skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Very much on board with practicing this sort of thing and getting to know what works for you.

For me, it’s really about deciding about what bit of micro “value” I can do next, doing it, and leaving things in a working “done” state. And interestingly not so much leaving something “unfinished” as some commenters say.

And also maybe not knowing exactly the next thing to do. Tomorrow can bring unexpected things, new priorities (stemming from me sometimes depending on the situation) and that’s ok with me. Leaving things “done” makes this all fine and fairly non-painful.

Suspect this takes practice and a certain amount of confidence. Submitting a PR that doesn’t do all that has been planned/asked of you might be scary.
It's just that Google search results are now full of ads, so I suggest changing the search engine altogether and not just blocking certain sites. Does it make it more relevant to you?
To put it in perspective, the inventor of the first lithium battery, John Goodenough, a work he later received the Nobel prize for, was a world renowned material scientist at the top of his game, who led some of the most advanced research labs at MIT and Oxford. This was not some scientific serendipity, a low hanging penicillin; practical lithium batteries had to be plucked from the bosom of physics using the best tools and knowledge available in the 70s.

How many electron microscopes, X-Ray crystallography machines, mass spectrometers, computer aided simulations and design systems and other contemporaneous tools, methods and theories had to be used by Goodenough's team and then the thousands of researchers in the subsequent decades to get to the point we are today with lithium batteries? It just doesn't sound like something that was possible pre-1940, the period where the bulk of the ICE improvement happened.

And you really need lithium chemistry for practical EVs; despite the enthusiast conspiracy theory, the General Motors EV1 was nothing more than an clunky, expensive curiosity that failed in the marketplace. The only way EVs could become practical reality (if barely) was that the ICE stop improving, hampered by emissions regulations, to the point where advances in lithium battery technology and economics could catch up. Such environmental concerns were pure fantasy more than a century ago.

Another issues to consider is that, even if not used for road transport, ICE were essential for aviation, the history of aviation being, to a fist degree approximation, a history of high power density propulsion methods that made mechanical flight possible. Major improvement of road engines (for example turbocharging, fuel injection, VVT) came from aviation. Since electric aviation remains still a dream, it follows that any counterfactual road transport history must account for the existence of a highly competitive aviation ICE.

When imagining these fun little scenarios, like what if the Roman Empire invented the steam engine or Victorians the microchip, we almost always tend to discount the highly contextual nature of scientific discovery and innovation. Previous scientific and technical progress alter the world in profound and subtle ways, transforming what was once considered a pipe dream - and not for lack of trying and visionaries - into reality.
Roy Walford et al are the folks to read on this topic
> If I restrict for three days a week, eat normally the other three, then add a relative "cheat" day between the two, am I possibly getting most of the same benefit anyways?

Unfortunately, we are more slaves to our bodies than one would think.

The calories you eat are almost exactly the same as what you burn.

And if you do not believe, try dividing the extra weight of a person by the number of days they lived to see how little extra calories they consumed over their lifetime.

Only a tiny imbalance is enough for a person to get overweight but it also means that it is really, really hard to eat any more or less than one is actually using for energy.

The biggest contributor to how much calories we actually use for energy (and based on above: consume), is our metabolic rates and activity. And metabolic rate does not differ a lot between people, the only thing that differs significantly is activity level.

So when somebody says "eat less calories to live longer" what they really are saying you should be less active.
It may not be feasible in some cases (e.g. chargers) but unplugging devices entirely may be smarter than taping LEDs. Not every device needs to be in standby all the time. my granddad was obsessed with reducing power consumption and had built actual light switches into his living room walls that cut power for all TV devices at once. So in a way, the annoying LEDs also serve as a reminder that there’s a device consuming energy that we may not even be using 90% of the time.
How do you define who is a Nazi?

Quick search on Twitter will find many, many people calling many many other people Nazi. Those alleged to be Nazis include the former President, members of congress, and the head of a prominent auto maker.

TOS are open to wide interpretation.
I default block notifs (no, I refuse to call them properly, they are not worthy of that respect) on any and all newly installed applications. I might unblock later if it's useful or worth my time, but don't count on it.
Kinda curious how the policy might apply to communist accounts. Should they be banned too or is communism less directly associated with mass killing and is more in the legitimate ideology territory? Historically as practiced communism has involved mass murder of class enemies for political reasons.

I initially supported the idea of banning Nazi accounts but then this thought experiment occurred to me and I couldn’t come up with a coherent view. Why ban one and not the other? Yet banning communist accounts would seem a bit much. Hence no coherent view.
The critique is not that it's impossible for all changes to measure improvement, just that it isn't possible in many cases, because the ideas about what constitutes improvement differ.

