skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The secret is that you don't need money to "enjoy" life once your primary needs are met. More than that is chasing a high via materialistic consumption and pollution.

If you want to save money for yourself in case something bad happens, go for it. Then you've got to decide who gets the leftover wealth when you die.
AI is a box of chocolates ...

How often do AI sites show the example of an astronaut riding a horse on Mars?

Changed the horse to a duck and never got a satisfying result.
AI doesn't understand, we learn through trial and error how to get the result we want but it seems the way to the result is always different.

That's like programming but the keyword change in every function.
At least the person forwarding the mail could check the preview and see that the text changed.
You don't need everyone switching over. Let's say that by next year, a total of 10% of orgs in the EU are using LibreOffice, and then Redmond is hit by a comet. It'd be painful for the other 90% to switch but there would be some familiarity with the process, whereas if there's an MS monoculture then it would take a whole lot longer and be a lot messier.
Wild to assert that Steve “I never rely on marketing research” Jobs was successfully only because he did better market research than his competitors.
Primer is an absolute mind funk. I've got to watch it again, twice in a row.
Where I live it'd used to be possible to get a discount if you paid cash but it was deemed discriminatory against card holders and so it was banned. It's the same price regardless of payment method.
At risk of being pedantic, tigers and volcanoes are nature.
It's odd that the legislative framework surrounding their powers to ban chemicals is only applicable to "new" applications. That's the easiest way to handicap it's efficacy.

I also have you wonder how expensive it would've been to retool their plant for a safer plastic type vs the lawyer fees they spent on this. I would not be surprised if the fight was ideologically motivated, but still.
Fair, should be 98%. Can't change the title anymore though
Not Just Another Programming Language: Skills That Make a Difference
Almost every card with an annual fee has enough credits and perks to offset the annual fee without spending any money.

The second and third tier Delta cards come with a $250 and $650 Annual fee.

The second tier card (Delta Platinum) has an annual fee of $350. But it comes with a $150 Delta Stays credit for hotels and one round trip an economy companion pass - basically buy one get one free - for any place in the US, Mexico, Central America or the Caribbean.

The higher end Delta Reserve comes with similar benefits. But a first class companion pass. If you never use either card except for the credit, the benefits more than offset the annual fee. The Reserve also comes with airport lounge access

I have three Delta cards just for those benefits.

I could explain the Amex Platinum, Gold, Green, every cobranded hotel card, the high end Capital One cards the same way.

The credit card companies as the article says are betting that the typical customer will use credit cards in a suboptimal manner. They are banking on most credit card users not to be like the typical r/creditcards users who carry 6-8 credit cards including “sock drawer” cards that are just held for the outsized benefits to annual fees and aren’t their primary cards.

My wife and I travel a lot and yes I have nine cards and $2700 worth of annual fees. Most of those cards are “sock drawer” cards that are just used because the “coupons” make travel cheaper.
At what point does using tools to make art go from being creative to not being creative?

I think the video creator makes a lot of incorrect assumptions about how people create things like images using generative AI. It seems like he assumes people put in a single prompt, get a single image, and away you go. This is akin to quickly drawing something like stick figures without using an erasure, and being satisfied with what is produced. Is it art? In this case it probably doesn't matter what the answer is, because you probably just want something to do something.

If you're trying to make visual art using generative AI, you usually partake in an iterative process, similar to the process of sketching something, erasing bits, and sketching it again, but slightly differently. With AI, you give it a prompt, generate a few options, and then you can do different things like change the prompt and generate entirely new images, or take the seed of an image that looks generally like what you want and tweak the prompt with that seed, or you can take the image that is close and do img2img manipulation.
Excellent questions. I'm not saying that the story isn't technically true. I'm saying that because of the obvious bias of +972, that their narative is one-sided and dangerous. There are the facts, and then there is the interpretation of the facts, both of which appear in the article. I would prefer to read the story from a more even-handed paper.

> Why would these people have such important jobs within the military if they are so anti-Israel?

Soldiers are not screened for philosophical or nationalistic biases when they join intelligence or elite cyber units. They are only screened for capability, and patriotism is assumed. This has led to many anti-Zionists serving in very senior positions in the army. I've personally heard senior IDF officer rail against the religion and the country.

> 1. What drove the IDF's intelligence failure on Hamas activity before Oct 7?

