skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can someone explain why the focus is on FAA, while there's also EASA and others? Do they also allow Boeing to self-inspect and self-evaluate themselves like FAA does?

Can FAA and Boeing be really the only ones to blame here? If Boeing was in bed with FAA that much and they were dropping the ball on safety, shouldn't EASA's own process take note of that and extra-scrutinize Boeing planes during certification for European sky compliance? Especially that it would play in Airbus' advantage, and I am sure some allegiance between the two is definitely in place to some extent at least.

How did, for example, EASA allow the MCAS on 737 Max? I mean we know Boeing abused the FAA trust in their process, but why did EASA not raise concern over the same?

Something is missing here and I don't appreciate that somehow everyone seems to forget that those planes are absolutely not certified by the FAA for use by the rest of the world. At the very least, EASA is as shitty at certifying those planes as FAA is. Or, actually, is even worse, considering that in theory the reason FAA allowed it is because Boeing took advantage of them, meanwhile EASA should have done the full re-certification?
Simulation hypothesis is true!!!
Page Not Found.

Anyone have a screencap?
Interesting, I never had a problem (RTX 4080 currently)

https://i.imgur.com/mMyQdH0.png

What GPU and driver you are using?
I was recently on a flight where the "wifi is down" and wanted to get some coding done. I already had some LLM models downloaded, so I quickly pulled down the fauxpilot repo and made sure I had everything needed for when we were in the air.

My expectations were really low, but I was surprised at how productive I was with just DevDocs and an LLM. I might have even been more productive than normal because there wasn't any internet distractions.
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240112170316/https://www.amazo...

2 hours later, the page has been taken down.
Notice the lack of "GPL" in that list, and I'm partially in agreement.

The GPL is amazing and wonderful, but the various "attachments" of the GPL are more weaponized (and to the detriment of users!) than the GPL ever was.

I'm glad the kernel stuck with GPLv2, and I wish other things had, too. A GPLv3 Linux Kernel would likely have helped a BSD tremendously, though but I think having everyone work on the same kernel without reservations has been an unmitigated good.
Should have never been given.
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS to Get 12 Years of Updates
I enjoy its UI personally. It’s sad to say it, but non standard on a mac means it’s actually kind of usable for a ‘pro’ app.
Can you be more specific about what is terrible about Amazon ? Cause you just said they have an amazing logistics network + everything for sale
> If I compile greet.c and link it with Y the resulting a.out is a derivative work of Y.

Link it how, though? If you statically link it with Y, then I can see the argument that a.out is a derived work, because it literally contains all of Y in it.

But if you dynamically link it, a.out contains no more of Y than greet.c does. Are you asserting that a.out is still a derived work of Y in this case as well?
Housecats are not a symbiotic relationship. Seriously?
From our tax advisor:

> The article from the Khanna Law website is incorrect. There is no guidance or authority that requires the spouse of the service provider to sign the 83(b) election. The article indicates that if a service provider lives in a community property state like California, the service provider's spouse must file the 83(b) election form, presumably because the spouse acquires an interest in the stock. But there is no guidance to that effect. Rather, Treasury Regulation Sections 1.83-2(a) and 1.83-2(e) are quite clear that only the service provider is required to sign the election form without regard to who will have an interest in the stock subject to the election.

Take that for what you will. IANA/tax advisor etc.

EDIT: There's also a great explanation of why this seems to be a nonissue by gamblor956 at the bottom of the comments, who is a purported tax lawyer (I'm not sure why their comment is not more upvoted): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38972557
Runs pretty slow and hot on my 15 Pro. Seems like a pretty old model as well.
I think owning stock is a financial endorsement of what the company is actually doing- you own a fraction of the company and saying ‘I just want a return on my money, no matter what the company does’ does not absolve you from actually financially supporting bad actors. If I hoist you in to a building to steal something I am endorsing your behavior. Same thing.
If you go to a real lumber yard - the type of places the pros go - they will look at any blueprint print and prepare you the kit. Prices are better than Home Depot after you account for free delivery and they pick up your returns.

The kit won't include plumbing, HVAC, electric... so it isn't 100% what Sears did in the 1910s, but it is actually pretty close.
I love Mathematica and I use it a lot. It's like what happens if you take Matlab, R, or Python (ie any programming language primarily used for math), and turn it into a real functional programming language. It's not irreplaceable at all, but it's a lot nicer than the alternatives.