And even if there was agreement on a set of aspects, measuring them is not the holy grail. You can rarely measure the effect directly. You have to measure some proxy (operationalize it). And the definition of that proxy is going to cause problems.

That, plus --of course-- vested interests, makes that you can't fix everything. The best you can hope for is gradual improvement, and a change of direction when the plan doesn't work out as hoped. Those are political choices, not technical.
“Come on you sons of …, or do you want to live forever?”
I get your point - though neither company was young a decade ago (QNAP founded 2004, Synology in 2000) - and my problems were not related to 'what technology was like in the old days', rather the device was advertised with a feature that did not work (and indeed it did not work in a fashion that reliably crashed the machine).

The other feature - NFS - I'd say is one of two core features for a NAS (the other being SMB/CIFS) and it was lacking basic granularity in its ACL.

I'll note that at the time the 'app store' associated with that product has a hundred or more rinky-dinky add-ons & plugins - php admin, helpdesk product, that kind of thing. I suppose some customers found those useful.

But I'd argue those were less useful features for a NAS than being able to reliably receive & send files, or conveniently secure access to those files.

So my concern is not around ephemeral tech / feature failures, but the marketing-driven design, complexity of troubleshooting where it met the opacity of the software, and the barely-there value-add / extra-cost of a stack like that (especially for people handy with screwdrivers and a CLI).
Banking apps are the worst. They make us switch on notifications, else we can't get any confirmation notices for us to confirm transactions, then they proceed to spam me with credit card offers and other rubbish I'm not interested in receiving.
Show HN: Faultier-CV: Build a CV in a few minutes in the browser
Depends on your goal. You could also keep your diet consistent and do more exercise to produce a deficit. If your goal is longevity, then this may be a viable option. If your goal is to be faster, stronger or bigger, then this is probably not the right approach.

But reading article the conclusion seems to be that we simply do not know enough about how this all works. Giving absolute ranges of calories also seems like the wrong approach. There are differences in sex, in height in activity levels etc. etc. etc.

Would someone on a 2000 calorie diet who was moderately active fare better than someone on a 2500 calorie diet who was more active? I do not think we have the answer to that.
Could this just be a perception issue? When you are young you are generally less careful about what you eat, and eat a lot of calorie dense food.
It is thought to be (but not proven) to be a tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age.

You need to consume less calories to have longest maximum achievable age (again, not proven in humans).

You need to move more to have longest achievable healthy age (this is much better documented).

Personally, I prefer to be healthier for longer even if it means I will live shorter in absolute terms.

I am running every day which hopefully will help me have denser and more robust bones and joints and tendons. And I am lifting weights so that I still have some muscle into old age when they inevitably start to shrink. Core muscles are important to prevent fragility as we age.
Last year, I aimed to read 30 books. But I realized I usually forgot most of the stuff, just remembering some main ideas. Really getting the hang of a topic takes time. So this year, I'll read fewer books but focus more on understanding what I'm reading.
Use FastGPT by kagi search. All its statements come with the web source snnoted to research or verfiy the claims.

https://kagi.com/fastgpt
I think of it like this: if you leave your car sitting in the garage, it’s not for good for it. Gas will gum up, battery will die, all manner of issues from not running it. However, what ultimately will make a car crap out is the number of miles on it. Running it kills it, but not running it can kill it first.

Burning calories by eating/exercise is largely what kills us, but exercise can help keep our heart running when it otherwise might’ve failed due to congestive heart issues, or diabetes, etc. Death from metabolism means you avoided the other stuff.
It least someone had decided to have common sense.
Well, they had recently discovered modern chemistry. No wonder everything looked like chemistry to them, even if they couldn't yet identify the substances involved.

After Pasteur, scientists began to think that every disease was caused by microorganisms. It took a while for the world to accept the idea that some diseases, like scurvy, could be caused by the absence of a substance. To someone educated in the latest chemistry and biology of the time, that idea might have looked just as ridiculous as phlogistons at first.
Is the project still active?
I'd love to find a solution for my email issues.
Off topic, but I see many people using archive.is. My question is what if archive.is goes down, goes private or disappears from the internet altogether.
Consider the case of an individual who manages to have a stable body mass without training.

One would most certainly require more calories if he/her started training.
Yall should really have a look at his lossless image format. That has a spectacular compression:speed ratio. https://encode.su/threads/4025-HALIC-(High-Availability-Loss...

What interests me the most is the memory usage.
Excercise absolutely makes you age better. Actually, it seems that in order to have a decrease in all-mortality you need to exercise quite a lot (at least 1.5hrs a day.. for the rest of your life).

