skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
i guess id say thanks for all your hard work, but i dont use windows.

exactly how is 'sudo for windows' different than the existing model in windows 10 where privilege elevation is a popup window and you click through it? arguably the current model is just sudo with nopasswd.

how do you reconcile the idea that your effort --without principled reform of the windows security model at a fundamental level-- is just cargo-culting a more successful projects security model?

'Start-Process powershell -Verb runAs' is the same or different than this?

Thanks for caring about security and trying to make things better. its hard, thankless and frustrating (and thats just the windows part ;))
I have to agree, I'm tired of getting baited into looking at these projects.
Use the energy. We'll start making more of it and cheaper. Everyone benefits.

Ehh

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...
Due to the extremely competitive nature of Bitcoin mining, the miners must seek out the cheapest power on the market. By definition, cheap power has low demand, so the miners are not crowding out other "higher" uses of the power. In many cases, this power would be otherwise wasted. In some cases, miners are capturing vented or flared waste gasses from other processes (gas wells, landfills).

Many miners have power purchase agreements and curtailment arrangements in place with grid operators that perform two very useful functions:

- Allow grid operators to better plan for demand, since they can anticipate the large load from the miner. Secondary effect: overbuild generation capacity when building new power plants, since there is a ready buyer for the new power.

- Sell energy back to the grid when weather strains capacity. Bitcoin miners can switch off instantly when the grid operator sends a signal, so the grid is more resilient to both predictable (cloudy days) and unpredictable (plant failure) supply changes.

So Bitcoin mining is good for power grids, both from the standpoint of capacity and stability.
Just so we're all on the same page, I am not the person who made the first comment ("Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross..."):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39301776

> Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity.

> You: "What evidence do you have that there is no evidence though?"

If we're being "pedantic", there are ~~two~~ THREE claims that "have" a burden of proof:

1. Original assertion - belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity. [Was this actually the original assertion?]

I don't believe this assertion occurred - rather, I think you may have misinterpreted "are in the same ballpark"?

2. belief that we are in a simulation with 100% certainty is no different than a religious belief in a deity

Ontologically + algorithmically, "is not different" is a bold claim.

As an ~analogy, see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2363143/whats-the-best-s...

3. "You cannot claim no evidence is a meaningful assertion here, its not"

a) One can actually, but not in an epistemically & logically sound manner (and you have a few challenges of your own on that front).

b) "meaningful" is a very tricky word; it is also a subjective word (so, conducting logic upon it is going to produce strange, misleading results like "its not", which is an opinion that has the appearance of being a fact. Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, here we do not disagree (you do believe it to be true, no)?)

>> I'd also like to know why the grandparent post has no burden of proof

> The OP made no claims.

Again, if we are referring to "Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross...", I believe you are incorrect, there are several claims in there ("pedentically", even an expression of one's opinion and predictions are claims).

> An 'opinion' without an evidence is a belief.

While technically true, this seems like one of those "not wrong" truths:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you%27re%20n...

>>> "you're not wrong" = "you're right", however phrasing it as "you're not wrong" usually that there's more to it -- either there's some missing nuance....

In this case, substantial problems derive from the multiple differing meanings of "is a", which is often mixed up with equals at runtime (under certain conditions).

But also, importantly (maybe even more importantly): this cultural norm where on certain topics of conversation, it is acceptable to simply play the ~"it's just an opinion, everyone is always only expressing their opinion..." as a sort of rhetorical get our of jail free card is (imho) not only annoying, but a giant source of unrealized (recursively compounding, etc) harm in the system. I often wonder what would happen is some set of people in this system were to "do otherwise" (in a comprehensive manner), at substantial scale.

tl;dr: probably just an honest mistake, cheers!
Indeed we are a Digital Public Good for humanity and Contributors should be recognized by their dedication and contribution to such public good, as civil servants or equivalent
I had a similar experience back in the early 2000's.

I was working with a senior developer who was having trouble moving something up on the the page when something else disappeared. He was using asp.net server controls, it was all he knew.

I suggested "just wrap the content you need to hide in a div and style it with display: none, your content will automatically float up"

He answered me with a sort of superior sneer: "I'm a .net web developer, I don't know what a div is, and I don't intend to learn it".

To be fair, that was a different time and MS was trying hard to make web development act like VB desktop development, but still...

The moment sticks out to me.
What happened with Ethereum's proof of stake? Have there been successful alternatives that eliminate the need for mining?
You do know that HN people also might be smart and can calculate things like climate change and other aspects into it?

If you don't hate a technology which disrupts an energy market by combining a local people centric market with global interets, ...