Multiple factors. The social turmoil from the Judicial Reform fiasco definitely weakened us, as many left-wing intel personnel refused to serve, while others kept serving but stopped doing their jobs. Hamas also played an excellent game, keeping their mission secret amongst top commanders until the morning of Oct 7. I believe that our agencies had all the pieces of the puzzle, but since they weren't talking to each other, they didn't put it together until it had already happened. If Israel wants to survive (speaking as a resident and a soldier), then the entire intel apparatus has to be overhauled. Otherwise, we will be visiting the gas chambers quite soon.

> 2. With or without intelligence, why was the IDF unable to defend such an important security zone? One that I'd argue is world class, in terms of technology, troops, and arms.

Also, there are a few reasons. The soldiers there had been lulled into a sense of false security, and they paid for it with their lives. Most of them (about 350) were wiped out within the first hour or two. Again, Hamas played an excellent game. They brought a fully-automatic grenade launcher with an enormous amount of ammo and annihilated one base within a few minutes. That took out most of the infantry in the area. Meanwhile the pilots were not able to get into the air because of the Judicial Reform fiasco. They had not flown in 6 months out of protest against the reform, and as such their planes had not been refuelled or used in any way, and were not operational. But most of all, the left-wing generals that dominate our army truly believed that we had entered an era where no more wars would be fought, despite there being zero evidence that this was the case. Hamas understood this, and used it against us to mount a flawless surprise attack.
Fun fact, this is actually illegal here in Sweden! That is, merchants aren't allowed to adjust prices based on payment method. Not sure what the reasoning is.
Cloudflare Calls Open Beta
I don't play the sauce game with reputation managers. And they haven't ended captcha.
> However, the Internet is full of armchair international law experts that are being played like a fiddle by Hamas’ propaganda arm.

And Israeli hasbara? I see a lot of this take, that everyone is just blindly trusting, eg, casualty counts from the Gazan health ministry, but there seems to be very little questioning of and critical thinking about the propaganda the IDF is spreading in this conflict. Why should we take their word for it that killing a bunch of aid workers[1] was just a mistake, for example?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/israel-idf-air...
The punchline is that crab was wrongfully accounted for in all simulation? Or that this is millionth cycle of earth civilisation and through all cycles crab self-trained and developed into most sophisticated organism and done to us same as we would do to them?
> before the apps

You're right, it sucked. Here's the thing: we can have the shiny, sleek ordering system without the stupid parts of the Uber/GrubHub/whatever business model. You've probably used Toast before.

> in areas like Manhattan, where city cabs and delivery options abound - the the fact that many (most?) people still use UberEats/DD is instructive

I would have leaned towards "destructive" but I get your point.
My experience lines up with yours. I love paying with cash when I can, but even in my smaller city, so many places won't accept cash. My assumption is that handling cash is a cost they'd rather not deal with.

For food, most places will accept cash here. Hell, even a bookstore near me won't accept cash anymore.
Title is confusing. Article is a verbal (not actual :-( ) takedown of the fraud of "Philanthropy". "Philanthropy" should be in scare quotes.
Same here. I do think it makes some sense in that case.
Wouldn’t this be fixable by not allowing Stylesheets but only inline style attributes on the tags? To improve usability, email clients could include an automatic step where all Stylesheets are “compiled” to inline styles.
The only thing this would break would be advanced CSS selectors (hover etc.) but I’m not sure they would be needed.
True to an extent, but that does not always mean they are wrong. Being conservative in a Chesterton's fence way is a good thing. Being opposed to rapid change is more often (not always, but more often) right than wrong. Not being clever is offset by their knowledge of their own everyday problems and priorities.
“Megan feared that the image could potentially get out and that it would happen to another website visitor. She told a friend, who happens to know someone at Washington’s Lottery, what happened.”

Well, it’s out now.
I am agreeing that guns enable killing and make it more easy and more available. I also agree that most everyone I know have an issue will killing.

You claimed the vast majority of people you know are physically unable to kill. I think that is laughably naive.

If you mean that it is harder than you'd imagine to kill someone bareheaded, I also agree. But humans are tool makers and users. A big stick or rock to the back of the head was a common way to die in our distant past. And if you want to not allow any mechanical leverage in the killing, most people are _physically_ capable of pushing someone. That could be off a cliff, down the stairs, or on level ground where someone trips and hits their head.