Aerobic exercise of course means more caloric expenditure, which you should totally compensate, but that's not hard for regular folks who train, only for extreme athletes
> No preprocessor nonsense

Yet still the C preprocessor can do things that are not possible in Zig. Just because it is a simple text replacement tool doesn't mean it's 'nonsense'.
> tradeoff between maximum achievable age and maximum achievable healthy age

What is this based on? The evidence I’ve seen is calorie restriction and exercise both increase one’s healthspan.
Note that Hershey's (physical!) pens were about 3 times as large as his coordinate system; rendering them with a suitable thickness gives me reasonable results even at higher resolutions.

(like with the pixel grill on CRTs, often older digital formats were subject to some sort of analogue low-pass filtering before being perceived)
Hmm yeah, I guess I missed that you were focusing on the completion aspect. I think that would be challenging. But if you are running multiple remote shells in Emacs buffers - or editing config files with Tramp - it's easy to copy and paste commands from one host to another.
It’s “covered” in that they write this and then immediately dive into an example where I buy a phone and start receiving push notification advertisements for buying cases. Do you think an app is going to ask me if I express interest in “related offers” or just start sending them unsolicited?
And for the people who liked to eat mammoths

More to the point, the word "tragedy" in context isn't saying that the end result is neccesarily a tragedy for the people involved. The "tragedy" is our (alleged) inability to have nice shared stable resources, not any specific outcome of any specific resource being exhausted.
Calories from calories are vastly different, for example red meat (beef mostly)
anything non gmo etc.

A balance is important but fewer calories says nothing.
im still thinking about this because its so fundamental. it applies in almost everything. think about how many times people have called professional athletes stupid or bad. it happens all the time because the mistakes are unambiguous. but the coaches have a much longer grace period before people generally decide they are bad. when a musician messes up a piece everyone cringes and lots of people probably think that person is a failure even though they are playing at a level less than a tenth of one percent of people reach. in any discipline that can be (more or less) directly measured, lots of people perceive the people doing those disciplines to be more incompetent because their mistakes are more easily visible.

when someone who is like your old boss (i think a huge percentage of people are) finds themselves in a situation where their mistakes are unambiguous and obvious they panic and have an identity crisis. most people do not live with the accountability of their mistakes like people who make and do things with unambiguous results. it would be great if more people did, but in a way, thats the whole point of those "ideas" / bullshit jobs, to insulate you from your mistakes.
The feeling is understandable, but it’s a symptom of living in a complex world and not something some particular other political system could fully solve. The Netherlands, to pick a topical example, has a healthy multiparty democracy with over a dozen parties who win some representation - but as a consequence, the actual process of deciding who’s in charge happens after the election, with party leaders spending months courting each other to benefit each other in exchange for contributing their votes to a legislative majority. (They’re in a bit of a pickle right now, because a historically unpopular party which used to be frozen out by all the “big-somethings” has won the most legislative seats.)
If you subscribe to the information theory of aging (look up david sinclair's book), the recommendation is fasting + exercise. Not necessarily fewer calories, but calorie time restrictions. Ideally "higher quality" food during a specific time period, rather than lots of low quality food spread out during the day.
Interesting! My baseline expectation would be that this wouldn't work at all, debugging C++ usually tells me variables have been removed by the optimiser. Perhaps this requires `-O0 -g` or similar to work effectively, which games devs are usually not open to.

Optimising IR without dropping debug info is difficult. I don't believe it to be intractable, some of the Sony developers are active in improving this for LLVM. Debug info is roughly a bunch of side tables of data from which one can recompute values which were in the original program and are not in the executing one. I would speculate that a compilation mode which treated any degradation of that as a miscompile could be done with minor to no runtime cost, at serious engineering cost.

Perhaps easier would be to restructure the program so that specific variables are always available to the debugger. Deliberately hoist them to escaped global variables, roughly.

The other interesting line of attack here is a JIT. The students probably don't change all the parameters simultaneously. Call graph walk + incremental compilation of parts affected by a given variable is probably tractable. A sibling mentioned hot code replacement, that's a similar sort of hack (you block function inlining, pad functions with some nops, then overwrite in place if the new definition fits in the space).

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.
I have trust in them that they will at least hand over the data for someone else to carry on if they have to turn off lights.
Controverse opinion: Why do I need https when looking for the weather forcast. Https is blindly thrown on everything. If the data is public and no login or personal/sensitive data is involved why do I need https?
> Since working the (apparently A) pathfinding algorithm...*

Beautiful.
It's specifically asking to access all the Google sites with a different tld, a far better approach than asking to access every website with a single permission
> anything non gmo

A good rule of thumb is to ignore health or nutrition advice that goes off on GMOs.

> fewer calories says nothing

There is a lot of research that suggests otherwise [1]. Metabolism is messy. Less of it means less cellular damage.

[1] TFA
I would suggest something like https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-... instead of that book.

