skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "what I'm saying, which is that bitcoin is made of bits, and bits aren't scarce, so scarcity isn't what creates bitcoin's value"

I've chatted about bitcoin to a lot of people and this time I've come across this argument, so kudos for not spouting the normal rubbish.

So I can agree that there's a certain pattern of bits that assign some bitcoin in the block chain to me (but only because they're associated with an address for which I have the private key).
If I try and copy that pattern of bits, the bitcoin network will reject my blockchain because I've double spent: each entry in the ledger is a transaction that moves bitcoin from one address to another. If I simply copy the transaction that says Jim gave 0.02 BTC to Sally, the network will detect it. If I try to add a new transaction that says the same thing, I'll need to sign it with Sally's private key, which is simply impossible for me to guess.

Am I getting closer to answering your point?

Regarding fundamental qualities of good money, "robustness" means how easily it can be destroyed. Gold can't be destroyed - it's a chemical element. Glass money however would be terrible. The digits in your bank account are robust, they can't be changed very easily at all without actually adding or removing money.

Scarcity does actually mean a controlled/limited supply when it comes to money. Technically it means "in short supply", which when it comes to money is the same thing - everyone would like more money. The quantity of monetary units makes no difference provided that it's divisible enough. If everyone in the world suddenly had 10x more dollars than they currently have, no one would be richer or poorer than they were before. Your wages would end up being 10x as much and everything would cost 10x as much.

Regarding acceptability, we talking about fundamental properties of the money rather than how people see it right now. For example, the first person to dig up gold would have found no one would accept it as payment because they didn't recognise it as having any value. It's value arose from the fundamental qualities I mentioned, the closest to acceptability being that it's fungible and relatively easy to recognise as gold. Its combination of colour, shininess softness and weight are quite unique and (were) hard to counterfeit.

Nakamoto went to very careful lengths to ensure that bitcoin is a commodity and not a security. Even the SEC agree that it's not a security (they'd love to class is as a security if they could).

If you think better alternatives to bitcoin exist, then it's because you see bitcoin and the alternatives in a different light to me (as evidenced by the earlier points). From my perspective, I agree that someone could always throw a curve ball and come up with a way to improve it, but after studying it carefully for years, I can't see any way that the problem bitcoin solves could be implemented significantly more efficiently. I envisage it being the best store of value for the next 1000 years or more (or at least until we advance from the digital realm)
“Write Small Changes” - a software org that embraces this will go far.
That is entirely correct. But it also implies that employees need to price that uncertainty into their salary demands.
A tiny window into how Harvard's $35 billion endowment was built. The story of why the ultrarich give generously to a an ultrawealthy institution.
Your comment sounds defeatist. I hope it doesn't cause others to give up on pushing for change.
If you're familiar with this woman's past research, you'd realize she is quite.... biased politically.

She strongly believes in increased content moderation by "fact checkers".

She's spread misinformation herself like

- Suggesting Russian disinformation on Facebook shifted the 2016 election (anyone who's run a facebook ad in their life knows how absurdly ridiculous this is)

- Advocating for increased censorship of information during COVID on lab leak hypothesis

This is just off a few minutes of reading her past work.

I'm not a fan of Facebook (in the slightest) but also am really not a fan of the type of censorship this person wants.
I'm not a professional trader by any means, but I would regard all of these spikes as important seismic activity. On the few occasions I've done options trading, I've looked at level 2 data for peaks just like this. It's just another data point meaning there might be significant movement, but nothing is certain. In this case, I would pull up the calendar of Jewish holidays. Is it nearly Passover - that holiday where the angel of Death went door-to-door? Well, that's a big indicator to me that there could be a terrorist event. The April spike definitely makes sense in that context, along with Egypt's warnings. Oct. 6th-8th is another holiday, not as big. Holidays mean people will be out celebrating in large groups.

All of it combined lends itself to algorithmic early detection systems. The general public should have this security. Not a sure thing, but neither is meteorology.
But why shouldn't we expect to be able to work for one company and earn a gold watch (at some anniversary date, I guess?) and a pension?

It used to work that way. Why not now? It worked that way for my grandpa. It looked like it was going to work that way for my dad, until the corporate world did its huge pension rug-pulls. But it could still work that way.

I have a pension now (Sweden). My wife has one (Germany). You could, too.
I like your thought process here, but let me propose an alternative. I’m going to assume that we’re talking about Senior->Senior level reviews here. Junior engineers should obviously always get more guidance. But for Seniors, the alternative is:

Be extremely picky for PRs from new hires, so that they do things the way that your company does them. Make sure they put files in the right places, and adhere to the “flow” of the rest of the codebase. Also the sorts of style that aren’t picked up by a linter — like architecture choices — should be heavily scrutinized to make sure that they fit with your company’s paradigms.