I really don't mind people playing around with blockchains, i hate that people who have access to cheap energy sell this advantage to some global weird fuckedup market and disrupting and overloading local power grids, increase demand for coal and other non renweable energy and waste double amount of resources through also requiring AC.

If every bitcoin miner would just run on real 'overpower', would use the process heat to heat houses and stop mining if energy is needed without compensation money, i would not care.

But thats just not the case for bitcoin.

And it doesn't even solve a problem because you never just transfer bitcoins from a to b and b to c without anything offchain and everything offchain can't be protected by the blockchain. So effectivly blockchain is garbage.

And don't tell me about smart contracts, this is not working. No company in the world will leverage the contract amount because 1. you would need the double amount of capital and 2. big rich companies/entities could destroy small entities because they could just frezze assets.
Renowned climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1M in defamation suit
contrarianism is a very powerful and often understated force within human culture
I live in a house house exclusively warmed by electric heating (underfloor downstairs, wall-mounted upstairs). The heating system takes electricity as an input and provides heat as an output with no other direct benefits. As a whole the heating system can be quite power-hungry during cold periods.

A crypto mining rig takes electricity as an input and provides heat as an output with the possible benefit of creating some valuable digital assets. Serious crypto mining setups can be quite power-hungry.

Crypto mining for the sole purpose of making money is often considered an egregious and possibly wasteful use of power resources.

Is crypto mining for the purpose of using the heat to warm my house, with the possible benefit of generating valuable digital assets, similarly egregious, wasteful or inconsiderate in some way?
Has anyone had any luck with a pvc qfh helix antenna like this one?

https://www.instructables.com/NOAA-Satellite-Signals-with-a-...

I already have an rtl-sdr picking up aircraft beacons and have this antenna on my todo list. Are there any benefits to buying a grid antenna vs DIYing my own helix?
> The EIA found that the global share of Bitcoin mining that takes place in the U.S. grew from 3.4% in 2020 to a whopping 37.8% in 2022.

What drove that? Since this is the kind of thing that you could do pretty much anywhere, why should a such a disproportionate amount of it happen in the US?
This is a weird comment in response to a post where they did measure it themselves and spent time discussing the trade offs. If you’re going on some routine rant about kids these days not caring about performance, it seems like an odd place to start.

The AWS comment seems similarly odd given the investments they have made in security by design. This is the kind of work I’d expect them to support since an exploitable bug is a really big deal for them and they have demonstrated a willingness to put engineers on optimizing a safer approach to avoid the 90s dynamic of treating security and performance as opposing concerns.
They do, it’s the ‘English documentation’ link.
Some other great CTAN packages with an "amusements" tag: https://ctan.org/topic/amusements
s390x (IBM Z) is a big endian holdout, with IBM in the wings still quietly paying for s390x ports of various open source software.
Being against miners isn't an anti-technology take. Miners are capitalists. HN is against those interests, in the same sense that it's against a surveillance state, no matter how amazing the underlying technology driving it is.
The "security" of btc cryptocurrency is proportional to how much energy it wastes; that's radically different than the banking system.

The more billions it costs to run bitcoin, the more it costs to 51% attack it. If you can outwaste energy, you can hijack the system.

It would be useful it some state, eg., russia or china, would just cut off networks and forge bitcoin network traffic -- and hence bring the whole thing down. Or, do a 51% attack by controlling 51% of the hashing power.

The whole thing is a joke, one only tolerated by states because it's supports joke levels of economic transactions. Were any % of an economy to run on this, states would just seal the network in their borders and end the whole charade.
This comparison doesn't make that much sense.

Games are a product and bitcoin is a digital "currency" mainly used for financial speculation, fraud, gray and black market goods/services, and money laundering.
Clothes dryers save time, allow people to dry their clothes in their cramped apartments without the humidity going through the roof, calling that a western frivolity is a bit over the top.

Bitcoin however provides what? A tiny fraction of the transactions per second that visa does, without all the consumer protection that credit cards encompass, with orders of magnitude more power consumed. All the while providing 'freedom' to a handful of activists, but most of all money launderers, drug sellers and all sorts of shady businesses.
> Activism is activism regardless of whether it "strengthens individual rights" or not

My comment wasn't very clear, but I was trying to communicate that recognizing that the Constitution is centered around the idea of a limited federal government with explicit powers is not evidence of inappropriate "activism". Instead it is evidence of appropriate checks on federal overreach.

I don't know what to make of your statement "activism is activism". To be a useful term, "activism" needs to mean something other than "doing something" or "doing something that I disagree with".
I see you’re definitely familiar with the space. I think the condition was using ‘or array_contains’ in the join.

