skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The thing about most conspiracies is that they need to have some "marginal plausibility" (I just made that term up). The refrigerator example seems going a bit too far. Hormones in milk might do the trick though. Cold drinks like Pepsi and Coke definitely have some potential.

Also rather than not having cold drinks going back to using ice boxes is probably the better option.

More seriously, we do live in a complex world, we can't function without trust but we also have to be open to changing our opinions based on new evidence. I'm just reading "How to talk to a science denier" and it's got some interesting takes on these topics.
I found Johann Hari good on this with “Lost Connections” where he talks a lot about chemical imbalance vs life situation and their impacts on depression. Found it very enlightening.

[0] https://thelostconnections.com
If we need to start labeling cloudflare as a "bad entity", then that's a big deal.
Threatening to ban someone unless they pay you is extortion.
> because you think China is making Skynet drones

I'm pretty sure China is making Skynet drones. Why wouldn't they be? Russia, North Korea as well. Seems a no-brainer to me. They are dictatorships where a handful of people rely on military power to subdue their populace and achieve their goals, why wouldn't they be throwing everything at weapons development?

Times have changed and it's probably unwise to rely on the tech geniuses and multi-year procurement cycles inside the military industrial complex for our weapons, things are moving so fast and the tech is already in the hands of the masses.

If a genius Chinese kid is tinkering around and attaches a nerf gun to his DJI drone and creates a super effective autonomous weapon, then his govt will gratefully take that and add it to their arsenal.

If some US-specific regulation prevents his peer genius American kid from even attaching a nerf gun to his drone for fear of being locked up, that means China has an edge in the weapons development race.
For ISRU section, this work - https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/roundtable2006/pdf/muscate... - is cited, 1 kg of propellant per day. Where the report authors found the mass of the system of 50 kg?
> You can't protect your website from your DNS provider or hosting provider suddenly kicking you off. You are going to be offline for a couple of days.

Sure you can. Colocate in two or three places. You're your own DNS provider and your own hosting provider. If one of your colocation companies doesn't like what you're doing for whatever reason, you use the other two until you replace that provider.
The most effective solution I found was keeping my phone in my backpack instead of my pocket. When working I keep it somewhere I’d need to get up to get it.

Together with taming notifications this provides enough friction to discourage me from reaching for it at every spare second.

Once the phone reaches my hands the tricks in the post are not enough to remove the need for conscious effort to let go of the thing and put it back in its inconveniently positioned place.
Nocobase, on prem Notion for creating production-ready apps
Based on history I’m sure we’ll have sentient AI slaves at some point if we get that far. We won’t even know it’s sentient at first until we figure out it’s suffering or something. Then it’ll take a decade or two to do something about it, and many people will argue it doesn’t matter.
So countries may only send their aircraft and ships along their own border now? Anyone is free to operate in international waters. And, yes, Chinese military ships do at times sail just outside US territorial waters to monitor naval exercises.

It’s quite telling that the examples you have to bring up of the US annexing territory are from over a century ago, before we had developed modern concepts of international law. We’re supposed to be past the era of annexation by force.

The area that China is annexing is not empty ocean, it’s a set of islands that belong to other nations, like the Philippines. Those are not theirs to take, and it’s a breach of international law, but their military power and UNSC veto means they can get away with it.

And, no, the conflict is not because of US activity. It’s because China, as it quite openly states in various forms including its doctrines, believes it has the right to regional hegemony over neighbouring countries. They, in turn, obviously don’t want that, so they’ve invited the US in as an ally. None of those are ‘aggressor’ moves toward China, because even the largest US military facilities in the area only have sufficient forces for defensive actions, not for an attack on mainland China.

The US didn’t invade Korea, it was part of a United Nations force protecting South Korea from attack by the north. It invaded Japan after being attacked first at Pearl Harbor. It was invited into South Vietnam, at the time under attack from North Vietnam. Laos I’ll give you, that was illegal and unacceptable. The US has never invaded China, it had a post-war force at the request of the then-government to disarm and repatriate the remainder of the Imperial Japanese Army from Manchuria. Similarly, it liberated the Philippines from the Japanese and immediately restored its pre-war democratic government. That’s not an ‘invasion’ as you cast it.

Of course of this is to say the US has always done good or is perfect. Far from it. But your whataboutism and insistence that China has done no wrong is ridiculous.

In the past two decades alone China has been in border disputes and land grabs with nearly all its neighbours, encroaching on territory in India, Bhutan, and the South China Sea. This should not be considered acceptable either.
I did a talk in 2019 where I mention that tidbit. Of course, to properly do it justice I had to bring a Guinness and open it on stage.

