skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>And, btw, you might well have turned out the same way under similar circumstances, but for the grace of god.

that criteria is applicable to literally any criminal, ever. It's effectively useless as a statement about crime and punishment, although it serves as a useful reminder to those not condemned.

>2) SBF has severe moral deficiencies and belongs in prison for a long time, but not because he is "evil".

moral standpoint doesn't put you in shackles, poor judgement when comparing your morality with that of society is what does that.

finance is one of the most amoral industries to ever exist. They sit next to weapons and land-mine manufacturers, as far as i'm concerned.

Amorality is a benefit to the financier, the trick is finding someone that is amorale while also retaining a powerful enough understanding of the law and governing society that they can get away with enacting their deviousness without fear of prosecution.

SBFs morality doesn't matter -- what broke him was his poor judgement and overzealous confidence. We're not condemning him for his morality, that just speaks better to the court; he's in trouble because his plans backfired and money was lost for important people.

(p.s. we don't imprison people for being 'amorale', whatever that might mean from whoever is saying it.)
Same can be said about the lottery. I don't recommend that as an investment either.
I'm not implying this, but there is no way that one guy should have hundreds of billions and the next person should have zilch and starve. The only thing that protects such an unfair system is the law. If those enforcing the law are poor enough, they will take what they require. So they should IMO.
Nothing new here, but it's certainly a well-articulated redux.

Reading about this Boeing debacle is gut-wrenching because it totally contradicts what I believe in. Nihilism isn't supposed to win. Not like this, at least. I'm an engineer. I'm proud of what I do, and I care deeply about what I make. I'll admit it, I'm even proud of my country and I believe in the notion that I'm not the only person around here who gives a damn. Apparently there aren't enough people who do.
notepad++ is windows-only.
Not if you are trying to avoid being bought out. Those assets are just something the VC firm will leverage to buy out your company. Basically telling their lenders that you own X amount of real estate worth $Y, so use it as collateral on the loan they make to take over your company. Those assets then get sold to pay off the loan and the stores get to pay rent to some landlord.
> that you can slap on a project without a legal team

The thing is, this kind of license is only really relevant to the kinds of projects that do have legal teams.

If you're writing a hobby project you probably shouldn't waste time worrying about feeding the AWS machine, because the odds that you'll get noticed and used are tiny. Just pick GPL or MIT and be done with it.

If you're participating in a large decentralized project like Postgres, then having a big player like Amazon providing managed hosting is actually a huge plus because you get lots of contributions from the big players [0]. There's very little downside for a project like this, and lots of upside.

The only type of FOSS project that needs an "AWS can't use this" license is a project that is driven by a single for-profit company which decided to make their business model "provide a managed solution layered on top of AWS". Unsurprisingly, it's hard to compete with AWS on price when you're using AWS itself as your vendor, so these companies tend to be the ones that switch licenses to tell AWS they're not allowed to compete.

These companies almost certainly have their own legal counsel and they represent a tiny minority of FOSS projects, so it's not obvious to me that we need a new standardized anti-AWS license. Maybe we should instead acknowledge that "managed-hosting-supported FOSS database" is an impossible business model and try something different next time.

[0] https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/
I agree. This advice should not be ignored; and if the OP is complaining about performance, the answer is lying here in plain sight.
You might be being facetious, but just in case - academic philosophers generally aren't in the business of smoking joints while talking about the meaning of life, or anything like this (even without the joint). They're generally focused on making principled arguments for views, including views on consciousness.

And the debate is primarily a philosophical debate, not a scientific debate, if that's what you're asking.

And I'm not sure that ethics is particularly more "scientific" than philosophy of mind. There's a case to be made that scientific study of pain is relevant to the morality of eating animals, yes, but there's also a case to be made that science is relevant to consciousness, e.g. the science related to IIT. And in both cases, the science is relevant but doesn't even come close to solving the issue.
> I am honestly baffled Amazon hasn't found a way to compete with Allegro.

If Amazon is being treated just like all the other companies, and protection agencies are doing their job, then they wouldn't be able to use their neo-colonial business model.

See: what Amazon itself has done in the Middle East among Uber, Delivery Hero, and all the other Big Companies With More Capital have done to dominate these markets. It can't work if the governmental watchdogs like market and/or consumer authorities are able to block them.
That's good news because soon enough all beef will be grown in the lab and the river water can be used for something more useful.
I was looking into this and haven't seen much news of late. This would be an amazing product if widely available. Unfortunately knowing the current state of US pharmaceuticals, this would cost the price of your mortgage.
Sure, but then what? You let someone out after N years and that person goes on to commit more crimes.
I thought the definition given in a sibling comment was interesting:

> Consciousness is the constellation of your past experiences transforming reality into your next experience.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39860879
The terraform work has coalesced around OpenTofu, so maybe?
Teams should refuse to look at Elasticsearch. It's license is SSPL and they ship free and non-free features in the same binary. It's a ticking time bomb to run it in your company.

