skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> No-- sharing alcoholic beverages is symbolic in a way fruit juice is not.

> No-- many people enjoy being intoxicated and sharing alcoholic beverages is an important social bonding exercise to many.

Okay so I feel like you didn't really get my argument here. I said "if X, then Y", but it's obvious that Y isn't the case, so I'm implying that X also isn't true. So you informing my that Y isn't true hasn't added much to the conversation. An alcoholic drink without alcohol is just juice, the fact that there is no demand for juice at bars suggests that there would also be little demand for non-alcoholic drinks. Especially when you have to consume some weird gel afterwards. I was refuting your point by saying it implied something which isn't true. This is known as "reductio ad absurdum" and is a fairly common argumentative tactic.

> I might know more about this than anyone you've ever met.

Just because you've sold people drinks doesn't mean you understand why people buy them. I think you probably don't given you think this weird gel stuff could ever be popular.

> sometimes she has a cocktail because she loves the social act of drinking together and thinks they taste delicious

Alcohol-free cocktails exist. They are called "mocktails" and are very popular if I understand correctly. What the gel offers is the experience of a mocktail with the addition of a strange chemical jelly substance that you have to eat. No one is going to buy that.

> she often feels compelled to hide the fact that she surreptitiously slipped me the shot because I have a much higher tolerance

So now she will feel compelled to hide the fact that she's eating the gel. You've just shifted the problem forward a few seconds. Either she drinks, or she doesn't drink and hides it. Changing the mechanism of how it's hidden doesn't change the fact that she's hiding it. This is a product that simply sounds good in theory without offering much practically.

> having an experience with a bartender

It's fun because the bartender is getting drunk. If the bartender was just taking shots of water, I don't think it would work as well. A shot of Vodka minus the alcohol is essentially a shot of water with a funny aftertaste, which is what you are proposing. I suppose you could trick customers into tipping this way by hiding the gel, but you could also do that by discretely swapping a shot out for plain water. I just think people would get a little suspicious if the bartender is knocking back shots and not getting drunk.

> I'll bet the higher-performing athletes would relish the opportunity to go to a frat party and drink alcohol as a social exercise without totally screwing up their training schedule

Again, you assume that drinking liquid is the social aspect, but it isn't. The social thing, as you have said earlier, is getting drunk which this gel prevents. If you drink a glass of cider then down this gel, you have just drunk a glass of apple juice, and as we've established, juice and alcohol have different social purposes.
> horse riding somehow facilitated horse hunting

Somehow? Before steam engines, one needed another horse, loads of persistence, or large traps, to catch up with just about any horse.
That's great, but does anyone knows similarly accessible way of growing a fluorite crystal?
They are hard to find indeed. Finding them is a whole new business
What i usually do is:
Write a normal function declaration, prepend it with typedef and append _t to the function name. DONE

The same trick works for anything you want to typedef!
Is Clubhouse still alive?
Context is important, this is targeted at journalists. They are usually trying to make a point to casual readers.

For readers with more interest or who are numerate in their day jobs (engineers, finance, or economists), dual axis charts can often be a great choice.

This is better graph style advice from the Economist, which includes good dual axis examples and one bad one and how to correct it.
https://medium.economist.com/mistakes-weve-drawn-a-few-8cdd8...

Since we are engineers or founders trying to deal with very complex systems, adding detail and clarity like the Economist or Edward Tufte does is the better way to go.
What could DARPA/Washington do and why would “they” know what goes on behind the scenes at OpenAI?
> people will always prefer single family homes.

The preference is so consistently overwhelming that we needed to make it illegal to build large apartment buildings in most major cities to enforce it.
>Well nukes continue to be very difficult to download off the Internet or to rent access to via a web browser.

well, the amount of damage you can inflict with an AI model is a few magnitudes lower than that of a nuclear weapon.

>I haven't seen anyone advocate that the US government needs to be the only entity able to use AI, but if you have, you knocked their socks off with that one.

did you miss Sam Altman's world tour last year, talking to the politicians about the ooooh so scary AI being developed by their unregulated competitors? the establishment of oversight committees and regulatory bodies in the US, from where corporate sockpuppets will presume to dictate the the terms of development and application of this technology?
This is a good suggestion. Thank you!
That is my understanding. Outside of some smallish improvements and change of materials, they are relatively unchanged in the bigger picture. Still using the same movement designs, still have the wobbly crowns, etc.
California is similar. Its progressive caucus does everything possible to make it risky and expensive to be a landlord, then acts puzzled when rents go up and tenants have a hard time finding a place.
My guess is they agreed to it upfront.
Submission title mentions NDA but the article also mentions a non disparagement agreement. "You can't give away our trade secrets" is one thing but it sounds like they're being told they can't say anything critical of the company at all.
Granted, that was put poorly, let me try again. What I said doesn't in fact have the implication you took from it, but I didn't explain myself particularly well.