This was really the only resource I found acknowledging it. It sounds like it has do with presumption of nulls (e.g. spark can’t assume they won’t be there) but it would be great to be able to say “don’t worry spark I promise there are no nulls/if there are just disregard”)
https://kb.databricks.com/sql/disable-broadcast-when-broadca...

The way we go around this feels so brutish. Literally just did two separate joins and then unioned the results. The recommendation to use ‘not exists’ couldn’t be applied as array_contains must be using ‘in’ under the hood and couldn’t be changed.
Were pro-right-tool-for-the-job. The US Stock market is already a free-money generating machine. We need more money in the US Stock Market, not in B.S. toys for contrarian criminals.
With TCP you have the congestion control algo baked in hardware, tcp segment and checksum offload. You can pass things directly to the NIC for massive latency, bandwidth and offloading processing away from the cpu.

A lot of NICs are essentially just as software modems, with the CPU handling this anyhow. Even server hardware sometimes has these lame NIC chips on them.

Be careful to rid the specs of the hardware you buy, otherwise it will indeed be your CPU doing all that work.
> Since Bitcoin is completely decentralized, there’s no way to change the protocol without everyone just stopping using it, which miners don’t want to do.

That's completely wrong though. The protocol gets changed by a majority of miners accepting new protocols, as has happened many times before.
> IPv6 is a full protocol rev which takes a lot longer to accomplish

And maybe will never happen. There are alternatives for a lot of what you get from IPv6, such as NAT (terrible but works for most people's needs) and SNI routing (I'm more bullish on this).

Are there any examples of protocols that took a similarly long time to achieve adoption but eventually did saturate the market? That would be hopeful.
I have also invested a hugely disproportionate amount of time in writing my Nix config. However, that is only because I found it fun to massively over-engineer everything and wanted to make my work easily usable for others.

That said, I could have gotten away with significantly less and I'm really not sure what you're referring to with having to remake your Flake. I'm not aware that the output schema changed over the last years. Could you provide an example of what caused you to rewrite your configuration?

I'm not doubting your experience, the documentation situation is not great and I could absolutely see someone getting stuck in a situation where they felt they needed to start over. I'd just like to know what the community could do to avoid these pitfalls.
I don't love it at all.

It's over-the-top posturing for posturing's sake.

A way to confirm this is to look for HN comments who posture the same. After the Overton window widening, they forget to hold back, and will openly say what we know: it's an abuse of the system that turns an outmoded address book into a gossip rag, to the surprise of the actual people involved.

Citations:

"First I just cared about which accounts got deactivated. Then I started tracking title changes, last name changes (people getting married), department sizes, company head count over time etc."

"LDAP's full of secrets. And to think that you can get nearly all of it with anonymous access. Team or department mergers before they were announced? Yep, I've caught those. Secret mailing lists for internal projects? Check who's a member and you can ferret out what's going on. Bonus if the list mail address gives some of it away."

"Lots of weird things depend on the LDAP tree being broadly accessible. It's just that it leaks more information than most people think."

"Monitor when and what HR is doing.
Detect when users are logging in and out of LDAP."
No, the current theory is that the 'climate change is accelerating' at a 'rate never seen before.' The evidence of this is usually a graph of temperature to a logarithmic timescale. Of course, the data isn't granular enough on a geological timescale to say that the temperature never changed at the rate it's changing today. Of course, that's if you believe the data they provide for today.
There is a major legitimate scientific controversy that the article doesn't even get into, and it's about this claim:

> "Dr Dutkiewicz said: “At this time, there were no multicellular animals or land plants on Earth. The greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere was almost entirely dictated by CO2 outgassing from volcanoes and by silicate rock weathering processes, which consume CO2.”"

This is really hard to be sure about - and the biosphere at the time was having steady major effects on the atmosphere, in particular atmospheric oxygenation via photosynthesis, which might have drawn down atmospheric methane - possibly the most important greenhouse gas at the time - leading to cooling (this is the biogenic origin theory of Snowball Earth). See:

(2019) "Great Oxidation Event and Snowball Earth"

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019asbi.book..261T/abstra...

The subject is still open, with no highly convincing evidence for one cause or the other.
Nice, they will be released, so the blocks can be bought by AWS, etc extractring rents for a long time ... Why don't we switch to ipv6.
Politely mentioning that you don't want to work on holidays could be a great answer if they ask why you're looking to change companies. You could just say something like: "I'm looking for a job that allows me to spend holidays with my family." (and leave it at that)

It's a totally normal expectation, the explanation doesn't reflect poorly on you or your past employer, and it sounds like it is genuinely important to you.
[dupe]

Lots of discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39310563
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_Files#Kill_switch

Uber implemented a kill switch to prevent government law enforcement from accessing (potentially) incriminating or sensitive information during onsite investigations. When activated, the kill switch would effectively cut off access to Uber's data for the location being raided.