Also you can just keep your data in postgres and use paradedb and stop having to deal with dramatically more expensive infrastructure and the JVM.
They grew 30% if you look at revenue, but that's not how people determine whether a business is healthy.

EBITDA is a better metric, and that number was getting dramatically worse every year until 2023.

But even in 2023, EBITDA was -$202M. I don't see it ever approaching $0.

So it's still a shit business on top of a shit product that no one ever really needed.
> Define "fix".

It’s early. Everyone is confused. If I could define it, I would have provided a defintion.

At this stage, it’s about acquiring requirements and looking at prior art. And being humble about the solution space. No? If you don’t think there’s any problem today, then argue that point.

> By definition you cannot have an open source licence which says "cannot be used for bezos yacht".

By definition by what definition? There are already disagreements about what open source is, long before these business models. The problem solving comes first, and then there may or not be a debate whether about whether the solution fits better into an existing definition or a new one.

> Either you accept that […] or you don't open source your code

But why? Is this an intrinsic duality or an anccidental/historical one? Or is it about preventing scope creep of the open source term? The latter is easy to solve - don’t call it open source. Or at least defer the debate.
Really random, but the illustrator who made the slide art for this (Annie Ruygt) also made logos and brand art for two YC startups, RethinkDB (rethinkdb.com) and Pachyderm (pachyderm.io) (where I worked, and which was founded by former RethinkDB engineers). She does great work!
Just in time for my trip to Japan.
fyi, seems to have a 7 day trail, and then require 30/90/365 day membership
Even better, Freedoom.
and while the fact related to the risk of flying vs. driving are probably true, they are off-topic and irrelevant.

the reason that large airline safety in the US is so overwhelmingly good is the preceding 20, 30, 40, 50? years of continuous improvements. until the last 5-10 years that is. we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet. when these 2010's and 2020 planes are 15-30 years old, it's going to be a shit-show.

so if you believe that the airlines are too safe, that there is too much margin, they are over-engineered, over-regulated, etc. then that wouldn't be at all irrational. you could trade some gold-plated engineering for profit. you could trade bureaucracy for faster production, maintenance, etc. you could reduce the cost of travel (by how much? it's already cheap). this would be an interesting argument to make. but these decisions should be made in the light of day by the NTSB/FAA, congress, the public, and the shareholders, etc. even then, it's likely that theory would have negative consequences (remember the better-faster-cheaper NASA theory of operation).

the problem is that, instead of an honest choice made in public by the appropriate stakeholders and the flying public, these choices and short-cuts were made in secret, illegally, with extreme dishonestly, repeatedly, for at least a decade, for extremely selfish gains, by FAA and boeing executives.

that's what's not ok. we're told and we expect the nearly perfect safety to continue. what we got was back to the 1950's-1970's era shit-show.
Mankind constantly analyzes radio waves from outer space in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since this analysis started, almost all of the signal sources have been identified. 37 signals, however, remain unexplained.

https://37signals.com/37
Oregon's New Right to Repair Law Bans 'Parts Pairing' Restrictions
https://medium.com/@adamhjk/introducing-the-community-compac... for folks wondering what Adam’s buisness model is about
I'm glad that proposal was withdrawn; it would've been by far, in my opinion, the worst implementation of operator overloading, in any (mainstream) language
And yet those advocating MITM proxies for filtering traffic to block ads and fix other common user-hostility often receive plenty of scorn from the "security community"...
Science generally maintains silence in these sort of discussion in my experience, there isn't a lot it has to say and I don't think any of the facts are controversial. There aren't really any questions here about observable phenomenon. But scientists also enjoy philosophy and it is an easy topic to have an opinion on. And arguing is fun for its own sake, although some people seem to be motivated by fear of their perception of reality being challenged.
We already have a term for these kinds of deceptive licenses: Fauxpen Source. We don't need another term that tries to whitewash them.
Excuse me.

$7K USD for ambulance in US? I thought the OP "while ten more people file for bankruptcy because they took an ill-timed ambulance ride to the ER." was being sarcastic.

And below it wrote ambulance with insurance only cost few hundred. So in US without insurance equals waiting to die or bankrupt?

Wasn't there a thing about Obamacare a while ago? I mean That was the first time for many NON-US Citizen to know US doesn't have Universal Health Care system. ( Which a lot of us take for granted )
Putin's Next Escalation Is Coming
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licenc...