This isn't a question of morality: it is a matter of physics.
The problem isn’t individuals with a wish to kill. They can’t do much damage. West Bank is full of those people and Israeli security apparatus deals with them just fune. The problem is institutional terrorism; an entire enclave of tunnels, rockets, special forces and a structure all designed to murder Israelis. That can, and has to be destroyed in a decisive way.
The goal is not "superior", the goal is "USA can't kill our infrastructure pressing one button"
That's still a thing in Canada and the US in various places, generally "mom and pop" run business.

Credit card fees for small orgs are like 1-2% so for a small biz that could pinch. Cash also lets you, uh, "fudge" your numbers for tax purposes.
But the swim team practices at 6 am, the football practice runs until 5 pm, and band kids have to be back at school at 6:30 for a 7:30 concert.
> The criticism of this always boils down to "well sure, but that's too little and too late",

We're on track to not only surpass but pretty much blow away projections for CO2 emissions that will all but guarantee multiple degrees of heat gain over the next several decades, and all that entails: more super-storms, higher ocean levels, and a LOT more death in the developing world around the equator. That is definitionally too little too late. This isn't pessimism: scientists knew what we needed to do, and we have utterly failed to do it.

If your car was in an accident and couldn't be legally driven, and you requested your mechanic replace the control arms and called it job done, you'd rightly be called fucking insane. That's not letting perfect be the enemy of good, that's not doing what you need to do.

> People who care about this should be energized by this, both by the opportunities it has created to work on research and deployment of useful technologies

A ton of these technologies are greenwashing existing tech because there's federal grants to be had for attempting it. Others, like widely available solar, are complicated by the purveyors taking advantage of low-earners who've managed to get homes and fucking them into bankruptcy by adding money to their mortgage they can't possibly afford. Still others are things like EV's, which while better for the environment at point of use, are still highly damaging what with the incredible amounts of limited heavy metals required to build them, not to mention being shipped back and forth over the oceans because it's cheaper to build everything in Asia. And all of this is because things are done in our economy to make money and ONLY to make money, not to make the world better.

> and by the relatively paltry political backlash to it, suggesting more political capital can be spent on this moving forward.

You must be joking. The reactionaries are having a FIELD DAY with 15 minute cities, bug eating, what have you. And yes it's incredibly stupid shit utterly beneath engaging with, but it doesn't change the fact that tons of people believe it and parrot it.

> But despite that, the "discourse" on it among young people seems to be one of cynical nihilism. I don't know for sure why that is

Probably something to do with the fact that this discourse has been happening for half a century now and we're producing more CO2 than EVER and burning the rainforest down.
>> I got the impression that his target audience were right-leaning / Republican Americans

Right-leaning Republican Americans don't read the New Yorker.
Yes and note that from a marketing pov, Citi looks like a "good player" by incentivising payback. But if everyone paid back in the grace period, the care would fail as transaction fees can't offset the costs of managing the process (payouts, fraud, chargebacks, limit management, etc). Interest and "nuisance" charges are the real money makers.

So, you pick a balance of how much to return assuming that you get a mix of revolvers (borrowers) and transactors, and recognize that if you hit it right, some folks will skip the "best outcome" (for most) option of grace-period payback and faster rewards, due to choice or need (running low on cash, etc). And that's how you get the 1 and 1: folks love to spend, and Citi estimates that the 1 on payback sounds good but can be spread out as folks still pay the minimum to revolve, garnering interest and fees along the way.

It's illegal in the US to reward for debt directly (you can't incentivize folks to revolve instead of paying in full), and this card is at least a step in the right direction of doing the opposite. But if they really incentivized best behavior for consumers, we'd see all the % rewards focused on payback (and none for spend), with a reduced reward for payback on revolving debt, to incentivize reducing avoidable debt where it makes sense.

But that card would fail as a business for most banks and fin companies. While the early trans fees would be great, it would self-select responsible payback folks who never generate interest or nuisance fees. Such a card would need a massive annual fee or have to be tied to some other profit driving product, at least in most companies I've seen.

But maybe somebody will figure a clever way to make it work.
Microsoft Excel World Championship 2023 - Finals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDGdPE_C9u8
The system in Toronto takes cold water from deep in Lake Ontario, runs it through heat exchangers that feeds the district cooling loop downtown.