It's generally pretty nice for any sort of mathematical programming, from designing control systems to statistics to simple graphing. It's also a pretty good language for basic scripting and data manipulation. Most of the mathematical work on my blog is done in Mathematica.
I don't know if that's at play, but the specific door configuration that Alaska 1282 had is apparently not that common in Europe. I'm sure EASA will take note though.
Al Gore is officially too old to be on Apple's board
Well, looks like this one is old-school, but 7% is the new 10%.

Anyway, most recent layoffs look quite stupid to me (even though I can't make my mind on this one), but if you are doing a layoff, rank and yank is about as good a format as you can get.
Hmmm, what a great idea, where else would we use that
Over many discussions with American friends I have been persuaded that a governmental system that is fundamentally untrusting of the various components is one of the main features of American democracy.
Notable comment in article.
Most people just hear the allegation and know that she is gone, and assume guilt.

How many people read it and see if it was egregious or not?

""They say that Gay, a political scientist, merely summarized the scientific literature in line with the norms of her field, with no bearing on her own scholarship. “The day the plagiarism allegations broke, the response in the hallway was kind of like, ‘Well, I guess we’re all plagiarists,’” says Alvin Tillery, a political scientist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who knew Gay during their time as graduate researchers.""
Nationhood Revisited
Same. Amazon used to be great. But just about everything I receive now is clearly a hastily reboxed return (including shoes and earbuds) or garbage.

I’ve been more and more ordering elsewhere. I order direct from the manufacturer when I can.
The disappeared funds were briefly covered in the programme. Standard accountancy practice when you've got mystery funds is to record them in a 'suspense account' and if it comes to light where the dough came from, you update your records. If no one comes forward after x years you just have to treat it as free money from who-knows-where.
Aside from the matter of whether the article's criticisms of the paper in question are valid[1], I think there's some equivocation going on here between two kinds of thing that can both be called failures of "replicability" or "reproducibility" but that are very different. (1) Sometimes a paper doesn't make it perfectly clear exactly what the authors did and why. (2) Sometimes it's clear enough that you can try to do the same thing, and when you do you get different results.

[1] As others have pointed out, there are rebuttals in the comments from some of the authors of the paper; make of them what you will.

The "reproducibility crisis" / "replication crisis" is about #2: lots of published work, it seems, reports results that other people trying to do the same experiments can't reproduce. This probably means that their results, or at least a lot of their results, are wrong, which is potentially a big deal.

The article's complaint about the paper by van Zwet, Gelman et al isn't that. It's that some details of the statistical analysis aren't reproducible in sense 1: the authors did some pruning of the data but apparently didn't explain exactly what criteria they used for the pruning.

You could argue that actually #1 is worse than #2, because maybe what the authors did is bad but you can't even tell. Or you could argue that it's not as bad as #2, because most of the time (or: in this specific case) what they do is OK. But I don't think it makes any sense to suggest that they're the same thing, that there's some great irony if a paper about #2 has a #1 problem. That's just making a pun on two completely different sorts of reproducibility.

(Note 1: The article makes another complaint too, which if valid might be a big deal, but it doesn't have anything much to do with reproducibility in either sense.)

(Note 2: One of the authors of the paper does explain, in comments on the OP, exactly how they did the pruning. I have not checked what the original paper says about that; it doesn't seem to be available freely online.)

(Note 3: Even if the Zwet/Gelman/... paper were absolute trash, I don't really see how that would make the reproducibility crisis irreproducible. This is one paper published in 2023; the reproducibility crisis has been going on for years and involves many many unsuccessful attempts at replication.)
You also don't really have a choice but to play ball with the national security establishment.
Ironically enough, VR training for surgeons is actually booming in the medical space.
We already had a revolution of automating coders, when Fortran first appeared. And a revolution of automating accountants, when a spreadsheet first appeared.

If anything, these revolutions increased the demand for programmers and specialists in finance. A person wielding a right automation tool is producing much more revenue, while demanding nearly the same salary; it makes sense to hire more of such people, as long as there is a market for the product or service your company provides.

The layoffs are a signal of this not happening. The AI is not helping enough to increase production and revenue per worker. Companies are out of new and efficacious business ideas. The companies don't know where to apply the intellectual / productive capability they have, so they are cutting it down, to save on its (substantial) upkeep.
They're a maximum 85% efficiency, with a range of 40-60%, and then you're supplying electricity to a 90% efficiency electric motor. So, overall, you have 90% of 85% of 50% of the generated electricity going into moving your car, so at best around 38.5%.