Here’s a video from EuRuKo that was filmed on a decommissioned ocean liner converted into a hotel and conf space https://youtu.be/Aczy01drwkg?si=lsVWAFv9f3eLc2fZ&t=1095
There's a nice elegant description of what it does, mathematically, and a significant use in Computer Science.
Why This (CS Math) All Matters
No— you have to explicitly checkmark it for the change to happen. We saw the famous OpenInterpreter tweet where the agent deleted every file on someone’s computer. We wanted to avoid that
Just drop all the diacritics and go on and live for live music. Also the removal of diacritics and other fancy letters like o-slash simplifies text processing.

7 bits are enough for everyone.
The history of just about anything is very interesting, but it's generally not relevant in a textbook which has a specific purpose.
At least they let him publish, albeit under a pseudonym. It makes me wonder how many potentially useful discoveries were made in industrial settings, and wound up being buried due to management not wanting to risk leaking competitive information. The good news, I suppose, would be if you believe that it's rarely the case that only one person could ever discover something. Then you can conclude that all (most?) such discoveries were eventually (or will eventually be) rediscovered independently.

On a related note... I wonder how much valuable research disappears (more or less) when companies fold, get acquired, etc. Take MCC[1] for example. I've been doing a lot of reading lately that involves old papers from the 1990's on "agents" and "multi-agent systems". And time and time again, in the references, you'll see something like "MCC Technical Report TR86-32791" or some-such. Occasionally said report can be found online, but quite a few of them seem to be either hard - or impossible - to find. Maybe there's an archive of physical papers stored away somewhere, but FSM knows where the heck such a thing would be, or how hard it would be to get access.

A similar situation came up a while back when we started discussing "sharding" here on HN[2]. There was a lot of effort spent trying to identify when the term first arose, and a lot of evidence pointed to a particular paper that was internal to CCA, who were acquired by Xerox. And now that original paper seems to be unobtanium. The paper probably still exists somewhere in the bowels of Xerox, but good luck ever getting your hands on it.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectronics_and_Computer_...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36848605
I like where your head is at, but one does need some runway.
This is precisely why I stopped using Nim. I was going crazy trying to remember what functions were called etc. I could do from x import nil but it felt like fighting the language.
IMO, I think blaming social media is an easy-out to explain things. The reality is that we live in a brainwashed no-trust society full of greedy monopolistic corporations and an utterly dysfunctional government who has zero desire to address actual issues combined with extreme wealth inequality...really makes things pretty bleak and hopeless.
> I wonder how much data per unit of time this is capable of transporting.

The max throughput of fiber optic cables isn't exactly constant. As fiber optic modem and DSP technology improves you can get much higher speeds on 15+ year-old cables than were ever possible when they were laid.

Recently I saw an article about researchers getting 300,000 Gbit/s over existing fiber optic cables (though I'm sure that's a long way from being a deployable technology): https://www.aston.ac.uk/latest-news/aston-university-researc...
I’m unsure if you have specific feedback or just a general misunderstanding of the point of additions like layer to the spec.

At the end of the day these are all more tools in our toolbelt. If you want you can keep writing CSS the same way you always have.
You should have a browse through The INTERNET Database of Periodic Tables with more than 1300 you might find a few similar to your interest.

[1] https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php...
Paywalled. Could you summarise them for us?
One reason why this is useful is it lets you iterate through the set bits of a number.

For example:

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>

void decompose_bits(unsigned x) {
while (x) {
unsigned bit = x & -x;
printf("0x%x (%u)\n", bit, bit);
x -= bit;
}
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
unsigned x = atoi(argv[1]);
decompose_bits(x);
}
Is it really an algorithms problem? Surely that idea has been well explored over the last 20 years. OkCupid was big into the idea of algorithmically matching people based on their personality and it got crushed by Tinder, same as all the others.

The problem with dating sites is not insufficiently smart machine learning. It's more like human nature when faced with a large homogenous pool of candidates, combined with the shift to smartphones as the primary way young people interact with online services (significantly restricts how many words people can be expected to produce and therefore how much data you can get for ML).

OkCupid explained the problems on their blog many years ago:

1. Men aren't that picky and are willing to make a lot of effort to find a mate. They would like a nice girl who will take care of them and not be too crazy. Ideally a pretty one younger than them, but most men will settle for plain and same age or older if they have to. This lack of pickiness combined with willingness to make an effort manifests in simply swiping right on / messaging every single woman ("spam" as you put it). They are also pretty fair judges of women's attractiveness: the ratings they give are normally distributed.

