skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If I follow correctly yes this is an obvious vulnerability. Someone at Google made the wrong decision to not fix this years ago and keeps doubling down on that decision.

If someone does a blog post like “Looking at the first page of 1 billion private Google Docs” they’ll fix it.
Quantum mechanics does not mean everything is quantized. It got its name because the first predictions of quantum mechanics were quantized energy levels in some example systems, but that does not even mean that all energies are quantized in quantum mechanics. There are many systems you can study where energies are continuous, and many examples where other quantities are continuous in quantum mechanics.
How Journalists Can Win People Back
What a complicated way of saying 'yes' ;)
compare recursive CTEs

(I've written a regex implementation using recursive SQL CTEs, and its performance, while normally glacial, did beat standard library implementations on cases chosen to drive the latter exponential)
> Actually it has landed on one lateral side, not upside down.

The description "lateral side" only makes sense if the engines are the "bottom" of the craft. Then it did in fact land upside down. Otherwise the engine side would count as a "lateral side".
I work in a university hospital as a neuroradiologist. I've used Anki extensively during my studies and my specialist training. Now I use it to memorize thousands of image diagnosis patterns and differential diagnosis. 'You can't diagnose (or see) what you don't know', which means using an extensive note system is insufficient. I recommend Anki to all the radiologists (and doctors in general) training in our institute.
>You can make the electric field disappear by choosing the right gauge. Same goes for the magnetic field (can't make both disappear together though).

What? No you can't. The fields are invariant under gauge transformations.
> You control your borders. You can say that drugs don't enter your country.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that we have right border control, we basically have no border control. Sometimes we have temporary border controls, but typically your only checked if you’re “suspicious” (which means non-Scandinavian looking, in a weird car or transporting goods”, or very unlucky. It’s been like this since the EU opened its internal borders. I’m usually not even checked in border control when I fly within Europe.

As far as keeping illegal drugs out, well, I imagine we’re like every country considering we can’t even keep drugs out of our prisons.
This is true. And what it tells you, is that they are unapologetic about the lies. They are acting in bad faith.

When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or he will cease being honest.
Allegations were made against 12 individuals, that is 0.04% of the UNRWAs workforce: "UNRWA has over 30,000 employees, most of them Palestine refugees [...]".

Leaving out the reference scale for a number is bad reporting at least.
Exactly, It's like the people who created false Wikipedia pages (complete with seemingly valid references). Maybe the first time someone did that there was a point -- showing how such an article could get past the mods as a wake up call to improve scrutiny. But certainly the thrill of "getting away with it" is probably the real motivation.
Unfortunately, globally because LightBurn, the software that I use doesn't allow to compensate for this. But I could run my own G-Codes or maybe patch GRBL to demonstrate the effect.
Just copy paste the db/table schema in a comment at start of your file. Nothing else needed.
String Prism
Life Extension
OMG a VC in Venice. Do you have an actual office there? I'm jealous.

Venice was the original Silicon Valley. Aldus Manutius's print shop is an example of Venetian high tech. A good proportion of Europe's books were printed in Venice in the early 1500s.
Yes, it would still have limits. There are several trading / arbitrage companies that are bringing roughly the same money over the years - for the past 20 years (I used to work for one).

That being said, RenTech is indeed very interesting. For all we know, it could be a money laundering operation or something similar to Madoff's structure. Or they are just very very good, or lucky. Time will tell !
The fart noise is played through the regular audio speakers inside the car, not outside it.
Teletext/Ceefax has been dead since the analog switch-off in 2012. Red Button uses MHEG-5.
Wow.

A directional cable for a bidirectional protocol.
I disagree with this strongly. Isolated individual facts don’t give you an overview or macro-structure to place the facts within. It’s very inefficient. Can only speak for medicine but using another persons deck is ‘quicker’ but performance is so much worse. Even in just learning how to summarise the info for yourself you gain a lot.
You're correct that there were no survivors of crashes that killed everbody.

Of all the aircraft crashes that were counted as crashes by the NTB, many survived.
I was also fascinated by the idea and thought to myself to build something similar.

I already got LEDs, except the wire and tubes. My LEDs are already in tubes (one can choose on Aliexpress).

I would take an esp32 and run WLED on it. LedFX also works with it, to illuminate according to sound. Not that fancy like addressing each pixel with your own rules, but nice enough to watch it for a while.

