skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I kinda agree that `new URL()` need not bail out when the URL is invalid. Both practices exist in the spec: `new Date('foo')` returns invalid date, `parseInt('foo')` returns NaN, while `new Array(-1)` throws a `RangeError`. Probably there is a need of URL instances for invalid ones? Then we come back at an Either<x, y> return type.

However, it is the `try...catch` pattern that messes up with the `const`, not the URL constructor. It is very annoying every time when I have to wrap an existing block with a try...catch, and inevitably lose the const-ness to some variables, unless I wrap everything again into a function and `return` in the try block if things go normally.
That's not relevant to assuming that the rest of the solar system is lifeless; I'm assuming you didn't see what GP was replying to.

Anyway, in general, over-optimism is much better than the opposite, because over-optimism runs into contradictions and gets corrected much more quickly than pessimism does, if it ever does.
To me the thing is that there is usually a major problem of some sort with Xcode and it can take up to a year to resolve (when they release the next major version). For example in Xcode 14.1 there was a bug that would make it crash when trying to open a project. It would crash over and over and over until it finally opened. That was finally fixed in 14.3. 15 was great then with 15.3 a bug was introduced where any time you change branches the package cache became invalidated and you had to close Xcode and reopen it. Of course it’s still not fixed in 15.4. 16 might be solid but I can guarantee some extremely annoying bug will be introduced in a point update and won’t be fixed until the next major. It has been this way since I started using Xcode 9.

I’d rather deal with a slow and cumbersome IDE than one that moves things around with every major update and introduces major bugs that don’t get addressed in in a timely manner because the IDE updates are tied to iOS releases for some god forsaken reason.

I was a fan of AppCode until JetBrains dropped it.
Yes, it's understood this is not the primary position of power, but it's part of the circle of governance which includes roles as "stepping stones" and it's very likely this incumbent was being groomed for the next logical position up the chain. He has a vice, who is empowered (however meaninglessly) to step into the role in the interim.

I think you're saying the same thing as me more succinctly. It's unlikely to be a moment of change.
Great article with very nice examples, really tempts me to play around with some of these techniques myself!

I saw an exhibition of Refik Anadol's Nature Dreams last year in Copenhagen, can only recommend to see one of his video installations if there is one near you, they are quite mesmerizing:
https://refikanadol.com/works/
It's not analogous because there was no work here, just a policy decision that both failed at protecting people and failed at convincing people.
u/idlewords has a way with words.
How does your manager figure you what you are supposed to work on? What information or ability do they have that you don't? Why can't you do what they do. Ultimately there is only one thing that is missing...responsibility. You aren't responsible. Your manager is. But there isn't any reason you can't be.
Well, that’s certainly one way of saying you don’t understand things.

Helicopters are, arguably, safer than fixed wing aircraft, simply because they can autorotate down to a soft landing from a complete engine failure and with loss of forward velocity. They’re also by nature VTOL, so you can more or less put them down on any flat surface big enough, while a fixed wing always requires a long enough path to lose energy on.

The only reason helicopters appear at all riskier is the roles to which they’re put, and their ability to hover means they’re often put into situations that are much more likely to risk rotor blade strike and loss than any fixed wing aircraft is likely to risk an impact on its prop or fan blades.
HN is read worldwide. There are obvious peaks and troughs. I would suggest that timing for US west coast breakfast/morning, or Western European breakfast Morning or Asia (Japan-Korea-HongKong-Singapore) breakfast morning wasn't bad, but would obviously favour a demographic who want to see fresh HN with their kibble.

I have never posted any story with regard to time of day. But I've also never felt I had a success flood.

I have been told to consider re-posting after a week or two if it doesn't garner reactions. Inside that timeframe you might be seen as a being a bit over-eager/spammy.
Still aren’t. Alphabet only publishes YouTube revenue.
Never because I don't trust 90% of alignment jobs done by regular shops.

When we lifted our 4runner I did it myself with tape measures. 40k miles later tires wearing better than most new vehicles.

But are you implying that a bearing can be so bad that it throws off alignment, yet I wouldn't feel that massive play while it's going down the road??
It looks like the reason is because it’s trying to run the code it generates
No. Theft requires intent. If we accept that it's incompetence and no one actually intended to apply the fee to an electric vehicle then it is not theft.
it can also read frames from stdin, for example:

cat *.jpg | ffmpeg -r 90 -f image2pipe -i - -codec:v libx264 -preset fast -crf 23 -vf format=yuv420p video.mp4
Unorthodox but probably not wrong. Replication is key. They might have overlooked something obvious or unexpected, or they might have faked data, and we would never know without an attempted replication.
I got into the same arguments during the height of COVID
"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing.

