skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You have too! Unless you're recording every keystroke, which I assume you are not.

Surely you can understand the difference between omitting less interesting points along a timeline and literally changing what was recorded retroactively for points that have been selected as meaningful along that timeline?

> More curation makes this easier, not harder.

Not when "curation" is revision after the fact. What you're describing as "curation" is changing the recorded/published history from states that were intentionally recorded and examined to new states that never were even run or examined anywhere. When I'm trying to answer the question "how did this ever work?" or "what were they thinking" and the answer is "it didn't", because they committed something different, this makes troubleshooting and determining intent infinitely more difficult and complicated.

> A risk for sure. Not a big one in practice in my experience.

I've definitely spent days of my life trying to track down inexplicable problems in other people's code as a result of their rebasing, that cannot be fully explained because the history of what they actually committed was erased.

> And you can always configure CI to run on each commit, although the tooling to do this isn't great these days.

What are you even calling "continuous integration" if you're not running tests on every commit? This also highlights that if you were doing that, which I do, and you should be, that history becomes misleading after a rebase unless you re-run tests against every commit.

> you think the choice is between "actual" history and curated history, when in reality, the choice is between some incidental curation and intentional curation

Again, do you not understand the difference between capturing something that actually occurred and changing that capture to be something that never occurred? Your curation is literally a series of lies about the code (that I understand you may find easier to read and more convenient for the goal of forming a high level understanding of the changes over time), whereas what I prefer is a faithful recording of history. The integrity of this captured history matters a lot when you're dealing with executable, deterministic code, and the outcome of running a program can be changed by your "curation".
Speaking of people with no shame, what are his parents up to?
I'm not going to link to specific articles or examples because people will meticulously comb the ones I choose to dismiss them individually, when the real issue is about systems and incentives on a broader scale.

The program is called "medical assistance in dying" commonly referred to as MAID. A lot has been written about it the last few years. As you look, I highly recommend prioritizing the words of disabled and chronically ill writers, over those of their families and other supporters of it. It's a complex issue but IMO the only correct way to approach it is focused on the people most likely to make use of it.
I know it's a newcomer still under heavy development, but I'm surprised to not see Lance (and Lancedb atop it) mentioned. It crushes ORC and Parquet for most real-world data scenarios and has cheap data versioning.
given the position of "sex" and "xxx" on the list, it seems like it's either misclicks, or just the worldwide population of teenage boys searching for things and ending up on wikipedia, probably because the site they're actually trying to get to is blocked.
That's one view. The Hindu view is that we all chose to be born and most suicide has very negative consequences. The one exception is Prayopavesa.
Source code: https://github.com/mshibanami/GitHubTrendingRSS
Mechanical mentilation (with fans) is considerably better in many ways.

It allows heat recovery - less heating (or cooling) energy is wasted by proper ventilation.

Ventilation is constant - there is no buildup of CO2, moisture or harmful particles like VOC or viruses.

There is no need for discomfort caused by the shock ventilation when ventilation is properly dimensioned (enough for people in the room).
To be more precise, roughly half of the population of Gaza is under the age of 15.

Also: https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue...

> Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country.

But sure, let's leave it at "they voted for Hamas" -- when "Hamas is using them as shield, so..." doesn't cut it, that is.
hmmm. I thought that software loaded on an apple device is DRM'd, meaning it cannot be installed or run without an apple id (basically you must ask apple permission to run the program).

GPLv2 didn't prevent this, but I thought GPLv3 conferred additional rights to the user.

I remember RMS saying, "I realized I had to explicitly say the freedom to RUN the program" I believe about revising GPLv2 to GPLv3
The article that loads under it for me is about a Golden Gate Bridge jump survivor who immediately regretted their decision.

> Hines climbed on to the Golden Gate Bridge after feeling 'the most horrid, emotional, turmoil' he'd ever experienced, and has remembered since feeling 'compelled' to die until the moment he leapt from the railing.

> "I thought it was too late. I said to myself, 'What have I done, I don't want to die'," Hines later said. "I realised I made the greatest mistake of my life."
Arabs are forced to question our place in the world
The difference is between something that makes sense (the way the model is intended to be used) and something that makes almost no sense (this repository).

> benefit

In an intellectually honest way, it is not conclusive if there is a benefit to the approach in this repository. However, as a betting man: there is no benefit.

