic. I could any app by anyone and essentially `cargo build` would always just work. So effortlessly.
Generally speaking: if you're looking for a non-systems language that gives you similar guarantees as Rust, but with a lower mental cost, and you can stomach the drawbacks of a young language, then Inko might be worth looking into.

As for comparisons to actual Rust programs: I haven't done any side-by-side comparisons, mainly because I worry they may come across as a bit disingenuous, as you'd never pick examples that make your language look worse than whatever language you're comparing to.
Does anyone know how the large datacenters in Iceland are faring?

I know that most of the big ones are north east (near the international airport in Keflavík).

They were really popular for crypto miners, but have been moving into HPC very rapidly. I’d assume there is a ton of extremely expensive equipment less than 10-15 miles from where all this activity is.
I realize that, but I object to the idea that the historical Jesus had to exist and that there is "no debate" to it when there don't seem to be any documents mentioning him from when he was supposed to have lived. I realize there could be reasons for this -- the Romans and/or Jewish authorities could have found and destroyed all such documents, but the fact is without the existence of such documents even the historical Jesus is dubious.
words←⊃⎕nget 'wordlist.txt' 1 ⍝ read lines
tenK←'^........k.$' ⎕S '&' ⊢ words ⍝ regex filter
↑tenK/⍨{∧/1='abc'(+/∘.∊)⍵}¨tenK ⍝ count abc and filter

Dyalog APL, but it's still kinda ... heavy.
Cool, so a central component of a disaster response is preparation. How do you practice for that when you can't do real key enrollment/management outside of a real disaster?
As I understand it, instead of sipping at your shaken Martini at the poker table in Monte Carlo, the reality is more like having 16 tables open on your screen in a dimly lit room, and playing all of the simultaneously. Probably the real money is in automating it, but that is probably even harder. But at lease you can sit back and do data analysis / operations on your systems, rather than the dirty work of playing poker.
The difference is that with “your own illegal police” aka gangs, the ultimate destination for when someone “commits a crime” (aka whatever gangs would consider a crime) is a bit more grim. Your judge and jury are often just the nicknames of firearms that the “prosecutor” brought with them. And of course, the evidence standards are lacking significantly more, compared to the real legal system.

And sure, cops suck quite often. I am yet to see cops en masse shooting up those reported for ripping others off in one way or another. On the other hand, you have unfortunately very common “drug deal gone wrong” incidents that end in pretty deadly “illegal prosecution”.
I, too, talk to random people.

For some reason, apparently, I look like the kind of person people should open up to, and so they approach me and oh boy do they open up. I get the crazies - moon landing denialists, people who think other people are secretly wolves, flat earthers who say "I thought you looked like a fellow traveler", various apparnet schizophrenics who hand me 50+ page printed resumes (not a joke or exaggeration), chain smokers who think I can help them with their struggles with their mothers, people claiming to have taken part in Ross Perot's Iran hostage rescue, young women who urgently want to have sex right now without a condom (I am not good looking and they are usually shaking or twitching and often wandering around in sweat pants), and so on. I've even met famous people more than once, well, dopplegangers had taken over their lives so they'd lost their fame - it had been stolen.

I generally like talking to people, and will happily talk to total strangers, but given my experience I am hesitant to initiate conversations - because i wonder - sure, I don't believe in weird outlandish things, but what if I am also a crazy? Do the crazies know what they are? And so I don't.
> This section needs expansion with: details about the unusual occultation. You can help by adding to it. (May 2022)
It’s not crippled; It’s the opposite. Its the only radio service where when you want to do something new with it, you are supposed to publish how. If you want to do something different, use a different band where it’s permitted. The amateur bands continue to have a valid purpose the way they are.

I would advocate strongly for additional spectrum becoming available for public use as it is evacuated as an alternative to the fcc reselling it. I have zero problems with /new bands/ being made available on potentially /new services/ that would allow for what you want.
Does your belief in this hold true for children, the disabled, the visually impaired, etc?
Poker is a great analogy for the market.