The Wikipedia list of common misconceptions are still common and a lot of them are embarrassingly old if you believe that correcting misinformation is something that's possible to achieve on any scale other then waiting for people to die and hoping the next generation learns the right thing this time round.
Exactly. Don't forget this:

White House corrects NASA chief on Muslim comment

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Monday that NASA administrator Charles Bolden was wrong to say that reaching out to the Muslim world was a top priority of the U.S. space agency.

Bolden raised eyebrows in the space community and outrage among conservative pundits by telling Al-Jazeera television recently President Barack Obama had instructed him to work for better outreach with the Muslim world.

He said Obama told him one of his top priorities was to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."

Improving relations with the Muslim world was a top foreign policy priority for Obama on taking office last year and he delivered a major speech on the topic in Cairo in June 2009.

The White House last week sought to clarify Bolden's comment, saying Obama wanted NASA to engage with the world's best scientists and engineers from countries like Russia and Japan, Israel and many Muslim-majority countries.
That failed to end the controversy.

Gibbs, at his daily news briefing, was asked why Bolden had made the comment.
"It's an excellent question, and I don't think -- that was not his task, and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said.

Many in the U.S. space community, such as moon astronaut Neil Armstrong, are disgruntled by Obama's proposals to bolster support for private space companies and abandon an over-budget NASA moon program.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66B6MQ/
> Ukraine and its allies have much smaller stores of large, outdated dumb bombs to refit,

Unlikely, the US still has a lot (hundreds of thousands) of dumb bombs. As you said, they don't have a good delivery platform until the F-16s get there. The US orders 20-30k JDAM kits _per year_.
If you follow current WHO guidelines for sun exposure, you will avoid UV almost anywhere on planet. Apple’s Weather app (based on those guidelines) recommends all day sunscreen in Stockholm this entire week; same in Singapore, where it is overcast and rainy.

This Swedish paper’s summary does not differentiate between UV and sun, but assuming it concerns UV—the guidelines will seriously have to change, and ASAP:

> Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.
If you're expecting a string to be a URL, failing to parse it as a URL is indeed an unexpected situation.
This is the most exciting thing about the GM EVs to me. They will be wide open and modular. In the EV swap world the Leaf motor is more economical than a Tesla just because it’s separate from the gearbox.
From what I understand, they weren't being charged for created a "dangerous" technology but for actively running a money laundering operation that happened to use that technology. Some of the chat logs that were obtained seem particularly damning.

So it's less like S&W legally selling guns that are later used in crimes and more like a low-level buyer in the Iron Pipeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pipeline).
It's possible that sick weak people are just too tired to want to go outside. In which case it's ill health that causes less sun exposure not the reverse.
Before anyone gets too excited about another opportunity to say the line about correlation:

> We acknowledge several major limitations of this study. First, it is not possible to differentiate between active sun exposure habits and a healthy lifestyle, and secondly, the results are of an observational nature; therefore, a causal link cannot be proven.
Right, LIRR trains don't turn around at any terminus, so the same side is always the south side. I think the only balloon loop in the system capable of turning a train is at Sunnyside Yard, but that's a maintenance/storage facility and not really a terminus; it turns Amtrak trains but never LIRR. There is a wye capable of turning an engine but not a full-length train at the ends of the Montauk and Port Jefferson branches, and perhaps others.
> who is at fault to point the gather crowd to go after?

Ultimately I'll point the fault at the district attorney, as they are the ones who decide what is prosecuted and what is not.

They take unsubstantiated allegations from hertz and put people to jail, but at the same time don't lift a finger to prosecute the clearly guilty corporations for fraud. So yes, while mistakes are made all around, the ultimate guilty party is the district attorney.
People who host pitch-drop experiments don't do it with an expectation of a definitive outcome inside their lifetime.

PhD students at JPL before rocketry became more routine very probably felt the same.

I think anyone considering a role in this endevour would need to be willing to accept at best, 3rd or 2nd order deliverable outcomes in their working lifetime to take pleasure/kudos in, and not actually discovering outcomes of substance from the devices.

If you compare that to e.g. helping build the SKA, or launch Webb, It is arguable they have more bang-for-buck per individual, outcome-in-lifetime. But, thats not to say they do "better" just that they deliver science to their primary mission faster.

Good science in the secondary and tertiary effect space, behaviour of systems designed for long shelflive in space before activation, novel propulsion models, no end of good science.

I am told If Voyager was done again, it might well be done to deliver outcomes in the same place, sooner because we can now afford launch methods and RF systems which are 10x or 100x better.