I appreciate that some may find the book useful, but I personally don't agree with the presentation. There are too many conceptual errors in the book that you need to unlearn to make progress. For example, the book describes R^2 as a "pair" of real numbers. This is very much untrue and that kind of thinking will lead you even further astray.

I say this as someone with a math/cs degree and PhD having taught these topics to hundreds of students.
If you want to use Java/Spring Boot, I would start with Bootify.io - it'll save quite some time while adding only code that you require for your project.
What makes it stand out compared to OP post?
Skimming over the README page, it reminds me of PHP from back in the day.
That answer isn't very compelling as it is one of the most well known equations in ML. There are some very minor errors but nothing that changes the overall meaning. But you even seem to agree with me in your followup: don't rely on it, but use it. I'm only slightly stronger than you.

And stop all this 3.5 vs 4 nonesense. We all know 4 is much better. But there's plenty of literature that shows its limits, especially around memorization. You also don't understand stochastic parrots, but in fairness, seems like most people don't. LLMs start from compression algorithms and they are that at their core. But this doesn't mean it is a copy machine despite the NYT article but it also doesn't mean it is a thinking machine like the baby AGI people. Truth is in between but we can't have a real conversation because hype primed us to just bundle people into two camps and make us all true believers. Just please stop gaslighting people when they say they have run into issues. The machine is sensitive to prompts, so that can be a key difference or sometimes they might just see mistakes you don't. It's not an oracle so don't treat it like one. And don't confuse this criticism as saying LLMs suck, because I use them almost every day and love them. I just don't get why we can't be realistic about their limits and can only believe they are a golden goose or pile of shit. It's, again, neither.
Yes, author doesn't seem to know what tragedy of the commons is either.
I have built a few graph views and worked on a tool used to specify graph views for existing schemas. My thoughts.

Hierarchical views aren’t easy because they are common, they are easy because it matches how humans think on a basic level. We take a concept, draw a line down the middle, and get two refined concepts. That cleaving is a natural process that produces hierarchical trees. If you can display your data in a tree, you have the optimal view most of the time.

The trick isn’t finding a better graph. The trick is making your data look like a tree.

Don’t confuse your schema and your view. Your schema will almost always be a cyclic graph. But if you define an arbitrary root node and choose a subset of relationships, you can easily create a hierarchy view of a subset of the graph.

All generic nontree views suck beyond a certain complexity. Unless you have a specific kind of cyclic data and specific rendering, it will look bad. The issue is that there is one type of shape for acyclic hierarchical data, the tree, but infinite for cyclic data. If you are displaying cyclic data well, the graph has been tuned for the use case. Drawing cyclic graphs is an NP hard problem, and you need to choose heuristics to layout the nodes.

The best graphs views are a lot more than lines and boxes. They facilitate specific jobs, and surface key information and actions. When nodes have heterogeneous types they may need their own renderings beyond simple styling. Just drawing words with connecting lines provides shocking little value, especially for those who aren’t spatial thinkers.

To add to that, some people really like graphs and some don’t. No graph will be good enough to get a graph hater to like it. So any time you display a graph you need an alternate view, like a list. And that brings us back to hierarchical trees.
You only need to convince the panic monster. The monkey will be to afraid to do anything.
Yeah, I worry about that too. I have SO much of my stuff dependent on my GitHub account now.

I'm slightly reassured by how useful their APIs are. I have automated exports of a lot of my GitHub issues, though I really should shore those up and make sure I'm capturing everything.

That's one of the reasons I built https://github.com/dogsheep/github-to-sqlite
Ask HN: How can I keep my web applications secure? can this list help me?
i'm developing some things on the internet and i'd like to know how i can keep my applications safe. i found this list here https://chat-to.dev/post?id=28 is that enough or do i still have to study something else?
I mean, maybe, but it seems like software isn't really getting significantly slower anymore. They've actually started optimizing their 7000 layer mega stacks, enough for Moore's law to finally catch up, and things seem pretty OK , aside from video games.

Games need insane amounts of CPU despite not producing any more happiness than 90s games. The graphics and content really has expanded though, so it's not like it's all for nothing, it's just that the amount of enjoyment doesn't seem to scale linearly with graphics quality.

Still lots of great stuff that does run on an i5 though!
Stardock Fences is wonderful for de-cluttering Windows desktops
> How do you define who is a Nazi?

The article answers this efficiently:

“What does ‘Nazi’ mean, or signify? Many things, but among them is ‘Kill all Jews.’ This is not an opinion. It’s a call for actions, such as blowing up a synagogue with people inside or murdering 6 million people who are Jews.”

Put another way, I don’t see Atwood calling for banning Nazis per se. She’s calling for doing something about people calling for the extermination of Jews. That is precise and narrow.
I know, I was just asking.
Probably your browser trying HTTPS-first