There are many programs one can write in C, or Zig, or some other manual-transmission language, which, if you wrote them in Rust, would just be wrapped in a big unsafe block. That isn't because those programs have memory errors in them, it's because they have a memory policy which safe Rust doesn't support.

Examples include certain garbage collection algorithms, and embedded programs where all memory is pre-allocated and references shared somewhat promiscuously. It's possible to write analogous programs in safe Rust, but not the same program. The space of programs which are both correct, and not possible in safe Rust, is infinite. They don't come with compiler guarantees, so other support is needed. CompCert is a good example of an approach to that which isn't Rust's.

Keeping in mind that I'm referring to specific programs, not "a program which solves the problem domain". Otherwise we could just say that since you can write a program which solves the problem domain in Python, there's no use for Rust. That wouldn't lead to a productive conversation, would it.

People still choose C over Rust, even knowing what Rust is. This isn't the early days of the evangelism strike force, Steve. The above is why.

Sometimes they might be better off writing the analogous program in Rust, or seeing if they can get the program they're trying to write with limited use of unsafe blocks. Sometimes not. I know you've put a lot of work into your hammer over the years, but it's never going to be the only tool in the box.

Languages, and I'm thinking of Zig here, which make it easier to correctly implement a memory policy which doesn't happen to be Rust's, should be applauded, and not called "a massive step backwards for the industry <pouty sad face>". Like it or not, they're working in the same domain as Rust, based on different principles.

But yes, there is an infinitely large class of programs which can be written in the embedded and OS spaces, in Rust, with very little unsafe overall. I didn't intend to imply otherwise.
This article circumscribes but fails to navigate the imperatives of life which sanity must regard as beyond the purvey of reason.

The question writ large but not asked is "What constitutes medicine?" versus all the other ways that we struggle to manage the messy and painful nature of life.

What hits me about the author's dialectic— and also the bulk of these comments— is the unexamined pre-disposition towards a calculus of life in place of a spiritual reckoning of its mystery. Such reckoning need be nothing more than a conscious observation of life's ultimate mystery; "conscious" in the sense of allowing this observation to inform the dialectic.

Regarding overt libertarian political jabs at Greenpeace or the FDA, the author fails to regard the the major purpose of policy is to restrain activity that causes general harm, not advance activity that leads to individual prosperity.

The author is facing the final conflict of every individual, that he shall meet his end in some fashion not of his own choosing with a dialectic of choice. This mode of discourse is internally unreconcilable.

If there's any credence to the observation of 5 stages of grief, this article is locked at the bargaining stage.

But so is the entire financial intelligence system: being incapable of recognizing nor authorizing the obvious dimensions of life beyond any calculus.

Here the true libertarian must acknowledge the limits of his discourse and turn attention to making the most of his circumstances, in which he has every right and responsibility to seek a path of his own, subject to a principle of freedom most succinctly stated as the liberty to do what you have to do, informed by a rich social tapestry of relationships all of which, if sane, must recognize the afore mentioned strange, yet obvious, dimension of life that manifests as a surplus beyond any a-priori design intention.

Where this article informs its readers of specific constraints in the author's experience and story of his path, it is truly valiant and valuable.

Where it digresses into observations about policy I find haphazard generalization from the specific.

What stands out is our culture's unrelenting bias towards reason over the unreasonable.

A mind wiser than mine has observed that today's science has quietly replaced any hope for an intelligible world with theories that are intelligible, with the attendant consequence to reason, that life may be beyond our "scope and limits" as grammatical creatures, and I will add to this my thought that we require a philosophy of the unknowable that let's us continue to explore the world's mystery in a way that nurtures a decent life, given our limits.

It's not paradoxical that social policy attempts to restrain us from the misfortunes that attend an "anything goes" California-ideology mindset in the interest of preventing harm from radical experimentation.

It's ok if the progress of the human condition takes longer than our own lives. We can become adapted to our nature.
Maybe not collectors, but Russian Vostok watches are still popular among people who like mechanical watches. They are still among the cheapest mechanical watches and mechanical watch movements you can get your hands on today.

If you live in the US, be careful, purchasing Vostoks directly from Meranom (the Russian factory store) might violate some laws given it's currently wartime and there are sanctions, etc.
The Soviet top military commander (Zhukov) even got in trouble with Soviet customs for smuggling whole trainloads of loot back home.
My awkward road to unnatural extinction
Hey, thank you for the compliment. Aswath Damodaran is a professor at NYU and puts out a lot of good content on valuation. You should check him out.
HN makes it look casual but it has a very active and diligent moderation and a whole automated system to detect spams, self promotion, hateful comments...