But not "here's the latest image from Proxima Centauri up close" outcomes for anyone working on Brilliant dust. The cost to get to interesting fractions of c is just too high.
Japanese snacks and drinks also use high fructose corn syrup.
https://twostopbits.com
Consider these musings:

The Shadows of Procrastination: What if the future could remind us of our forgotten dreams, guiding us away from the path of delay?

The Web of Relationships: Could an ethereal guide decipher the delicate dance of our connections, helping us navigate the labyrinth of human interactions?

The Echoes of Creativity: Might there be a muse, hidden within the circuits, to awaken the dormant artist within us, translating abstract thought into tangible creation?

The Illusions of Health: Is there an oracle that can foresee the whispers of our bodies, foretelling imbalances and guiding us towards harmony?

The Maze of Knowledge: Could a digital sage reveal the hidden patterns in our quest for wisdom, lighting the way through the dense forest of information?
TIL thank you!
Is 29 considered old hoagie?
The problem with diversity statements – and what to do about them
> The other issue is that, even if you successfully chargeback against a vendor, oftentimes that vendor is a monopoly or duopoloy, and they will terminate your account and ban any new accounts using the same name or card number, and you'll be screwed.

Did you tell that (by letter) to your district or state attorney?
There are a lot of free apps to make lightweight edits to videos on windows. One example is Avidemux. I have high-end video editors but Avidemux comes in handy more often than it should.

http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/

Another is ShutterEncoder:

https://www.shutterencoder.com/en/
It's not a question of ignorance, it's a question of intent.

If you walk into Walmart and intentionally walk out with a banana without paying, you can't get out of prosecution by claiming that you didn't know it was illegal to do that.

If, on the other hand, you accidentally neglect to scan the banana at the self checkout then it is a valid defense to say that you thought you'd already scanned it in and you must have gotten confused by all the other items you were handling.

Theft requires intent.
I find Anthropic's Claude the most gentle, polite, and consistent in tone and delivery. It's slower than ChatGPT but more thorough, to the point of saturated reporting, which I like. Posting a "Responsibility Policy makes me like the product and the company more.
For a large order this might be a concern, but for a smaller order (as it sounds like this one was) I would think it's unlikely to be worth their time to compete with you.
As much as I wish that were the case, no, unfortunately many people (including leadership) at these organizations assign non-trivial odds of extinction from misaligned superintelligence. The arguments for why the risk is serious are pretty straightforward and these people are on the record as endorsing them before they e.g. started various AGI labs.

Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. " (https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1, published before he co-founded OpenAI)

Dario Amodei: "I think at the extreme end is the Nick Bostrom style of fear that an AGI could destroy humanity. I can’t see any reason and principle why that couldn’t happen." (https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/the-world-needs-ai-r..., published before he co-founded Anthropic)

Shane Legg: (responding to "What probability do you assign to the possibility of negative consequences, e.g. human extinction, as a result of badly done AI?") "...Maybe 5%, maybe 50%. I don't think anybody has a good estimate of this." (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/No5JpRCHzBrWA4jmS/q-and-a-wi...)

Technically Shane's quote is from 2011, which is a little bit after Deepmind was founded, but the idea that Shane in 2011 was trying to sow FUD in order to benefit from regulatory capture is... lol.

I wish I knew why they think the math pencils out for what they're doing, but Sam Altman was not plotting regulatory capture 9 years ago, nearly a year before OpenAI got started.
> Nope my perfectly confident assertions were perfectly correct and shared by every framework under the sun.

Except for the most popular OS in the world and the frameworks that support it (including those you linked, QT has a way to query Windows and get Right Shift key state)

> You WANTING them to work differently doesn't make it so.

Except it does, and your childish trolling and insults can't change this simple FACT that they DO work differntly precisely because I WANT that and I've set it up to work like that, not all software is as narrow-minded as you are. Live with it.
> I'll defer to people who know more about rocket design about why you couldn't have a huge stretchy bladder holding RP-1 (for example) in a rocket stage.

Do you mean you have a cite to this claim? Would love to read.

> You either need to accelerate the docked rockets (so the liquids pool at one end)

Right, this is what I was referring to as “ullage”.

> Engines never have to worry about the microgravity case, there are always ullage motors

My point was that standard ullage motors can and will be used by SpaceX for the transfer. Why do you think this is harder than the fairly standard case of starting an engine in microgravity?
Okay, I will try to keep it short.

> also does this

Nope!

> Believe me

No, but I won't - especially considering how you are pretty much stuck on "yes, Apple mail does it too.. well.. yeah.. in way… yes it does."
What you’re suggesting is fraud. There are already penalties for it.

While it might create an incentive, it’s a very high risk activity.