Without the pi but with the esp32 it’s about 70€ for the parts.
With the articles left up but with a disclaimer, it will be interesting to see if the “facts” and “quotes” work their way into LLMs, losing the disclaimer
I think you may be missing the point. Metafonts have absolutely nothing to do with "variable fonts". It's a completely different branch of font technology. You cannot produce a variable font as OP intends using metafont.
As I recall, Armstrong chose the landing site personally, using the awesome power of looking out of the window and judging a good descent speed for touchdown. He avoided big rocks and craters.
kinda agree, it seems to be about the self-sabotage, the survivor bias I see in those who are successful, is that they have overcome whatever blocks everyone else. virtually everyone is getting in their own way, and somehow, for a brief period of time at least, those who get out of their own way become disproportionately more effective at whatever they're doing. most of the points in the article read to me as being the symptoms of self sabotage and blocking oneself.

if someone can set aside their ego, it works. keeping humility seems to be key to being open to creating feedback loops that drive learning. it feels to me like everyone has the potential, but so very few are able to truly get out of their own way
> most people don't create much in the way of resources

Then nobody would pay them for their labor.
That comment is the textual equivalent of the video.

I've never seen so distant as an adult from a company I used to feel close as a kid.
Thanks a lot. Will try this process out.
New user to rclone and I am wondering if the setup I want can be done through rclone.

I want to have a local directory in my computer that bi-directionally syncs to both Google Drive and DropBox as well as to my Synology NAS. There will be two Google Drive accounts (one for me and one for my wife) and one Dropbox account. I also have two Linux workstations running Ubuntu 22.04 and two Macbooks where I want the local directory to exist.

Basically anytime we put anything in either the cloud drives or the NAS or the local directories in the respective computers, it should get synced to all the other destinations.

There could be other stuff in the cloud drives or the NAS that I would just have the tool ignore. The sync should just be for that one specific folder. I do not want to deal with separate local folders for each cloud storage solutions.

Is this feasible? I am okay to run cron tasks in any of the computers; preferably the Linux ones.
I mean, They're an organisation creating AI models, releasing an AI model. Them using AI images isn't hugely shocking to anyone with the capacity to reason. The picture looks cool at first glance, and that is really all that matters. It's just a cool bit of eye-candy leading into the article.
According to another article on the authors site, linked from this one, most of these microcontrollers are “write once”: https://cpldcpu.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/the-terrible-3-cent...
>> I am generally of the opinion that this general statement holds true:

"Make a high quality work, make people who are interested aware of its existence somewhere during the last 10% of the work, and actually finish and deliver it... and it will succeed".

The phrase "high quality work" is doing some heavy lifting there. All too often programmers read "code" instead of work, since that's thr important part right?

But code is the least valuable least interesting, part of the work. In reality the work includes market analysis, solving an actual problem, funding, marketing, documenting training, sales, support, and perhaps some luck.

Sure, do all that well and you'd likely be a success. But if you think it means "just code better", well github is full of good code that was ignored.

This is not about "build a better mousetrap", its about having a mouse problem, and delivering that mouse trap to consumers who pay you money.
yeah, storing some solid stuff underground for 300 yrs in a geologically stable region is soooo hard)
I don't get why performance degradations are accepted though. I do most of my computing on old hardware and these are features I would turn off if I could and perhaps are not even supported by my gpus.
Android's own Gmail app is a prime example of shitty use of checkboxes in Material Design (or Material You or Material 3 or whatever the hell it's called now):

There's a list of emails with a checkbox for each email on the left.

If you want to quickly select a bunch of emails---for instance, to label or sort them---you quickly press all the checkboxes.

If you just barely miss a checkbox, you will open the email because you press the larger selectable region (which is, btw, invisible until selected---a nod toward your "prior use" statement) for one email where a checkbox happens to be fully enclosed.

Now, if you are trying to label or sort some messages that have been opened and also some that are unread, you now have one extra task of going back after labeling/sorting and marking the one that you accidentally opened as unread---if you actually noticed in the first place whether it was already opened before you opened it!

On my phone, Gmail checkboxes are about 3 by 3 millimeters. If I dip my finger in coffee and lightly tap the paper on my desk, it creates a circle about 5 to 6 mm in diameter. I've opened countless emails just trying to do routine sorting and labeling via checkbox. I know there are larger fingertips, smaller screens, and people with less stable coordination than mine.

Google's nested, tiny checkboxes are a waste of time and a needless security flaw, as emails often contain info you'd like protected, and cameras are commonplace and usually legal, so it doesn't matter if you are quick to close the message you suddenly opened outside of your home.

The alternative? Hold each message until the checkbox populates, which is noticeably slower but lowers the likelihood you accidentally open a message.

I don't understand why the Gmail "open this message" region isn't a full 5+ mm right of the checkboxes (except maybe at smartwatch resolutions). They shouldn't be enclosed or nested AT ALL! Nobody reasonable is opening messages by clicking the little blank space to the left or top of the checkboxes. (...at least they weren't until they saw my statement and decided to do it from now on out of spite or curiosity.)