The basic design is on purpose, but the backend doesn't match the front.
The difference you are missing between a tradwife and an incel is the tradwife is perpetuating a social circle/family focused lifestyle (and often perpetuating the species through having a reasonable number of children) usually surrounded by a significant social support network of friends and family and like minded individuals. One is very much prosocial behavior (possibly in a way you don't agree with) and the other is antisocial.

You may or may not agree with what each of those groups espouse but they are very different.
Tying sender reputation to domains is not "defenseless against brute force attacks" because domains cost money
The way the quote is used in the title of the article implies that someone involved with Palentir is referring to their AI as a weapon of mass destruction on par with the atom bomb, but when the quote appears in the article it clearly has nothing to do with AI, nor is the speaker comparing himself to Oppenheimer's role in creating the first atom bomb, he's just noting that he is occupying the exact same job as Oppenheimer.
Still, C syntax is 100 times easier to remember than things like templating, smart pointers, dozen flavours of initialyzers in C++, which is used continuously as well.
N. Koreans stole Americans identities and took Fortune 500 remote-work tech jobs
> It's not black and white like that and trade-offs get made all the time.

Exactly.

My point wasn't that we should sacrifice everything for the sake of aesthetics, as many replies to my comment seem to have taken. It's that for some people, aesthetics will matter, and you cannot just dismiss that without running into pushback -- pushback which will be even stronger if you're making people feel ignored. That also directly translates to things being more expensive.
> since they have a low quality default conf file without commented out defaults

Try `man fwupd.conf` for all the options.
"120 cm in inches" (with space) works.

Annoying. AI feature, I assumed, but now you're just always second guessing.
Trying to wrap my head around how bulk email providers (Salesforce, etc) would operate in this? I guess you could give them a subdomain of your main domain and have a separate MX2 record. This might help silo off newsletter, transactional, and actual person to person messages like many already do in the current environment.
This is bog-standard MAD that’s been a big part of the US strategy since the Cold War.

Except it's not "standard MAD". In fact MAD doesn't apply at all to the Oct 7 attack (which was evil and awful and all that -- but objectively not at scale sufficient to trigger a MAD response).

Instead he's calling for an unhinged, completely disproportionate response (nukes). That's simply not what MAD is or how it's supposed to work. In any case it's objectively not (contrary to what he claims) how the U.S. responds to such situations.

It's just bluster, meant to push people's buttons. And he's doing to push his product, basically (yes in part for ideological reasons -- but at the end of the day, as a sales tactic).

Enemies won’t attack us if they think they can’t accomplish their goals by doing so

What you're referring to is general deterrence strategy. That's not what MAD is. It has a very specific meaning and you're getting it completely wrong.
You have no idea how much comments like that make me want to name my pet programming language something like 鹪鹩 and then post it to "Show HN", just to see how many people know from the top of their heads which language has more speakers, English or Chinese (it's English, by 300 million people; but 1.1 billion of Chinese speakers can make those hanzi on their keyboards just fine).
As the other commenter said, the Vostoks made in Russian today are largely still of the same design with some small improvements and material changes. However, my comment was more meant for those tho might look and see if Vostok is still around and what they offer today. That there are two Vostoks, and the difference between them in today's watches.
Be aware also there are a lot of "fakes" because a lot of people go on eBay looking for a Raketa or Pobeda watch and it's relatively easy to paint the raketa logo and minute track on a watch dial.

That being said, for $20 or so, who cares if it's fake. It still works like a mechanical watch.
Go-Salesforce: A Salesforce REST API wrapper written in Go l
That's just for search engine crawlers, not random people who want to scrape all their data
I don't know about the legality of forging an old employee badge, but I find it amusing that apparently the forger broke, for totally no reason, the Geneva Convention protection of the Red Cross symbol, signed into law in many many countries worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...
I think it's clearly pretty cool even if not as fast as people expect it to be
Perhaps this could be a beneficial prophylaxis. And having another treatment that uses CRISPR to remove the provirus is also an essential to have a durable cure for patients already infected. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-68609297
Thanks to the OP for writing this up. I'd love to see mail be rebooted.

A few thoughts:

1. I don't know if HTTPS is the best analogy, since it took 20 years for it to really become widely used (vs. non-secure HTTP). I think a better analogy might be the transition from HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/2 (or HTTP/3?).

2. I don't think we can rely on large providers (e.g. GMail) to quickly adopt a new system and even issue switchover ultimatums. A simpler mail system may not be in their best interest. Aiming for slower, organic growth could be more realistic. Even if a next-generation mail system never becomes dominant, it could still provide value. (Maybe Mastodon/ActivityPub is the analogy here?)