You don't make money by having amazing unique insight, you make money by finding soft players and milking them for money.

All the retail investors and day traders are the amateur players thinking they are decent but really are just getting milked
Like many controversial issues regarding government policy, it's an arbitrary line. Different people's brains are susceptible to addiction to different things. I don't enjoy drinking but I still understand some people struggle with alcohol addiction and that it could potentially be a net positive if alcohol were outright banned. It's pretty condescending to simplify people struggling with addiction as simply lacking self control.
It doesn't seem obvious at all unless you start with the assumption that not being able to derive A=B -> B=A is "obvious", which it clearly isn't to most people.

Indeed, just because the lack of that capability is a result of the design of LLMs doesn't mean it's a feature of LLMs. It could also be that it's a bug of LLMs. Which one depends on what the expected behavior is, and the expected behavior from the product is being able to perform the above logical derivation.

tl;dr: the article reaffirms that the "curse" is true, and for the reasons claimed too, but it's a feature, not a bug.
It's also massively complicated and tied into all kinds of things you might never imagine (the education system, the healthcare system, foreign policy, etc, etc).

Unwinding any aspect of it would be like refactoring a legacy codebase larger and older and cruftier than any software in existence.

One of the underrated issues in civics today is how well a piece of legislation is crafted.

I sympathize with the people suffering in jail and with the burden of a criminal record resulting from drug arrests. If I were in that position I wouldn't want to wait for the legislature to catch up to public opinion. At the same time, if we are going to keep passing laws by direct vote we need to have those laws be written more carefully.
I imagine that I'd also be incompatible with someone who cares about which device I use to message them. I also happen to use Android. Go figure.
Calling in from year 112 in Taiwan currently, hello, hello.
I do personally, because I've found one I am willing to bet on. I just make sure to remember that not every decision is upto him. Also he will obviously prioritize his career over mine (you would too).

Anyone you meet would fuck you in a second to advance their own interests. Just like you would...and before you say "oh no I'm different I would never sacrifice somebody to benefit myself!" Just remember that you're competing with people who do not hesitate.

Welcome to the club, friend. This is what the world is.
And this is precisely why I fly the Supermaneuverable Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker E Advanced Fighter [1]. Your puny truck stands no chance. Man up and dogfight me.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7YVxLLIuGM
That put a smile on my face; thanks for sharing. #nostalgia
Humane Wants to Be Human
Internet gateway traffic most likely.

Me, personally, I would like to see the bands filled to capacity and it be common/everyday that ordinary people use 2m/70cm data modes for things besides DX’ing.
I'm curious here as well. While they claim for performance improvements, it is a downgrade on many levels. The UI feels like we moved back to 1990. Some of the things that I observed
1. To close the status window you could click on anywhere outside the frame. But now you have to go to that specific 'Done' button. This is like 1990 era design.
2. To go to a specific chat window I could press 'Command + F' and click on 'Command + <number>' to choose the chat window from the search results. It was removed now and you've to use mouse. etc.
3. The message box looks like the 2k's Skype; small, narrow box rounded edge.
Hey now, preventing SEVs doesn't lead to impact. If we all collectively let this become a raging dumpster fire we can all heroically fix it and greatly exceed expectations for the half.
ChatGPT updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, effective December 14, 2023
> To prevent you from _dropping_ a value while references still exist, Inko uses runtime reference counting.

> Inko doesn't rely on garbage collection to manage memory.

It sounds like Inko is in fact garbage collected? I have no problem with a refcounted language, it's totally reasonable, but reference counting is garbage collection. Am I misunderstanding something here?
Yeah, there's a really ugly history of racism here and the remnants of that remain very real problems.

Not that long after that law was struck down, there was a large migration of black families to Portland to work in the shipyards during WW2. Kaiser et all built a factory town a bit north of Portland proper named Vanport. This place is a fascinating bit of history because it was racially integrated with no real tensions. After the war was over most of the families decided to stay.