After a while, they’re fully assimilated and you have a coherent style so that everyone is on the same page. Future code reviews go quickly because everyone makes similar architecture decisions and you’re never surprised. This also makes code easier to read if it all follows the same subset of patterns.

I’m not actually sure which way is better, but I think that both options have benefits.
> or was dehumanizing them your first instinct?

This is a really poor approach to discourse. I imagine you don't really think that every job must last forever. Jobs come and go, and working them means we can live and make choices. It's not fun being laid off (I have been), but it's just life.
Are you saying we shouldn't be suspicious of causality, here?
Yep, I very much agree with this. It's probably inevitable that languages with reflection grow some kind of language-specific serialization format because a) they can and b) there's often some use case where it looks handy to have a format adapted to the quirks of the language. Plus, when some of these bespoke formats were created, the world hadn't converged as much as it has now around a few common text and binary formats.

But now the interoperable serialization formats have a lot more energy spent on tools and such, and the formats are better-specified, to the point that you probably want to use them even where interoperability with other stuff doesn't force it.
Colleges and universities are like little countries, rarely answer to anyone and focused on their own insular practices.
Ask HN: Was this the worst "who's hiring" edition of the year?
> It wasn't a "sinking-ship podcast platform”

I think you may have missed the context for this thread :) You’re talking about reality - I’m talking about the hypothesis that Spotify chained Joe Rogan to their platform because they wanted him to drown, which implies not only that the platform is sinking, but that it’s doing so deliberately.
I always felt uncomfortable both having photos taken as well as taking them, and as a result I also have very few photos to look back on.

My memory also kinda sucks. As I got really into Instagram, I became one of those annoying folks that was sticking the phone out everywhere to get a picture. I particularly liked snapping shots during music events. I convinced myself that this will help me remember what I’ve done and give me something to fondly look back on.

Flashing forward, neither of those things really came true. I rarely looked back at the photos (most of them were too poor of quality to be particularly useful), I was rarely in them, and it didn’t help memory much. Instead, I was mostly just seeking feedback and attention from social media peers, the event I thought I was commemorating was just grist for the mill. I found myself being more interested in collecting evidence of living my life to post than actually enjoying it.

I got rid of almost all social media a couple of years ago. I don’t miss it whatsoever. More to the point, I’ve become more aware of how disruptive this phenomenon is. For me, writing things down in a journal was way more effective for my memory and capturing context. I take less photos, keeping the phone put away until the end when I ask people for a quick group photo or two, but now the quality has gone up, I’m actually in them, and I’m not interrupting people by constantly sticking my phone in their face. Quality over quantity, IMO.
When I first heard this used, my immediate thought was that it was a reference to the Uk brand of cigarette paper, Rizla, and clearly something to do with smoking pot

Sadly, it’s a more mundane contraction
Can't agree here. Often an author is writing code and they start with a tentative function, parameter, variable, or type name, then as the change progresses the semantics of the thing changed but the name stayed the same. Authors won't always see this but reviewers are more likely to notice it.
Yeah I'm frankly getting sick of this whole "The problem is phones". No it's not.

Something happened somewhere and now everyone believes that any type of mental stimulation is bad if that stimulation comes from a device with a screen and doesn't matter one bit what they're doing. Screen === bad!

No instead you should be reading a book! What if they are reading a book? On their phone? NO! Not like that.

How many times I've had something making me not want to be productive and I just sit on my phone scrolling and someone who thinks they know everything is like "Your problem is you're always on your phone" No it's not, my overall average screentime for the past 6 months has been LESS than an hour a day. And it's only that high because of those few days where I do spend 4-5 hours just scrolling randomly throughout the day.
Worth a Click but just in case :

>Every Noise at Once is an ongoing attempt at an algorithmically-generated, readability-adjusted scatter-plot of the musical genre-space, based on data tracked and analyzed for 6,302 genre-shaped distinctions by Spotify as of 2023-12-02
Yeah, it seems like Gerrit with lots of Google-specific stuff. Not surprised. Used Gerrit for 12 years, and loved it.
Yeah, when it breaks, and the human didn't write it, it will be a lot harder to fix. It's like being responsible for the output of a junior programmer

My general approach is to spend more time up-front, so when you are in the heat of a problem, you don't have to learn under pressure. I think my beard is graying
can you list the features that are lacking in django?
A school nurse is certainly expected to leave a message with a callback number. There are hundreds of millions of ways to leave a callback number that isn't 1 specific number you want. But "leave nothing" obviously isn't an acceptable solution, and leaving a personal cell number as a callback is a more acceptable one.

tl;dr: leave message+number, how you do so is up to you
Yes, give up and don't try, on the scale of things you will be dead and forgotten anyways - a failure in every sense of the word regardless of what you do.
It's not like you can just fake sleep apnea. The VA makes you get a sleep study. But it does raise the question of whether it's more common than we think for people to develop it between 20 and 50 or so and we simply don't realize it for non-veterans because they're less likely to get tested.
The half-life of major Julia problems is impressively short.