2. Women become extremely picky. Tinder is/was notorious for women putting minimum heights in their profile, some also like to specify minimum salaries, specific kinds of jobs, very specific age ranges (invariably older than themselves) and so on. You don't see men do this! They also become unwilling to put in even small amounts of effort. Tinder expects only a few sentences about yourself in a profile but many women don't even write that much. Why would they, they feel like they can pick men from a menu without needing to write a personal essay. Unfortunately, women's ratings of men aren't even close to normally distributed, as they rate most men as being far less attractive than average. There are only a relatively small number of 6ft5 35-40 year old men earning 250k+ a year with a great sense of humor, the problem is women don't seem to reflect that reality in the distribution of attention they're willing to give. Only a tiny sliver of men are considered as being worth replying to, these men get all the female attention and can then sleep around as much as they want, leaving lots of heartbroken ladies in their wake.

Your description of Rarebird makes it sound like the service assumes men and women are pretty much the same and a good dating service would just use AI to make everything better. OkCupid tried that and although it had its fans, once Tinder came out it became something of a ghost town. There's simply no way to satisfy women's expressed preferences no matter how fancy your ML gets. It's a social problem, not a technical one.

(I am so glad to be married and out of that scene...)
This doesn't surprise me; any industry involved with basically any manufacturing seems like a perfect testing ground for statistical methods. There's enough scale in these things where subtle differences can save tons of money, so it can be beneficial pretty quickly.

I always thought the t-test was clever just because of how simple it was compared to more advanced stuff.
It seems slightly more acceptable than kicking someone out of the store due to mistaken identity.
ah, well, what i had in mind by the term government managed had nothing to do with remote access. i was only thinking about the ownership of the software, not how it works.
> My theory is that we're all pretty much that immature, but the rest of us have normal societal guardrails confirming that we're not actually as special and smart as we think we are.

I'd offer up the majority of the billionaire class up as a counter example. Most of them aren't household names even though they can easily afford it and their total population is up to over 2,700 people according to Wikipedia.
Bored students can now enjoy Sonic 2 on TI-84 Plus CE calculators
Fear, I think. It's unpleasant to know someone is harming the common good because they're being selfish. Some people can handle that knowledge and admit "well someone clearly owed their promotion to a legacy module/abandoned code/unused system". Whereas others are that someone or are afraid of that someone, and they make up a bunch of excuses.

This dynamic comes up often in engineering management.
even the metadata would be valuable though, so you wouldn't need to crack the encryption, and you don't have to have it be real-time, so you can just process and save the relevant data and pick it up later, so my instinct is that it's possible there's something there, but it would be really difficult, and we might hear about it in 50 years, just like we learned about Bletchley Park.
Static B-Trees for Faster Binary Search
Aleppo, Syria: a cultural guide (2011)
The feminization of education continues apace. Normal boy behavior is now a pathology.
I wonder if dry reading means written without the influence of drink. I couldn't find an answer online. But, if so, it would be ironic to describe a stat book that ignored a brewer as dry.
> debating about whether and how we can reach AGI is moot

To the alignment/regulation debate, it’s essential. If there is AGI potential, OpenAI et al are privatised Manhattan Projects. That calls for swift action.

If, on the other hand, the risk is less about creating mecha Napoleon and more about whether building Wipro analyst analogues that burn as much energy as small nations is economically viable, we have better things to deliberate in the Congress.
> The problem is that people who are in charge of other people's money will risk it for various reasons, often due to a conflict of interests.

Thank you for your response.

I wanted to amplify this point. This sort of thing is very common in hierarchical organizations. de Mesquita and colleagues have a model that fits reality quite nicely, and indicates a reason for this behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Political_Surviva...
That's true but this is mostly the easy case where things decay in relatively trivial fashion as opposed to the "they're different but actually the same" aspect which is genuinely a bitch of change.
SpinRite is not a windows tool.
That's only counting deaths. Long covid is much harder to measure, the numbers are significant and daunting. My spouse is so afflicted; she went from being one of the most productive and active people I've ever known, to incapable of doing an hour of work per day.
My suspicion is that most business owners don't care about ANY of that.

even returns - it might actually be enough friction that returns would go down.

for example, why would a donut shop give receipts?

I have a friend who recently opened a bar. He did cash in the beginning, but finally got the electronic payments for the bar installed. He immediately caught a bartender stealing.

He noticed that at the start, the bartender got a lot of tips. But when the electronic payment system went in, the tips were not anywhere near as much. He reviewed everything and found the people in the bar do not tip well.

What the bartender was doing was selling drinks and putting many of the cash sales entirely in the tip jar. When the electronic payment system went in, he wasn't handling as much cash and the lower tipping rate showed up.
You probably missed it. This is something stat book authors love to mention. I don’t remember a stat intro book that doesn’t have a footnote for “Student t”.
> simple examples comparing Lisp ... that illustrate the benefits of using Lisp over another language

It depends on what you're trying to get out of it. For example, you can grab a simple code of some React components with JSX and ask ChatGPT to write it in Hiccup (Clojure). That would show you how s-expressions can reduce the syntax boilerplate and make it smaller. You can do the same thing with Lua and Fennel - Fennel code would be much shorter and cleaner.