Then some years later a flood destroyed Vanport. It was clear rebuilding it would result in the same thing in the future. So the wonderful leaders of Portland asked themselves "where can we put these black people?"

They decided on my neighborhood, Albina. At the time it was mostly germanic people here, because they had been forced into this area in the same way decades before in a prior immigration wave. One interesting sign of this is if you check out all of the now black baptist churches, you'll find cornerstones written in german memorializing their construction.

That said, the black community here thrived. They built a flourishing downtown with lots of business, banks that would not discriminate, etc. Note that this was the only neighborhood black people could live in. Overt redlining continued here until the 1970s.

Flash forward to that time and two different projects were deliberately used to destroy that downtown as well as steal a portion of the neighborhood. Building a freeway interchange for one, and the construction of a hospital as the second.

The hospital is particularly galling as they used eminent domain to take people's businesses and houses, paying far below market value, and even worse stole vastly more land than the hospital needed. At the time they justified it as needed for "future expansion."

Just about 15 years ago in this neighborhood you'd find the hospital surrounded by several blocks of either nothing but grass, or grass and just one or two small buildings.

And then Portland got hit with the massive migration wave creating our housing crisis. So the hospital started selling the land to developers to build apartment and condo buildings.

While we definitely needed more housing, it's revolting that black businesses and homes were stolen and destroyed under a lie, only for the hospital to profit off selling the land to developers building housing for upper income folks a few decades later.

We're definitely on the trajectory of progress, but there is still so far to go, and the fight over it is very real.

I hope this helps give people here some context as to why the BLM protests here were so intense. There's real anger and it is justified. Many of the people at those protests either experienced this directly, or are the children of people who did.
All women, and in 2008 also a woman. Maybe the thing is too heavy or too large?
Poker is one of America's favorite past time and many losing players enjoy the act of going to a cardroom and playing with others. We've often bemonaed the lack of "third places" like churches and the ensuing rise of loneliness, and cardrooms can serve as one of these third places.

I find it interesting that professional poker players are frequently criticized for this but I've never seen someone criticize a casino dealer or other employee for this.
> An opposite argument is made in...

The fundamental center of that piece is the line

> "I have also turned to Christianity because I ultimately found life without any spiritual solace unendurable — indeed very nearly self-destructive. Atheism failed to answer a simple question: what is the meaning and purpose of life?"

Basically everything else she says is demonstrably naive, like whether "Unlike Islam, Christianity outgrew its dogmatic stage". Hoooooo, brother, I mean, for real! Pull the other leg as well! I've got two!

She's not actually saying anything about truth at all, but about how she doesn't know how to just appreciate and enjoy something without requiring it to have "meaning" or "purpose". It's weird, but, another way of saying "meaning" and "purpose" in this regard is "doing what you're told". "Christ teaches", "God says", ok, and then? Because all the actual details flow identically whether from a god or not. Having "compassion for the sinner and humility for the believer" works just as well without the two words "sinner" and "believer".

> Yet I would not be truthful if I attributed my embrace of Christianity solely to the realisation that atheism is too weak and divisive a doctrine to fortify us against our menacing foes.

Atheism itself need not be a doctrine at all. You can have humility and compassion be your doctrine for purely humanistic reasons. Or for selfish reasons. It really doesn't matter which.

Perhaps there should be a "Why I am not a Christian but I think you should be" version of this which leans into the probably true idea that most people are really just pieces of shit and don't care about anything or anyone other than themselves unless some omniscient and omnipotent power is ready to punish them. Like, "I know how to be kind and generous to strangers because I innately love people without, but the rest of you are right bastards." Proselytic atheists probably just don't understand that on the whole people are not capable of being good on their own.
Eh yeah I've heard these. The important bit to remember is Part 97.113 on prohibited transmissions: "Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services." That's the bit that trips these up rather than the encryption prohibition.

The common case: this is vague and probably falls under the above. What's an example?