In contrast, an electric car uses electricity to charge a 99% efficient battery, and discharge to the 90% engine. So, 89% efficiency - much, much better.
> the government is now paying for the retirement of the boomers.

Are there any facts to back up this extraordinary claim? It might help if you explain your definition of "paying for retirement".
Been relying on this site for years
Benihana of Tokyo
Except when it doesn't:

https://www.amazon.com/FOPEAS-Language-Context-referring-Inf...

The seller account's entire product list is a stream of scraped images with AI-nglish descriptions slapped on by autopilot. If you can cast thousands of lines for free and you know the ranger isn't looking, you don't need good bait to catch fish.
Even with the two crashes air travel was still the safest form of travel those years (as it is every year, it has quite the buffer actually).

This kind of fear mongering doesn't help anything. If airplanes were invented today people like you would have had them outlawed after the first accident.
It was just deleted. Someone used ChatGPT to generate a product name and instead got an "I can't do that" response
I don't think you need radicle TBH, there's nothing in this use case that requires a custom blockchain or even a token (if you're willing to accept UUIDs instead of human-friendly repo names). A simple smart contract running on EVM / Solidity with no financial incentives (except the gas fees of the underlying chain of course) would do nicely. That means you get nothing out of it as a developer, though, and there are very few people willing to do crypto stuff and not interested in $$$.

You still have the problem of incentivizing hackers. In the Github world, hacking the author of a major project is bad but not disastrous, somebody is probably going to notice, ping the Github security team, and the changes will get reversed in a matter of hours. Hacking a major project on radicle or similar means that the project is now out of its authors hands, potentially forever, and there's nothing you can do, short of informing every single consumer and asking them to change the project ID they depend on. You can give a trusted team a way to override ownership in such cases, but then these people are also subject to being hacked or compelled by a court. Requiring multiple signatures and best practices around hardware wallets is probably the best you can do realistically, and that dramatically increases complexity and expense on the maintainers' side compared to traditional Git workflows.
This looks quite nice and it might compose well with a cache library like the one posted on HN recently (XetCache, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38696631).
But.. that's how a lot of products have always worked.

I think the difference is that before a lot of white-label product factories would cut territory-based deals with resellers, so in (for example) the US, that widget is called "Acme Widget" but in France that exact same widget is called "Le Widget Magnifique".

Around the world there might be 100+ companies selling that same product but typically not competing with each other because they would each have exclusive markets.

But now with these global marketplaces, that same approach feels weird exactly because you can suddenly see the same exact products being sold under different names, and it's a lot easier for any random business to white-label a product and reach a global audience.
Transmission would be much less of an issue if source and demand were closer together.
When programming on the go, I’ve found this to be useful. Especially if the WiFi is flaky.

I also enjoy having documentation consolidated. If man, mdn, and devdocs were combined into a single standard interface it would be a great boost to my productivity.
Representing Data Collections in an SSA Form [pdf]
<2 cents>

I see some package management stuff on the roadmap.

Maybe you could take a look at the cargo cli, like pixi did [0]. IMO it's a nice user experience.

[0] https://prefix.dev/

</2 cents>
> It was about a son reconnecting with his father...and his brother.

Yes, of course. But it (IMHO) had an opposite effect, where instead of strengthening the emotional impact of this is his dad, the character was reduced to comedy and pantomime (walking the wrong way, etc). Compare with the masterful non-verbal performance of Wall-E and Eve, for example. I mean, there's no way around the fact that the dad only being re-embodied from the waist down, was meant to be funny and silly. Instead of one last adventure between father and son, and showing us the strong bond that the child wanted to experience one last time, they showed us a running gag of wrangling a pair of pants.
That makes it hard to filter though, doesn't it? I usually only bother looking at products with a 4 star and up rating.
You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
If you "admit" you don't know then you by definition aren't convinced by the argument and thus not falling into the trap. But it doesn't help you make decisions any easier for stuff that is relevant to you and therefore requires you to make a decision. In that case you are going to have take a leap of faith so to speak. And choosing the way you leap might be better informed by consensus by experts in the field rather than speculative investigations on the fringe.