There are a lot of surprises! Riffusion and LCMs for me were super surprising. With no examples or meaningful investigation, I don’t think this is going to yield anything.
I believe, if one feels they've done everything they wanted to do and are happy to leave this world, there should be an easy way out. These individuals shouldn't be obligated to justify their decision to society or anyone else, as it is a deeply personal matter.

I'm happy to go: I've experienced everything I wanted to. The longer I exist, the more living is becoming a burden to me.
The first approach (the 'It’s "obviously" the only way to go' one) is called an adjacency list.

The second (the 'vastly simpler method') i don't recall seeing before. It has some fairly obvious deficiencies, but it is clearly enough in some cases.

The third ('namespacing') is called a materialized path.

And there is at least another way to represent trees - nested sets: https://www.ibase.ru/files/articles/programming/dbmstrees/sq...

All of these were well-trodden back in the days when people took relational databases seriously. For example, see: http://www.dbazine.com/oracle/or-articles/tropashko4/

It seems this is lost knowledge now.
Yes but no.

There are people who have no other options left except enduring the pain and deteriating life conditions for some, sometimes a long, months or even years, time.

And there are people who, by their circumstances, think what there are no options for them left.
People who do follow through won’t care anymore.
Well the real test of all this stuff is "what can I use it for?". And I can sort my own socks, so that's not super compelling ;). More seriously, the real world is complex.

Let's say I want to replace the forklift operator at my local lumberyard with a robot forklift that can ostensibly outperform a human employee. Even if there is some magical AI program which could theoretically drive the forklift around, identify boards by their dimensions, species, dryness, location, etc., there's a whole bunch of sensory problems that a human body solves easily that are super hard to solve in the environment of a lumber yard. There's dust, rain, snow, mud--so if you're relying on cameras how will you keep them clean? You can't visually determine how dry a board is, you have to put a moisture meter on it and read the result. My point is, even if you have a "brain" capable of driving the forklift you still have a massively complex robotics problem to solve in order to automate just the forklift. And we haven't even begun to replace the other things the operator does in addition to driving the forklift. He can climb out of the forklift and adjust the forks, move boards by hand, affect repairs on equipment, communicate with other equipment operators, customers, etc.

Good luck replacing him in a cost-effective manner.

So what am I supposed to use it for?
Alternatively, it's a mistake to deem Brexit as implemented a democratically selected outcome. Remain (inherently a pretty well-defined bit of policy) garnered more votes than any particular Brexit implementation; it took so long to go through largely because "we want Brexit" was more vibes than actual plan.

If the actual final plan had been put up for a vote - is this the Brexit you wanted for - it may well have failed democratically.
FWIW, I wasn't taunting you to get a reply I could poke holes into. What you describe seems like a plausible outcome to me; I was just curious about a write-up (even if anecdotal).
This is the interesting thing about many so-called “modern” positions: they are built on premodern foundations. Eternal souls are obviously nonsense, according to this view, however, they act as if everyone is randomly placed into a body before birth. From where? Unclear, but identity still seems to persist there.
Except NATO and its primary members have a history of extreme military aggression (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan) while Cuba just wanted to host nukes to prevent another bay of pigs type invasion.
> Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

> In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

> "Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."

> Foley said he had never previously mentioned euthanasia. The hospital says there is no prohibition on staff raising the issue.

Canada, where the healthcare is “free”, but if you cost too much they’ll encourage you to kill yourself.

https://reason.com/2022/09/07/some-canadian-health-care-pati...
I have to make a correction now: I've been checking my mail and I've found that Leslie answered me but the message ended on my spam folder (hah!). The answer: They didn't have plans for the functionality I asked for. I asked for the possibility of deleting or moving certain emails after certain number of days (for example, for newsletters, billing emails, notices, and things like that).

As of today, Mailstrom's functionality seems to be the same as 5 or more years ago. Which is not bad-bad, but not enough for me. It seems like the company is focusing on an iPhone app called Chuck [0] that's kind of similar but plus AI and some other stuff. I'll go build my own Lunar Lander.