> The licence was developed with other open-source licences in mind and specifically authorizes covered works to be re-released under the following licences [...] GPL

Considering the GPL doesn't count "Application Service Providers" as distribution, doesn't this essentially make that point moot?

Other than that, yes it seems to be a good license, and backed by governments so we know what the governments intent it and therefore how they intend to enforce it.
"It never gets easier, you just go faster." (2020)
I don't understand half of this. How do I go from "yay, I read the bitcoin paper" to this? A single comprehensive resource so I'm not hoovering crumbs from site to site.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
"Emcacs"...I like it.
Wastewater with the Most Cocaine
Do they not follow the normal ext2 implementation?
Feeding, housing, healing people - so lame, I’ve got my golden sneakers and I just need to invest the rest in a really terrific bunker
I think the author took Pohl's Starchild (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_Trilogy) books too seriously.
There’s someone on Reddit who is building some real Jonathan modules:

https://www.reddit.com/r/VintageApple/comments/1at3bjb/jonat...
>each person would have ~$550,000 USD.

I think many would earn that much if they work in Magnificent 7.

And it is surprising because frankly speaking $550K isn't a lot.
Not only that, AWS has been offering redis-as-a-service longer than the "Redis" organization has been.
Certainly not a new idea. As recently as early 1990s I licensed shareware that had terms requiring corporations to pay for a license with different fees and/or restrictions as those for individual, non-commercial users. Somehow this ideal was lost. Today, software authors seems allegiant to so-called "tech" companies, not to individual, non-commercial end users. As a non-commercial end user, I would prefer to use versions of open source software that are _not_ receiving contributions from so-called "tech" companies. But I never see software licenses that say, in so many words, "If you are Amazon, Google, etc., then you need to contact the author for a commercial license." I used to think back in the 1990s that open source software was aimed at least in part at giving individuals an option to use software outside the control or influence of large corporations. This type of software does not feel as if it has the same goal today. It feels like it is literally _made for_ those large companies, not individual, non-commercial end users. Software authors seem delighted to engage with the companies, but generally prefer to avoid engagement with non-commercial end users.
That's not the argument at all? We're talking about "the tax" and who it falls on. It's not good that some poor people will have to pay it. That's obviously a downside. It's also only one of many unfair costs pushed down to poor individuals and pretending this is the most important cost of driving a car seems silly. do you disagree with my summary that this is a net transfer to poor folks?
They of course the minimum out of the set of the real roots.
What Nvidia Didn't Say
There is a lot to learn but it's all well-organized here: https://a16z.com/tag/the-canons/ It would take even a bright student a year or two to go through all of this so pick and choose as you see fit. a16z has an excellent AI canon as well for self-study: https://a16z.com/ai-canon/
No it was not. The world gets me down and all I can reply with is lame tired humour. Rip the poor souls lost and I'm praying for their famlies.
I would like to point out, that the gothamist link leads to a „ The page you're looking for doesn't appear to exist.“ error on the gothamist website.
What the contemporary dev environment teaches about scale is that it barely matters until you hit certain thresholds, and then it suddenly dominates everything.

A corollary of this is that as your program becomes more complex, relatively more of the code ceases to matter to performance, because its purpose is to configure a certain inner loop, and the inner loop becomes the only real bottleneck.

So, when coding for very small systems(retro or embedded) the whole program architecture matters, but at hyper scale, the problem is seen mostly in terms of efficiently distributing the load, and only deeply optimizing the program in very specific places.

A good starting point for thinking about this is a system like BitTorrent: The ideal torrent experience will most likely use multiple peers, and the performance needs to remain consistent as the number of peers increases and the load becomes more complex to distribute. But it's not really about the local performance so much as it is maintaining the overall network conditions - if every peer is doing "OK" at serving and retrieving files that's better than a very good experience served inconsistently.
What’s even sadder is those EMTs are getting paid $15/hr in the Bay Area to do 24 hour shifts ffs
The parent wrote that, not me. I was replying to that.
> If your use-case is row-based lookups where an OLTP database would perform better, you now get a choice of engine, while still having a single place to access your data from your app.

my understanding is if you run some SQL in DuckDB against PG using extension, say select * from t where id = 2; it will perform actual lookup on PG server but results will be accessible in DuckDB.

> With Spice, you can load both SQLite and DuckDB together in the same process for local materialization and acceleration.

you can do this in any Py or Java or C++ or whatever program..
I support the right to repair but I'm worried about how this law is written. What exactly do they mean by pairing restrictions. Not in a general sense but in a very specific technical sense this matters. Because sometimes companies put in the restrictions for no reason other than they want you to have to either use their parts or be done by their service center so they can all be "coded" to work together. That is kind of a ridiculous thing because even if parts need to be calibrated to work together they should be able to do their own calibration in order to work together.