Compiler latency ("time to first plot") used to be miserable but after a few releases with incremental improvements it feels mostly solved to me.

Just now on Friday at JuliaCon Local in Eindhoven one of the keynotes was about similar ongoing work on stand-alone binaries (including shared libraries to call like C/Fortran.)
Much of this is already established knowledge and practice in the world of email. People report spam for communications that they don't wish to receive, and often reporting spam is vastly simpler than any other option.

I'd propose that absent specific legal processes contact occurs at the consent and discretion of the contacted. That's one of a number of principles I've been kicking around under the notion of "Communications Autonomy"[1]. There is no fundamental right to attention. As such, any communications system which doesn't provide the ability to manage contact attempts and communications is in violation of those principles, and more concretely, as the annoyance and/or risk factors outweigh advantages and benefits, people and organisations will defect from those systems in droves.

The telecoms industry has been openly expressing concern that trust in the phone network will be lost. And by "phone network" I'm speaking broadly: POTS (plain old telephone service) and PSTN (public switched telephone networks), or any universal direct-access communications system.[2] I think we're seeing that breakdown. A key problem is that there isn't any single successor system that appears ready to step in, and most of the more likely proposed systems entail substantial concerns themselves over monopoly power and abuse, surveillance (state, capitalist, or other-actor varieties), etc.

I've got a few specific suggestions which I'm planning to make in a top-level comment to this thread.

________________________________

Notes:

1. See: <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108579251632091173>, <https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/107742445268072257>, and <https://diaspora.glasswings.com/posts/622677903778013902fd00...>

2. Phone, email, SMS, social networking, postal mail, etc.
These same ancient diet experts did things like bloodletting. The ancients aren’t always rational.
The maintainers seem to have a very narrow focus on what they think their target audience is and everything outside of that gets ignored.
What a load of bureaucratic shit.
That there looks like some of that "computer code" devil-speak!
What type of career are you re-schooling for? I'm having all these feelings you described.
A quick search[0] of the Companies House site gives the following "cheeky" SQL names:

- DROP TABLE LTD

- DROP TABLE USERS LTD

- DROP TABLE CONSULTANTS; LTD

- ROBERT'); DROP TABLE STUDENTS; LIMITED

[0] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/s...
It makes you wonder how much the Zucherbergs influenced the 2020 election with "Zuckerbucks". They were cleared by the Feds, but then even that investigation becomes suspect with these large sums of money and influence. Conservatives claimed it went towards bolstering voting in largely Democratic regions, or in a biased distribution and application of the funds.
Just who is buying off these corporations if no one has vast wealth?
> If you are holding up the approval because you want someone to rewrite the code the way you would have written it, get out of the way.

While I'm being pedantic here and get your point, I do think it's important that code is following proper styles.

I get that there's a bunch of nitpicky nonsense that goes into code review, but making sure it follows the same style so in 6 months when someone else has to dig through it you don't have to teach a totally different pattern/method or figure out what arcane bullshit they did is important.

And again, I'm sorta assuming this was implied but wanted to throw it out there since it's one of the most annoying things i've ever had to deal with.
Why are you using (very expensive) GPT, or any LLM for that matter, when this was already a solved problem using rulesets? Netflix for example has open source that does this already: https://github.com/Netflix/consoleme

Instead of analyzing your code, you just run your code with no permissions and it automatically detects permission failures and thens open those permissions, with a UI showing you what it did so you can remove any permissions you don't want.

That actually seems much more secure than trying to divine the rules from reading the code.

What value is the LLM adding here?
+1 - it really irritates me when some script insists that I change into its directory in order to work. Its just lazy script writing.
What level of intra-rater reliability would convince you?
> I wrote a book on low power AM broadcasting.

Sound great. I hope you'll post a link.

> they operate at very low wattages (sometimes 100 watts or less)

Since the original article is about a station on the shoulder of the TV VHF-Low and FM bands here's my take on it.

Even a very low power transmitter rated <5 watts in the FM band can have its ERP (Effective Radiated Power) multiplied greatly by the combination of a good antenna and altitude above average terrain. A pirate with a small transmitter cabled to an omnidirectional antenna mounted atop a high apartment block can easily output a >100 watt ERP. Frankly the pirate's rig might even achieve ERP levels in the 6-8kw range if they get lucky, enough to cover a medium sized city. Interference issues crop up because the pirate broadcaster likely did not have the engineering knowledge or resources to analyze and predict problems in that chain, even if the transmitter is itself quite clean. That's why we have strict broadcast licensing technical requirements almost everywhere in the world.
The retina, dopamine system, basal ganglia, cerebellum, entorhinal cortex all have very specialised coarse grained structures for their specialisations.