3. In any sort of reboot, I think a modern encryption system (something like Signal protocol?) would be a must.

4. Can we have a system where senders need to hold tokens to authorize them to send a message to a recipient? The whole "anyone on earth should be able to send you an unsolicited message" idea is ultimately the source of the spam problem. Messaging systems that rely on bidirectional agreement have much less of a spam problem. (Obviously this raises a slew of other technical and UX questions...)

I know that making too many changes is a risk. But I think that there is also a risk in making too few changes. (If the value proposition isn't sufficiently bold, this may hurt adoption.)
What’s shallow about it? If someone posted “Twitter for pets” should we all just instinctively applaud it?

I posted links from respectable publications - the WSJ included - supporting my comment.

It’s been well known for decades that almost everyone sucks at “analyzing stocks” using any methodology.
It's a little confusing, but my idea is that there would be multiple MX2 records for every authorized sender's key. One of those MX2 records would have a marker on it for incoming mail.
Indeed, having focus on content instead of people make things much more civil organically.
Something clicked when he was saying that SendGrid and Mailchimp are clean, and it remained till the end.

Email born as internet, something decentralized. But it is getting harder and more complex to have your own mail server, because you have to comply with a lot of requirements of major mail providers. For big scale servers, and commercial mass sending companies ("legal spam") they can afford to comply with all those requirements. And about ("not legal") spam and malware senders, or they don't care if they reach a limited set of target, or the reward is high enough to try to trick the system.

So the smaller mail servers, without so many users, or without so knowledgeable maintainers, if any, are getting expelled from the game by both bad and big players, some just move their email administration to some of the big providers (and privacy and territorial requirements may be a problem here). What the article proposes is another change to push things in the same direction.

And, for good and bad, some of the present use cases may be harmed by this proposal too, like devices and other simple notification services, or mailing lists.
If you perceive life and the world sucking, weed will not be what you need to realize that this is a falsehood. In fact you'd most likely reach for it to indulge in that mentality.
I'm not an ML engineer and the only reason I know that the wireless protocol exists is because in every HN article, there's a comment repeating the same complaint
Perfect Desktop Kit for Experimenting with Self Driving Cars
> the largest diffusers of explicit content are by far the advertisers which they use to sell anything, from cars to shampoo

Relevant Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4NyMJHWVHw
No, hard disagree.

It is not a toy, because language is not a toy. Language is a ridiculously powerful tool we have as humans, we just take it for granted because we are very good at it.

What ChatGPT allows us is to evaluate the usefulness of language without all the other intellectual tools we have, like mathematics, logic, physics and self perception.

So, the fact that a GPT model can do all those things while being just a language model is extraordinary. It is an idea serializer. Written language is not the idea, is just the serialization of the idea, the human thought.

We serialize our ideas, and with a GPT we use the serialization to leverage some of the connections and behaviours of the idea, without actually understanding the meaning.

This makes both tools, language for humans and GPT for computers, a powerful abstraction that allows us to not need to think about every detail because some of the logic in the ideas is covered by the serialization that language performs over the idea.

I find all of this fascinating.

Add the other parts of the human brain (a GPT is only the Broca's area analogue) to have real logic and physics and mathematics understanding, and the predictions about AI will be true.
Imagine if we had to write `整数 size = 0;`.
You can't always 'build them somewhere else' -- wind farm locations aren't arbitrary. Solar is a little less constrained in this way, but still has some location requirements (you wouldn't put a solar plant on a hillside that is shaded half the day.)

There's also losses from transmission of the generated energy. The further you generate from where you use, the more loss you have to account for.
I made it through with my american phone number. I went through the apple account flow on the app instead of the website though.
Email is one of the services I would like to self host for small projects, ran into issues immediately for spam. I like the idea of using public keys tied to a domain, but feel the email service providers have little incentive to adopt this because the complexity adds value to their service.
FWIW, your English is not broken by any means. There are a couple of small errors, but until you said that it wasn't your native language, I just assumed you were writing in a hurry or something. :)
Where do you draw the line? Do you think only native Americans should have a vote in the USA? Or only Yakutsk in parts of Siberia?
Axioms are not discovered but decided. A nice set of axioms gives birth to interesting anduseful interactions which you are the one that you discover, although in practice there's is a bit of back-and-forth, as you decides the axiom based on what you are trying to achieve and they get changed or tuned as time pass.

Bonus point if the new axioms play well with existing ones, and are useful to work on our reality.
Im skeptical whether these types of models can help you make better investment decisions. The fate of a company usually hinges on some fundamental question.

For Apple it is whether they can stay a prominent platform that can capture a significant portion of the value created on it.

For Tesla it is how fast their self driving tech will evolve.

For Google it is whether AI will make search obsolete or more valuable.
Keeping this as reference for later trolling with fellow email-standards nerds :-)