The lake water continues out of the heat exchangers into the intake of the water treatment system, feeding drinking water to the city. The water eventually returns to the lake after being used by people and flowing through the sewers and wastewater treatment system (returned at a shallower level).
Which is the reason the cut is now capped and card acceptance is higher, even for credit cards (0.3% for cc, 0.2% for dc). Though low-margin businesses like grocery store still don't accept them (credit cards) due to the marginally higher fees in some countries.
No, sure. I just think it's funny how it constantly happens, from opensource, free, or commercial projects. No one seems to be immune to 'telling on themselves'.
To a first approximation, no one actually takes advantage of the mortgage tax deduction any more because the standard deduction is so high and the cap on state tax/property taxes is so low that most people don’t itemize.

Only about 10% itemize.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-itemi....
Yes, I personally think we should enable, but with sufficient difficulty.

If we look at it from a utilitarian angle.

Euthanasia
- The one who apply to euthanasia get what one want
- Those who assists get paid to do what that person sign up to do.

Other way
- The one who commit suicide other way get what they want.
- Those who witness got shocked.
- Those who "clean up" get paid to do what that person sign up to do, but less amused than those who assist euthanasia.

I am not saying enabling euthanasia for all and granting access to it easily. However, for those who suffer so badly it could be one of the escape hatches.
Here's my (Lil Data) remix of Array by DJ_Dave: https://strudel.cc/?mTeJt_ICoPrw

Video of same: https://www.instagram.com/p/CzJ-F-zN-s9/

Link to the remix EP: https://open.spotify.com/album/0Xs07jxD1MaEd9qmOTuqwb?si=E08...
I don’t want an exceptional experience recharging a car. I want a mundane experience. Just like a gas station is.
Looking at this from a machine learning perspective, the risk of biases is even higher in these cases because of issues with data drift (Members could change sites, they could start dressing differently, etc.) and imbalances in the dataset (A lot fewer Hamams members than civilians in Gaza).

Additionally, juging from the amount of data such models would have to go through in order to make predictions (social media, camera footage, etc.) I would assume that they are using neural networks. This type of model performs best without raw unprocessed data e.g. raw camera footage instead of preprocessed features like "wears a scarf" or "carrying a weapon". They are also well known to be black boxes whoe mredictions cannot really be explained [0].

We can still comment on this topics based an assumptions and previous experince. I don't have experience working in the military field but I have experience working in the AI field and these are strong assumptions I am making.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10154
The goal is also to have a usable cloud on which you can efficiently develop software.

Otherwise we can simply go back to paper.
My gut says this could be more effective. After all, the initial “phish” (the innocent looking email the manager receives) isn’t fishy at all, and unlikely to trigger any concern. Once the stakes are raised and the scam is revealed, the email has already been granted some amount of legitimacy.

Sure, it can easily fail (“did you really want me to wire money to Cyprus?”), just as any phishing email can. But by bypassing the initial phishing filters of the recipient’s awareness, I could see it having a higher success rate than a cold phish that leads immediately with the scam.

No evidence or knowledge either way, just a hunch.
Because the obvious utility of being able to choose the manner of one's own death, to limit suffering, and to retain a bit of agency in the face of certain death, inconceivable suffering, and the loss of one's own body to cancer makes this choice quite an easy one for many.
> the AI superimposes your image into the vacation spot

> She was shocked at one of the AI photos Washington’s Lottery spit out

For discussion: is it possible this was this a joke (not on the victim's part) in very poor taste?
Right-leaning Democrats definitely do though.
The starvation part and the "ehhhhh 100:1 civilian:combatant is fine" part.

Btw the person you're replying to goes a bit farther than is appropriate, I apologize
Not everyone does this

My core area of research is supply chain attacks, and I run a company where we regularly train high risk organizations how to remove trust from any single human or system in critical areas of their stack like key management, CI/CD, etc. Many of our clients are fintech companies where trusting a single person, even a system administrator, would seriously endanger them.

Meanwhile Apple sysadmins still manage most of their infra with centrally controlled Puppet nodes last I heard.

Speaking of Linux distros, I created a 100% reproducible and full-source-bootstrapped Linux distro where every package is signed and reproduced by multiple people to avoid having to trust any single human, including me.

https://codeberg.org/stagex/stagex

Guix comes close to this mark too, so we are hardly the only viable option in town.

There are always alternatives to centralizing trust and you do not need to have an Apple-sized budget to afford them.
'“I also think whoever was responsible for it should be fired,” she added.'

Ah but that's the joy of, it sorry about that - wasn't us, it was the computer!
And then there are plenty of other merchants that are 100% cashless, presumably because they don’t want the hassle (and perhaps cost) of handing, exchanging, storing, and transporting paper cash and coins to and from a bank.