The eye is part of the brain for instance. The details are emergent but there is most definitely strong top down architecture encoded in DNA
I never know whether I've just been fortunate in my career or what, but I've just never experienced anything approaching the kind of unkindness that I frequently see people say is common. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I'm skeptical. I've always worked with professional colleagues who are trying to figure out how to do their best, and have never once seen people behaving in this childish way.
There have been several companies like this.

Company 10542519 was named "; DROP TABLE "COMPANIES";-- LTD"

Company SC656788 is still named ROBERT'); DROP TABLE STUDENTS; LIMITED

Company 08768324 named DROP TABLE CONSULTANTS; LTD

And company 12956509 was named "><SCRIPT SRC=HTTPS://MJT.XSS.HT></SCRIPT> LTD (which you'll note works)

There have always been certain restrictions on company names [1] containing words like 'Police' or 'Financial Conduct Authority' and you can't even name your company 'Insurance' without the permission of insurance regulators. So this new rule isn't particularly onerous.

In fact, under existing legislation they could have added 'script src' and 'drop table' to an existing list of sensitive words that aren't allowed.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and...
The surprise to me is that anyone would ever expect companies like X or Facebook to pay more than lip service to the idea of being an open public platform. These are private companies who want to

1) Attract a lot of eyeballs
2) Sell ad space in front of those eyeballs

That's all. To bastardize a Lincoln quote[1]:

My paramount object in this struggle is to make a profit
and is not either to save or to destroy free speech.
If I could make a profit without promoting any free speech I would do it,
and if I could save it by promoting all free speech I would do it;
and if I could save it by promoting some free speech and forbidding other
free speech, I would also do that.

My point being, if you want to say something controversial, host it yourself. It's childish to expect businesses to host your content when it attracts the ire of regulators who can threaten their business, or when the content directly threatens their business by causing people to leave.

[1]http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley...
Don't all the languages geared towards science and math use 1-based indexing?
Your comment is why I highly recommend using conventional comment labels, https://conventionalcomments.org/#labels, when doing code reviews.

We've internalized them where I work and I think they're really valuable. When it's abundantly clear whether something is a nitpick, suggestion, or a blocking issue, because it literally has a prefix to that effect, it takes a lot of the potential stress and confrontation out of the code review process, on both sides.

Note you also don't need to memorize the labels, but starting with one forces the reviewer to ask themselves the question "Should I really block the merge for this?"
Tesla is valued at 10x comparable car makers. When that ends it will be a bigger loss than burning Twitter to the ground. Without Starship Starlink will never grow beyond being a niche player in satellite telecom, and Starlink is the basis for most of Spacex's valuation. These things are not visibly shakier than Twitter, but the whole thing is a house of cards.
Perhaps, but then do you still allow '-' for hyphenated names? Then, depending on the system and the query, '--' could still be problematic. Also terms like DROP, NULL, WHERE can still be constructed.

Proper query building and sanitization is the only reasonable solution.
Similar to bitcoin, they changed to a time-based versioning scheme. Major releases don't indicated that they DID break compatibility, but that they MIGHT HAVE, and more importantly prior versions are no longer supported. Effectively the same as a LTS release.
It takes 6 clicks to subscribe to a Substack page
I don't see any desire for them to actually improve it. It's been over a decade and the code you are actually reviewing is not even on the page of a PR. You have go to a separate web page to see it.
I think the rational for one based indexing was to be closer to other languages used to numerical computation such as Fortran or Matlab.

It's been a long time i have used any language with one based indexing, but i don't remember it being particularly important in my day to day.
It was only in the last few years did I realize the massive endowments many universities have make them ripe targets for bad actors to make their way into administration.
That's the strange thing about the GP comment: Teams can and do change their API surface dramatically over time. They use the LSC process that the GP doesn't like to do it, and it is 99% invisible to the API users. It works, if not exactly flawlessly every time, very consistently well, and there are dozens of such changes in flight all the time that API users barely even realize exist.

Don't know what the alternative would be.
Yeah. My sarcasm meter broke itself as I proclaimed:

Harvard, breaking rules for people donating new buildings?! Surely not Harvard.
I've never ran into anything weird, since it moves the whole partition's address rather than the filesystem within the partition or anything like that.
2023 Duolingo Language Report
It's always good to see how my fellow tech bros act in interviews vs how they truly act.