0 : https://apps.apple.com/us/app/chuck-smarter-email-with-ai/id1163872233
That is a philosophical question that doesn't have a clear answer. Personally, I don't remember anything before the time I was born, it was nothingness.
I would expect that if one has chosen to be here, it would be reasonable to allow them to decide whether the consequences for leaving are justified
This is an american website reporting on something they disapprove of in switzerland, not an advertisement.
> No EU country has control over immigration

EU countries have lots of control over immigration. Each gets to decide its immigration levels from outside the EU (to be technical, outside the EEA+Switzerland), and which of those immigrants it wants under what terms

The EU only controls intra-EU immigration and some aspects of asylum/refugee policy. Rest-of-world immigration remains a national competency in which the EU has very little say. Same is true for nationality and citizenship
I remember being annoyed in general, but then I ascended beyond human emotions and now exist as a being of pure logic. I make PWAs instead.
I don't understand how they are even close to symmetric. The 'seed' seems unlikely to be symmetric. There is no way for one 'arm' to communicate directly with another. And the conditions (temperature etc) is unlikely to be completely uniform around that seed.
The claim that the pod is legal in Switzerland has been fact checked by multiple news organizations, and is false. Here's one article with lots of references that correct an initial misleading viral interview by the pod creator:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/27/fac...

This thing is illegal everywhere and has not been tested.
Even as a (still!) pro-remainer/pro-EU UK citizen, comments like this always sound a little gleeful to me.

The Euro is not a requirement (obviously) of being in the EU. If the sovereign UK or sovereign Ukraine or sovereign Sweden (or Norway, or wherever) want to acquire/retain EU membership but don't want to adopt the Euro, then that's absolutely their right.

The EU is a wonderful (and of course imperfect) organisation because it is democratic, because it's a voluntary association of democratic states. Yes, being a member has some basic requirements (like upholding rule of law), but let's not pretend it has to be all or nothing.

The UK will I suspect one day rejoin the EU, and when it does, it will be two mature political entities coming to a mutually beneficial agreement.
Out in the desert is more extraordinary than microdosing while WFH I guess
Android app store monopoly violates antitrust law, jury finds
Considering that buying 'licensed' copies of Hollywood movies and Billboard chart music is possible in maybe 10-20% of the world, I can guarantee that pirated consumption (bootleg CD-Rs and DVDs, but also 'alternative' streaming sites) outnumbers 'licensed' sales for most successful films. And it's 'licensed', as opposed to 'legal', because a large proportion of the world doesn't really care about American copyright.
Not speaking about code, they ban use of AGPL software. This does not make sense to me.

Software you use does not magically [1] end up in your code base, or you are doing something horribly wrong, I can't even begin to imagine how. Like, "Whoops, I downloaded and executed this AGPL-licensed binary, and now this Google process running on my laptop (or phone!) has automatically fetched its source code and put it to prod and linked it to our software, and now oh no, all our code are belong to GNU!". This is ridiculous. This is some massive, solid bullshit we have here.

You can use AGPL software for any purpose within the law, no strings attached. You never need to touch the code, and if you do, you never need to link your product to it. It does not take a lawyer to understand this simple concept. Proprietary software have more restrictions than that, you'd better not have third party proprietary code ending up in your product, although it's not banned at Google. I hope they do check license compliance on their code base anyway, there are automatic scanners for this. So the chances of some AGPL code ending in their repositories seem vanishingly small.

As for why Google would be dishonest, of course we have no proof and we can't know for sure AFAIK. By default I side with Drew DeVault [2], to me this is anti-AGPL propaganda and their goal is to discourage people from licensing their software under AGPL so they have a bigger pool of open source projects they can potentially reuse without having to contribute back, and it works because now people are afraid to license their stuff under AGPL because "businesses" "often" have an AGPL ban. I know of exactly two companies banning AGPL: Google and Apple. Apple already did that with GPLv3 (AGPLv3 being GPLv3 + a clause). Again, does please the big company (and come on, outdated bash and GNU tools on Mac does not make any kind of sense, the GPL never restricted stuff at the process level interface). I'm sure there are smaller businesses thinking that if Google and Apple ban those licenses, they must be bad and they should do too to be safe, while not having a business model where it even makes sense, playing Google and Apple's game.

If I'm to license software under AGPL, I'm giving Google the right to use this software. That they don't want to use it is their loss. They are doing this to themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

[2] https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

> they want to discourage people from using the AGPL, because they cannot productize such software effectively [...]

> By discouraging the use of AGPL in the broader community, Google hopes to create a larger set of free- and open-source software that they can take for their own needs without any obligations to upstream
Adding a Slab Top to a Standing Desk
Not really. Maybe you got there because you're feeling out of options, and you're looking at "how to painlessly commit suicide", but you're not "opposed" to getting help, you're just pessimistic or hopeless about it.

To me, a device like this is about "having made that decision", being in control, and it being clean.