You might still be wrong but your chances are probably improved in the correct direction most of the time.
The product had that text as its title. Another one shows: "khalery [Apologies but I'm Unable to Assist with This Request it goes Against OpenAI use Policy and Encourages unethical Behavior-Black"
AWS Step Functions is hardly a hidden tarpit.

Step Functions are AWS' answer to the question "how can we easily execute lambdas from AWS triggers as part of a Saga?"

Sagas are hard, and developers already use AWS stuff like S3 and SNS to run lambdas as part of transactions. Providing a high-level Saga service sounds like a solution to everyone's problem, but getting it right seems to be a problem too hard for AWS.

But you do not need a Step Functions to run Lambdas, specially if you don't have to run them as part of distributed transactions.
> it's not clear to me that they're schoolboy errors (i.e. errors a schoolboy wouldn't have made)

If this is the case, IMO it's more a reflection of the awfulness of the schooling in our time than anything else. No schoolboy in the US of a century ago would have made such egregious historical errors, because they would have been taught some actual history instead of what students in the US today get taught.
Yes, but that would be tempting the gods of irony with the possibility of a nuclear CATastrophe.
There is already open source dash (https://zealdocs.or) although they don't provide Mac build because of an agreement to use some of dash's lists.

But you can build it on mac (https://github.com/zealdocs/zeal/wiki/Build-Instructions-for...)
Tell that to Edward Snowden, Lindsay Mills, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning... so many. Some complicated figures in their own right, all of whom took principled stands against such apparatus, most of whom paid dearly for doing so, many of which continue to pay dearly for doing so.

It's possible. It just won't make you rich, which is, I suspect, the real problem.
> The presenter then claims, "The volume is the same because you can't change the volume of the voice in your head, only the tone and pitch."

Very interesting, and not at all true for me. I can imagine shouting "I like crickets" with a near ear-splitting level of volume, tantamount to the force of a storm with a shockwave. Imagine an anime scene where a character is radiating power, arms raised into the air, like Saurman calling a storm down upon a mountain in LOTR. When I imagine this substantial level of volume, my muscles want to start to tense, like my body wants to brace itself for an impact.

I can also imagine whispering the same thing. It is actually difficult to reduce the volume of the whisper down as low as I'd like it to go (as low as I could hear), but it's substantially lower "volume" than the shout.

I can get the volume even lower if I imagine someone else, or a voice from somewhere else, whispering it.

> I can think in words so that I can prepare to write something (like this) but there is no audio.

I can do all of these. I can think as a sequence of abstract thoughts, with no audio component (this is most natural); I can think as a sequence of words, which are optionally rendered as audio (I would do this if sounding out an unfamiliar word), and I can render audio in the mind as a particular voice (i.e. my voice or someone else's, similar to a deepfake). I could imagine Barack Obama speaking any arbitrary words in his particular style of dictation. "My fellow Americans..."

My most common kinds of "inner voice", though, are not speaking actual words, but ideas. They are often critical, or perhaps playing devil's advocate in some way. In fact, thinking using actual words is uncommon for me, unless I specifically need language in some way, so the "inner voice(s)" appear as a kind of alternative narrative to whatever my primary thought process is.
I was specifically referencing shared-billing scenarios which was just getting under way but has basically been knee-capped by the CPUC.

The idea was that a homeowner's association (for condo owners) or apartment building owner could install solar panels connected to a designated meter. Then they could associate other resident meters to be the recipients of credits generated by the designated meter. The utility would distribute the credits in the configured proportions.

This would allow condo owners to collectively buy solar panels for the whole complex. Or allow an apartment building owner to let renters buy "shares" of the panels to offset their own usage, or offer it for "free" as a feature eg "we have solar panels that lower your electric bill for free, rent here"*.

None of that matters now though, they've made it not economically viable to do.

* All features of an apartment are paid for in rent, absolutely nothing is really free. Anything an apartment offers for free just means "I'm paying for it in my rent as long as I live here".
Really? I was under the impression this was common knowledge. Certainly within my family.
Yes it is. We do it with urban wastewater in thousands of locations around the world. This is not a hard problem, nor is it expensive.
Here's the example payloads for OTLP over JSON and example of how to ingest them: https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto/tree/m...
The Democratic party in the US, at least since Woodrow Wilson, has been on the Left. I don't think that is a matter of any serious dispute.