Expecting companies to fully cooperate with state agencies might not always be realistic... I understand why authorities might prefer to directly seize materials or data. It eliminates any potential delay or non-compliance: they basically cut the bullshit.
Rule 3: Don’t store contexts - What about this: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/net/http/client...

req = &Request{
Method: redirectMethod,
Response: resp,
URL: u,
Header: make(Header),
Host: host,
Cancel: ireq.Cancel,
ctx: ireq.ctx,
}

Isn't this considered storing the context?
Yes, it saves server resources at extreme scales. The client-side savings are purely theoretical. If their JS bloatware crap takes 2s to respond to a click, the 3x 30ms network roundtrip to fetch a resource with a new HTTPS connection hardly matters.
Yea, except if the toasters get a million times more efficient people won't in fact run ten toasters per person around the clock to make the rebound effect possible. This is the type of gains LEDs have made.

I've seen left leaning people make claims like LEDs just mean people have their lights on more so the total consumption goes up. But that's absolutely not true, because LEDs are so much more important that if everyone kept all their lights on in their house 24/7 and also bought 5 times more light bulbs they STILL would use less electricity.

That's why the specific example given was such an own goal. If the tech is good enough it can't be overcome by the rebound effect.
Look up US energy mix.
I use Bazzite. It includes nix and fleek, so you can easily install packages from the massive nixos ecosystem.

I then add JetPack's devbox which is another nix porcelain and use it with direnv to install custom packages for each of my projects.

And I have a few distrobox's (toolbox on generic Silverblue) to do things like build Debian packages.
weird how you discount the obvious use case espoused by the bitcoin community: an absolutely scarce digital commodity secured through energy itself
Not to contradict you, but he did also say a few quite annoyingly incorrect things, like claiming it was the fault of Poland that they were invaded by Hitler.

Also the point where Tucker reached the conclusion that "only an idiot would believe that Russia is an expansionist power" sounds a lot like slurping sounds around Putin's private parts to me(Russia has invaded at least 3 neighbouring countries in the last decade)

The Hitler/Poland observation especially makes me think perhaps Putin would like to call it the Second World Special Military Operation, which isn't all that far from calling the Ukraine war by any other name than a war.
Mind that Windows has clipboard (win+v) history and you may've that enabled
Correct. And 99% of climate change denial is politics and not science.
Realhats – Put real hats on symbols instead of ^
Bitcoin doesn't solve any problem: as soon as you do anthing offchain, bitcoin doesn't protect you.

Bitcoin doesn't gurantee that if you give someone money and exchange it for bitcoin that you will get the bitcoin. It will not guarantee that if you want to buy something, that you receive the item in the expected quality, time and condition.

The only use case for bitcoin are ON chain transactions and the only solution to this are smart contracts which also don't solve the problem because its still only for digital things and it requires the same amount of capital which doesn't make sense because rich people could block you from ever accessing your money if they want to destroy you.

Please please please please start reading up on blockchain!1 :(
I think of contexts as being Go's answer to dynamic variables in earlier languages, like Lisp, and less like thread local storage (like Pthreads). Much like how Go works with errors, explicit is favored over implicit -- being able to see the context pass through, and whether a function expects a context, tells you a lot about the function you are about to call.

If a function does not take a context, you know it probably cannot be interrupted, just like when a function does not return an error, you know it should not fail. In my work projects, this is also a cue that the function does not do any logging since we always carry a zerolog.Logger in our contexts enriched with trace information about the request and handler.

This also makes life easier for me as a reviewer -- I can see the context passing, I can spot when there is a bad pattern, like retaining a context, or failing to handle an error. It does not require me to maintain a detailed mental map of which functions employ dynamic variables or can throw exceptions.
> just because some action isn't on the top 2, it isn't reason to stop doing it.

This this isn't wrong, be careful. Many of those proposing action outside of the top two are really trying to distract you from fixing the real problem. Many things outside of the top two need a ton of research before we can fix them - by getting you to spend your time and effort on that research you don't do anything about the top 2 which we can solve today. Thus the entrenched interests (mostly big oil) are pushing you to look at things outside of the top two knowing you can't solve them today, and while you are looking there they can sell more [oil or whatever].
I wonder what kind of shape it could take with the current mindset of putting weak signals to steer the market (ie. carbon tax, etc.). Mining bitcoin is far from being the only example of resources waste for pure profit... I can only imagine a vague but serious threat of being accused of ecocide to have an effect.
What's even better, they are not good at recognizing talent. They are incompetent.

When some has reputation of being a talent, or appears to be talented catch, they throw money and perks.
Or Diet Coke.
The same happened to the UK here after the Brexit.