I'm a paramedic-firefighter. I have gone to every type of suicide you can imagine. And most of them are not "clean", even the ones you might think of. You can choke on vomit with an overdose. You can cause trauma (to yourself) by hanging. You can create a life threat for others (I've been to several suicides and attempts by CO poisoning) that we had to done breathing apparatus to get to the victim.

I think even the inventors of this device would say something like - we don't want suicide to be or feel like your only option, but this device can make it as ... dignified ... as it can be. And while not removing the emotional trauma of loss itself for your family, friends, or the person who finds you, it can be "one less thing" (which, when someone might be considering "all I do is cause pain and misery" can be compelling).
> The idea of "brought into the world" somehow establishes that we were somewhere before. What would that be?

Or you were nowhere/nothing, then you became something/somewhere, that action could be referred to as "brought into the world".
You don’t seem to have any idea what artists do to make a living
Yeah people don't understand that the current situation of infringement is only temporary.

People are already working on completely copyright safe models and those models can still destroy the entire art market.

Ex: adobe has a gen AI model, trained on content that they own.

What now artists? Can't hide behind fake outrage over infringement for that model. But that model can still end the art industry.

I wonder what the new argument will be then when fully non infringing models destroy the market regardless.
I can't wait for everyone to be able to find the help they need, without any reason other than needing it, can easily, quickly, reliably and euphorically get help with their problems so they can have a fair chance and enjoying this awesome thing called life.
Amazon sells so much crap. All those companies with nonsense names selling the exact same products with the the same verbage and photo spreads and only a few dollars different in price should tell you all you need to know.

Quality issues apparently have become so bad for them that they no longer want the defective item to be returned. It is yours to dispose of in any way you see acceptable. They will refund your money or ship a new product but they don't want the failed item. This has been true for me with garden planters, electrical components like pliers, crimpers, and lugs, automobile parts, and solar installation components. Every item that has failed or been found to be unfit for the purpose yielded a refund and a note that it is not necessary to return the failed item.

I review many of the products that I buy and give honest reviews. I also answer customer questions about items I have bought even if the answer they need is in the product description. I think so many people have lost trust in Amazon that they need to know whether descriptions are accurate or hype. It is impossible to tell just from reading reviews and when Amazon shows multiple <3-star reviews for a product I read all of them so I can decide whether user error caused the bad review or whether the product is probably not worth buying.

Amazon is broken and I am trying to get my wife to quit buying so much shit from them. I buy most auto parts, hand tools, etc from their manufacturer sites. I can trust things to be fit for purpose and durable.
GeekWire Podcast: NY Times vs. Microsoft, Oren Etzioni on AI in 2023 and Beyond
Good thing congress slipped in a provision in the latest defense spending bill to prevent the president from withdrawing from NATO unilaterally:
https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-...
It's not just bad, it's a fundamental failure of security. The effect is the same as a password that can't be changed. It might still be possible for users to manually delete active sessions in some Google account management page, but nobody in the world would expect they'd need to do that after changing their password.
It's curious that there is no mention of this ruling's possible effect on AI art. A side-effect of the ruling may be that AI art is uncopyrightable in the UK.

A law was passed in the UK in 1988 that said computer-generated art could be copyrighted by the person who set up the computer to produce it, even if the person played no role in the generation of the work.

However, in 2010 the UK (as part of the EU) signed on to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which only allows copyright protection for works directly produced by humans.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has made rulings that machine-generated works are not eligible for copyright, nor are any works generated within a strict framework of rules that limit human creativity. For example, somebody tried to copyright a football game, the court said that even though humans were exercising creativity within the game, the strict framework of the rules of football within which the creativity was exercised made the game ineligible for copyright.

But the UK is no longer part of the EU, so European court rulings are presumably void there (although the UK is still a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty). So I find it interesting that the judge in this ruling has largely reiterated the reasoning of the European court in the matter of the constraints the WCT imposes on machine-generated copyright (“This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom”.)

So on its face this ruling seems to nullify the 1988 law and make AI-generated art uncopyrightable in the UK. It will be interesting to see if anyone tries to establish this explicitly.
I mean, depending on what you believe suicide is actually harm reducing in certain situations, so sending people to get help before considering seems very in line with those believes
It's more likely about the extreme cost (5x the LCOE of solar and wind), exactly as it was in Germany.

And Spain has no need for nukes so why does it need a nuclear industry to provide industrial support for them? It's not Iran, Russia or America.

I bet the US military industrial complex will be salty though, exactly as they were with Germany when their bean counters ordered a nuclear phase out.