I also don't know why Android Studio shouldn't/doesn't harass developers with "Attention! You are committing BAD DESIGN!" alert messages when they try to put small selectable elements on top of other selectable elements that perform an unrelated task.
I think that the blog post is missing a key aspect of success: its subjective, and not bound by absolute rules.

This automatically rejects 4 out of the 6 "Truths" listed in the blog post.

Finishing something is not the definition of success, specially because "finishing" can mean anything to anyone and arguably there is no such thing as "finished".

"Quality" is also very subjective and can mean anything to anyone, and it's definitely not a key part of success. We have companies which became successful in spite of being based on MVPs hastily put together to rush to market, and rewriting a mess of a MVP is not what makes the company or the development effort a success.

The "Marketing" bit sounds like a rejection of all other points in the blog post, and it's also tied to the subjective definition of "success".

The blurb on the Pareto principle is clearly not involved in any metric of success. This is only the author expressing his personal concerns on how they find it hard to deliver after over-promising and facing the likelihood of underdelivering on that promise.

Overall I don't think there is anything of substance on this blog post. It sounds like the author has trouble setting his personal and professional goals and struggles to meet them at a standard that he feels he is bounded to deliver. Even though that might match the blogger's personal definition of a rewarding outcome, I feel that even from their personal standpoint the definition of success actually depends exclusively on what they commit to deliver. Someone in their shoes might actually do better if they don't promise to deliver the blogger's definition "quality" and proceed to actually finish what they promise because it's achievable and realistic and they don't have to turn themselves into a martyr to reach an arbitrary goal.
Ressources are not all, tho. Maintenance and care is very important to society and including social maintenance and care. It’s mostly invisible and “cost”, not “surplus” but society couldn’t work without it. One part is the invisible work (mostly done by women) to care for others unpaid, but there’s also the cleaning, fixing, etc.
I was surprised a Prius does that well beyond the range of its battery. I took a number from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles after a quick search, though it’s about 20% worse than my aging Hyundai.
Thanks for that, I really appreciated this breakdown of the accident at Three Mile Island and the concept of 'the second story' with regards systems thinking; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xQeXOz0Ncs
I'd think so. They might have had reports "but I use the iOS feature for new password and it doesn't work" and instead of fixing they added a disclaimer that those generators aren't allowed.

1password had an initative where website owners can define the rules and their password manager program would generate it accordingly. I can't find it right now. It didn't gain traction.
That's some amazing work.
Ask HN: Do you think asking you to work 8 hours remotly is fair?
It may seem like a weird question for some people, but I almost never worked full 8 hours in office. You go to eat, have a coffee, someone tell you about an issue and you both scream for sometime over it, you know.

How do you feel about the pressure to fill 8 hours in your timesheet every day for coding or calls?
Let's rephrase the options from the author's point of view:

1. accept the problem

2. become part of the problem

3. complain - but please don't

I can't help thinking there must at least be some fourth way . . .
I'd say in a given week, I probably only do about 15 mins of real,actual work.

https://youtu.be/zBfTrjPSShs?si=GBocyVAApYKMIl9r&t=58
Even with a disclaimer, they've already worked their way into factoids touted by human beings and will continue to be. It's an inevitability for LLMs too if it hasn't already happened.
During landing, before contact, the engines were the bottom of the craft.

However the side with engines was not intended to be the bottom of the craft after landing.

Another side has legs and it was intended to become the bottom side after landing, by a quarter turn rotation from the flight orientation.

That went wrong by making an extra quarter turn rotation.

I have used "lateral side" as corresponding to the intended orientation after landing, not corresponding to the orientation during flight.

The engine side was intended to be a lateral side after landing, but instead of that it has become the upper side.

What counts is that the lander has made only a quarter turn of additional rotation compared to the original plan, not an additional half turn, as implied by "landing upside down".
Because most of the time it's something small and "dumb" that cause the issue, but with no human there it's not possible to fix it instantly.

The difficulty is in planning for every contingency possible in advance, which you can't, and then hope that whichever one your mission encounters is in the list you planned for, essentially.
The elephant in the room which this article is resoundingly in denial about (freely admitted in the site subtitle) is luck.

You can finish something of high quality and market it, and still fail, while something shoddy or incomplete goes viral and becomes a huge success.
Important facts well presented.

But actually we (still) can run programs on Windows without signing, or did I miss something?

I was looking for a recent programmer productivity study confirming the claims of the talk, that moving to higher abstraction levels reduces (instead of increases) programmer productivity, but I didn't find one. Maybe someone has a hint.

But I found e.g. this one (https://www.software.com/reports/future-of-work) claiming that when people work at home they require less time to do the same programming work than in the office, which indicates that not the technology, but the work culture is the issue.