Now on the other hand there are some very legitimate restrictions here depending on how a device is made and it's design. Even if a device could be made differently in the future if this law is impacting the way a device is now this could have some very serious security implications. For example one of the reasons Apple disables facial unlock when you replace the screen is because the sensors and components in the screen are doing part of that facial recognition and so it needs to be cryptographically secure to speak to the rest of the phone to say it's okay to unlock. Without that level of security someone could simply put in a bogus component and unlock anyone's phone. It is possible Apple could design this differently in the future this is the way it is now and depending on their definition of pairing restrictions this could invalidate the security of a lot of phones in the field.

There may be other ways to solve this because in a modern smart device a number of interconnected components may have discrete data on them and they need to speak cryptographically secure between them. Simply replacing one without having a way of updating the keys to work with the others can be a problem. And releasing that method is also a big security problem to just allow anyone to do it. I suppose one way around this would be if you replace the component you can perform a full reset on the device to completely reset all the cryptographic keys to the same but the downside of that would be it invalidates all the data on the device.

I want more right to repair but I don't want laws passed without a technical understanding that is going to impact the security of systems as well. We already have governments demanding manufacturers put in back doors to their products we don't need right to repair to turn in to another way to backdoor products.
30% App Store fees is outrageous. Core technology fees is beyond outrageous and illegal.
This is what I want the MacPro to be.
Only in America. Here in Japan, ambulance rides are free.
Universal basic income & bug/feature bounties, for example.
I could understand a little bit if this were reported as a vulnerability in joystickwake, but it seems completely insane to think it could possibly be a vulnerability in GNOME. Code running as you can do things as you, news at 11.
That is how permissions work on android. I hate it.
> reviewed, retested, rechecked

Think what this means though. You fit a criteria. Then ask why do we use this criteria? Trace the history of this criteria through the DSM. The criteria is arbitrary. There is no basis for it.

The field of ADHD began when stimulants were shown to help make kids calmer. And since then it has been a matter of: how to find other people that this medicine (that no one else is allowed and is highly controlled) will help.

There was never an investigation into maybe it is caused by environment/society.

The unquestionable commonality of ADHD is an impairment that impacts the ability to live/work.

No one starts here, and then looks at the potential causes. They see if you fit the criteria, and if you do then you medicate.

Medication is premised on it being a neurodevelopment disorder from birth, hence why ADHD people can take stimulants and no one else can. But this is not proven in any way.

My biggest gripe is that every ADHD person will tell you its okay for only them to take stimulants because their brain is different for normal people and hence they are immune to the negative side-effects. Which is not proven. The risks are under-stated, and the investigation of the true cause is cut short for convenience and revenue.
Folks that are Star Trek geeks are probably familiar with the number 47, which has a storied history, with claims about how it's is, in fact, the most likely to occur random number, etc. etc, coming out from a society at Pomona College http://47.net/47society/

The Star Trek link is because Trek writer Joe Menosky is a Pomona graduate, and started to include references to the number 47 (and the reverse, 74) in his scripts, starting in TNG season 4, and it started to take off amongst the staff.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Memory_Alpha:Projects/4...
This is all pretty much boring, tired lies that altcoin profiteers like to trot out apparently assuming nobody is still around who is interested in contradicting them.

The purpose of OP_RETURN was to end the script. It was not designed for rando garbage overlays that are worthless; Satoshi's views on scaling were ambiguous—rather than say it "should" he was instead correcting people who thought you could break consensus by simply setting the value higher. There was absolutely zero communication between Vitalik and anybody about his "plans" to dump an overlay into Bitcoin, and his current story about 80-to-40 bytes is a pure, often debunked lie. There isn't a single communication that Vitalik himself can point to anywhere which shows he was interested in "cooperating" and then core turned him down.

His typical lie was that he was interested in stuffing data into Bitcoin, but then core devs "stopped that" by reducing the amount he could stuff into Bitcoin by half—from 80 to 40 bytes—but when he says that he also never points at any discussion, and in any event the direct history contradicts this—no versions of Bitcoin from back then ever reduced anything. It was only ever an increase: from 0, to 40, to 80 in released versions.

There no evidence these people ever give which shows some lack of cooperation with Vitalik is the reason why Hearn and Andresen "split off" to make an altcoin, which itself is quite the absurdity, and if true just means they would have been ethereum pumpers anyway.. so..
That's not how it works. They won't be able to see the messages themselves if it's e2e encrypted. You can say they are lying of course
There is an easy solution not just for this, but for other potential masses: Just go with MIT license and make money with support