It also creates the right incentives for the company that it should:

A) not create policies that can result in ‘ruining a consumer’s life’ or at least do so knowing that it is a high risk, high cost activity.

B) know that if they choose to create such policies, they need to be adequately monitored for fraud and false positives.

That seems like a positive outcome.
I wonder about this constantly. Why is there such a legal power imbalance between people and companies, especially large companies? If a company wants to charge me extra they just do it, they don't have to provide proof of anything. If I want to resolve the issue I have to call them or my credit card company, neither is simple and has something like a 75% chance of being successful (IME) even if I'm completely right.

On two separate occasions a company has charged me for something and after I've made multiple calls and escalations (which of course can only happen during certain hours) they finally refunded me by saying "we'll make a one-time exception as a favor to you" even though they were literally stealing from me. In one case they only finally did it after I contacted the attorney general.

Honestly I don't even really care if it was a mistake (which are usually systemic issues) vs intentional, it is theft. In one example Comcast charged me a late fee even though I had autopay set up and they just missed running the charge. I wonder how many people just didn't notice.

I've long thought the only solution to these issues is to levy fines (or jail time if intentional theft) large enough to discourage the behavior. If it is still happening, keep raising the fines until it stops.
Lots of missions have flown RTGs, and there's always a group of protesters present every time one is launched.
Article on original site that incidentally includes a lot less JavaScript

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/05/15/magazine/on-the-trail...
If they did a chargeback, Hertz might dispute it, send you collection letters and terminate your account.
Why the Nokia N-Gage gaming handheld failed
This line of thinking just sounds like being afraid of the mythical welfare queen and other policies enacted to protect wealth for rare occurrences.

It sounds good to make all these measures to make sure the scummiest people can't do their scams but most of the time you end up punishing people who need the protection the most by locking them out of the protection for not being able to legally navigate all the box checking.

Punish scammers harshly when caught, make it some exponential number of any profit gained, and open them up to audits in the past to figure out that exponential number. Opening it up to criminal liability and elimination of certain settlements without admitting guilt seem like it might help too.
I don't own any car and exclusively rent from one of a few companies (probably all owned by Hertz). I've heard a lot of horror stories, but really haven't ever run into a problem, to such an extent that buying another car has not crossed my mind in any serious way in the last 6 years since my last one died. So anecdotally, I'd highly recommend this, because owning a car is a massive pain in the ass logistically and financially, and I'm happy to not have one. Sometimes (maybe one rare time every two years) I need a rental for the same short time on a weekend that everyone else does, and that's a bit inconvenient, but couldn't bother to care so much.

The only thing I'm relatively cautious with is suspiciously high deposits/credit authorizations.

When I run the numbers, it would literally take years for the amount I spend renting to surpass the amount I'd spend on just the sales tax or insurance for a hypothetical viable car. It turns out that owning a car is like owning a McMansion, such that you end up inflating your lifestyle to fill the space or depend on the car.
I’d say not at all, this is pretty common advice, but maybe depends on what you mean by unorthodox, exactly. The advice is fairly good (and routine) for studies and papers from any discipline. All kinds of things can cause a single paper, single set of authors, single methodology, single dataset, etc., to come to misleading conclusions. The study can even be accurate in their measurements but not representative in subtle ways that are important. Before using someone’s results or making decisions based on it, it’s good to wait for confirmation from someone else, and even more so for a meta analysis of multiple publications.
> He founded the risk market investment mechanism

“Risk market investment mechanism” is gibberish.

Milken did not ”[popularize] mortgage securitization”. Ranieri was at best his contemporary; he was not inspired by Milken. Your own article is a good source on this.

> read the article

I recommend Fabozzi’s Fixed Income as an introductory text if you’re drawing the (incorrect) conclusions that you are from that FT article.
The West was startled by the fact that the Ukrainians were able to rout the Russians. Most Western analysts expected Russian to win in the event of an invasion and Zelenskyy pleaded with Putin not to invade the night prior.

That Russia took almost 3 years and a presumed 300-500k casualties to begin deploying basic air support with guided glide bombs, like the west has been doing for 25 years, was indeed surprising.

Every military has the ability to innovate and adapt because the life of every member of the military is on the line each day. It took an astounding number of embarrassments and lives lost for the Russian military to adapt, including a near coup by PMC Wagner.
I took photos every few minutes for about a year. I wrote some custom code to pick out a set of frames from several consecutive days, but with the sun at the same angle in the sky. I then blended these frames together. This makes a ghostly look, without the bright flashes of cloud passing or weather changing. As I moved forward in time, I selected frames from the next angle in the sky, so it looks like only a day passes. You’ll see the shadows move as if a day passes, when really a year goes by.

https://youtu.be/RAsJE5ddt_U