Actually even Ken's statement supports this; his productivity skyrocketed when his family went to vacation, why he was able to write Unix in these three weeks.
It might do the opposite. Imagine if the company was held responsible for the quality of the software regardless of how it was made. I suspect it would be much easier to meet any quality standards if software was written in-house.
The message they responded to was not, it was:

"I've had several instances of a new server being up on a new IP address for over a week, with only a few random probing hits in access logs, but then, maybe an hour after I got a certificate from Let's Encrypt, it suddenly started getting hundreds of hits"
Culture is invisible to those who are in it, and I expect this point is also largely invisible to mostly everyone in the article's audience: The author never defines success, just takes it as a given that everyone agrees on what success is, and he seems to mean "become rich".

There are many other kinds of success: Becoming famous, making people laugh, living a contented life, having a great family, having lots of good friends, etc.

Normally, this wouldn't bother me so much, but it irks me that the author refers to the people who have perhaps chosen a different definition of success than the standard capitalist "wealth at all cost" as "leeches".

I guess my definition for someone who pursues wealth at all cost, without regard for anything else, wouldn't be much more charitable than that.
Keyword Filter List -> https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Keyword Filter Alert -> https://alerthn.com/

AI Tagged List -> https://histre.com/hn/?tags=+lisp

AI Tagged RSS -> https://www.kadoa.com/hacksnack
Not even close to similar.

Finland did not demilitarize, and Austria was never part of Russia's historical borders.
Whenever this happens to someone it's always a horrible feeling where one feels very guilty and ashamed no matter what people say to you and unfortunately mistakes like these are almost the bread and butter of any extremely experienced grey beard so it's kind of normal that something like this happens to someone at some point sooner or later. The only people who never make costly mistakes are those who were never trusted with responsibility in the first place.

So having said that I would like to emphasise that the cost which often gets quoted with those mistakes is not a real cost, it's an unrealised opportunity cost and sure it hurts, but you know what, the same company culture that allows such mistakes to happen and miss out on opportunity costs is the same culture which also allows engineers to quickly roll out important features and updates and therefore create more opportunity in the first place, and much faster as a whole, so in theory the cost doesn't come without the opportunity and it all evens itself out. Don't feel too bad about it.
Thank you for the warning (I run Ubuntu Studio on pretty much all my machines).
> Babies and old people are technically leeches

They are leeching, but I'd say "a leech" is someone who's lifetime average contribution is negative.

> assume a dollar

Hmm, at risking falling into a "glassmakers fallacy" type complexity, I feel money is transactional, and what it represents wrt "value" is complicated and cannot easily be divorced from the transactional nature (though it is handy shorthand for value in limited ways). From the perspective of an individual, a dollar earned via say, labour exchange is a dollar "created", but in general wealth was not really created, just transferred. I don't think individuals need to be on the hook for true wealth creation (humanity gets it for free, probably from the sun), but rather fair distribution - the things money buy are resources, much like one's personal time, and resources should in general be balanced, but not in a strict communist style, rather more than equal opportunity to acquire resources, with a market-led definition of value.
Didn’t work for me as advertised:

$ ssh -p 2062 http://skypad.matthewphillips.info
ssh: Could not resolve hostname http://skypad.matthewphillips.info: Name or service not known

This did though:

$ ssh -p 2062 skypad.matthewphillips.info
You’re right, it’s more nuanced than that and cannot be reduced just to rationality. I’d be the first to agree that neither rationality nor emotion is alone enough. Defeat in WWI has contributed to emotional context a lot.

However, to say it was all just emotion and post-rationalization is to oversimplify even more. The two were intermingled even since 19th century (e.g., Lamarck).
> The originally published equations were "20 or so" because one equation was written for each scalar component.

> Rewriting the equations in vector form reduces the number to the modern number.

And if you use the differential form or 4d tensor notation they get reduced to 1 equation. Of course, for a lot of practical problems this is not very useful and it's better to work with the 3d vector form.

> The variant with 4 equations is the simplified variant for vacuum, which is mostly useless, except for the purpose of studying the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum.

> Instead of learning a large number of simplified variants of the Maxwell equations with limited applicability, it would have been much better if a manual would present since the beginning the only complete variant that is always true, which must be in integral form, as initially published by Maxwell.

Here I have to strongly disagree. The version of Maxwell's equations that is fundamental and exactly correct [1] is the vacuum version. The ones with magnetization and displacement vectors are only approximations where you assume continuous materials that respond to fields in simple way. In truth, materials are made of atoms and are mostly vacuum: there is no actual displacement vector if you look close enough.

Also the vacuum Maxwell equations are useful in many scenarios. For instance, that's how you compute the energy levels of Hydrogen atom or how you derive QED. Also, you have to start from them to derive the macroscopic versions with magnetization and displacement that you seem to like.

[1] Well, up to non-linear quantum mechanic effects.