However, without proper understanding and using structural editing and connected REPL, you probably won't see any benefits right away. Lisp code is not the best to be read off the "dead medium" - paper or screen. It's better when you have a connected REPL because it allows you to evaluate every single expression on the fly. Instead of trying to understand what (foo x y z) means, you can evaluate it and immediately see the results. With a connected REPL, you can evaluate them separately (individually), or together. Good talk of relevance: "Stop Writing Dead Programs by Jack Rusher" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ab3ArE8W3s

Next step in understanding the benefits of Lisp code is learning structural editing. Because everything is a symbolic expression, you can easily move, transpose, change, and replace parts of your program. Instead of rewriting a function of seemingly arbitrary syntax constructs, you'll be dealing with well-structured forms that you can easily move around. No, it not the same, better or worse than using refactoring features of your IDE with other (non-lispy) languages. It's just different.

These two aspects - REPL and structural editing - are really difficult to explain; one has to experience them in person to see if that way of writing software feels appealing to them. And yet, without grokking the basics of these two essential things, IMO, the Lisp experience will not be the same, and you may not get why some people get really excited about Lisps.

And If you're truly looking for a brain-bender, check out https://github.com/hyperfiddle/electric. Dive into the concepts, play with the example demos, and see where it takes you. But be warned: it's an incredibly dense project and definitely not for the uninitiated. If you haven't written in Clojure before, chances are you won't fall in love with its ideas overnight. But it's a good example of "practical applications" that are difficult to achieve unless you're using a Lisp.
> We'd expect zero evidence either way, until it happened

Why? The only null we have, the organic evolution of tool-building intelligence, was iterative.
This is wrong. Wi-fi direct has always been possible with Android phones. Android even supports wi-fi direct connections simultaneously with wifi ap connections. Abdroid also supports the new wi-fi aware, euch simplifies initial contact via broadcasts.
I am not sure why the device manufacturers wouldn't implement it. Maybe they target iPhone first as the more premium users (which might only be true in the US), and then think they cannot support that feature for lowly Android users.
If enough devices supported this, Apple may be incentivised to follow?
No one wants to pay more, but if they do it in a way that makes their customer run to a direct competitor and not want to come back, then maybe there's something wrong with their approach.

We only have one side of the story here, but it's not the first time I've seen posts/comments about these emails from Cloudflare and the messy communication that follows. As a business customer, I really hope I don't have to deal with any of this.
In a way that makes it worse because while you might get it "working" sooner, you'll never be sure if it's because you got it right, or if you're skating across the ice of a "quirks mode" that you hope will work in the next silicon rev.

Then again, if you don't need to follow the spec for your to work, maybe the spec is overly restrictive and a Vernacular Protocol is more effective.
> Congress is also quite comfortable simply legislating a solution

So don’t do that. Nothing you said is a cogent argument against regulation.

> Congress took a direct role in the design specifications of the F-35 to the detriment of that program. Notably, they required a common airframe that could support VTOL, despite objections from the Army, Navy, and Air Force

Huh, didn’t know. Source? (Genuinely curious.)
Its because the problem you need to solve isnt that hard and already solved, it does not need to have a crazy complex novel solution. . All you have to do is present the problem and solution set. xtra math isnt some sort of complex system and it does not need to be, its stupid simple and does the thing its supposed to do.
Blogger is basically abandonware.
Does it work for pasta?
Great response, thank you.

> Does the existence of a seat-belt suppress the "natural heightened attention" (whatever this is) of the driver?

I love this analogy. It neatly highlights that an individual, no matter how "attentive" can still be acted on by external forces. And also, implies that said individual is always affected by those around them, because they share their environment with others.

I find that same have difficult grasping these points, at times.
> I cannot fathom why people think it does error handling well, though.

It doesn't. But it lets me do error handling well if I'm up to it. Which is the worst of all possible worlds except for the one where error handling is done badly.

> Java's exception handling has problems, but at least it gives you nice stack traces and you can't forget to propagate an exception.

Y'know, I actually had the chance to use raw java (and even a modern version of java to boot) for something semi-recentish, and it was pretty great. I was surprised how well it worked out. Unfortunately, this wasn't the experience I got on any sort of enterprise java project though. The stack traces usually truncated before it got out of the framework being used.

I'm not really working in go because I'm rejecting java itself. I have certain disagreements with the design philosophy, especially in its early days, but it's reasonably possible to write decent code in it. I refuse to work in java because of its ecosystem. I know what writing java is like in an enterprise setting, and I'll take 1000 `if err != nil`s over that experience.