The basic case: use phones. All of us that have spent time on HF are well aware of the antisocial behavior sometimes found there. I don't think you'll run into any ham that's against stricter enforcement in this area.

Public service: SHARES is probably the move here. I think I would support waivers similar to how they were previously allowing PACTOR 4 though. Despite what the ARRL says I'm a little dubious of our utility in disasters these days in any case.

I mean sure you can come up with any number of ways to get away with it but that doesn't mean we should endorse that behavior.
This user was caught stealing code and banned from llama.cpp by its creator https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35411909
You can still have an In-The-Clear ID requirement, ie frame packets as:

AB0CDE--*UI93.8u[3u9,8husoa...
There are ways to transmit encryption legally if you really want to. It just take a bunch of time and a little money to get the right licenses.

Encryption really isn’t in the spirit of ham radio, and the other licenses are honestly probably easier to get anyway.
Unless you apply to working for a trading company or sports betting company who will appreciate the experience.
Under what law are apple's actions prosecutable?

The problem with this whole mess is that monopoly, monopolization, and monopolistic practices were not defined by legislation. Legislation in fact provides no definitions whatsoever. The entirety of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act is comprised of a single run on sentence.

It's all well and good to be all "it's Mabo, it's justice, it's the vibe" over this, but congress hasn't provided legislation required to regulate competitive markets.
> We don't even really have good evidence that such a person as Jesus even existed.

Current consensus is that such an individual did exist:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The belief that Jesus was a myth is the fringe theory. Tim O'Neill has a series posts breaking down how most of the points that 'Mythicists' are wrong:

* https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

(Tim O'Neill is himself an atheist.)

> People say "what about Tacitus? Or Joseph Flavius?" but like the Gospels, these people weren't writing at the time but decades later.

So argument from silence:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

O'Neill goes over this:

> What is essential to all historiographical formulations of an argument from silence, however, is that it is not the silence that is key, it is the argument that there should not be silence. The strength of this kind of argument lies in showing that there is silence in the sources where silence should not exist. Any attempted argument that does not do this or does not do it competently will immediately fail. And here is where the naïve Mythicist argument always collapses.

[…]

> Another illustrative example can be found in our earliest references to the Carthaginian general Hannibal. As one of the greatest military commanders in the ancient world and the general who came close to defeating the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War, Hannibal (247- c. 182 BC) was justly famous in his own time and has remained so ever since. His career was also fairly long, beginning at around the age of 18 in 229 BC and spanning about 40 years until at least 190 BC. Yet, despite all this, we have precisely zero references to him in any literary source dating to his lifetime.

* https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-...
I think because any commerce is visible (e.g. they register with Secretary of State, pay taxes etc).

If it's a tiny commerce, no-one would notice. Probably. Neither ham community.

But no one seriously would invest time and money in a business that's, well, illegal.
It names two random restaurants in Baltimore, apparently using the "let's type this menu item into Google" strategy. One of them (Gertrude's) is run by a knowledgeable chef and is right next to my job. Going to demand a detailed accounting of this dish next time I eat there.
Pretty interesting that it has "D.G. Rex" on them. Australias version doesn't even refer to him as a king - will just say "Charles III"

https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/andrew-leigh-202...
Isn't encryption, by definition, obscuring the meaning of messages to everyone except authorized recipients?

I guess you could transmit the contents of messages in plain text but cryptographically sign the contents to authenticate. This would probably be useful to remotely administer infrastructure: e.g. have an "net operator only" mode for a repeater when pileups occur or somebody is not abiding by rules.
It's pretty absurd to expect distribution maintainers to be discovering 0days.
Police operate by rule of law, and criminal organizations operate by rule of man.
Cool - thanks for sharing!
QUIC supports self-signed certs if LetsEncrypt is too corporate for you. WebTransport lets you specify the certificate fingerprint (sha256) much like WebRTC, although it does enforce that the certificate is valid for <14 days so it will need to be ephemeral.