skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can't edit but some more thoughts. Maybe this appeal will help drive my point. Say you and a friend both want to trade. You have a Cybertruck, he wants it. Time, customization, or sentiment is a factor. Whatever.

On offer? Something that would solve all of your newfound problems. Whatever it/they may be. He doesn't need it though; in fact, it's wasting space. Plus, he'll toss in a car good enough to not make a new issue for you, and a little money for the effort.

Why does Tesla or anyone not in this otherwise legal transaction get to deny this? So that yet another unrelated party can buy a price-fixed commodity? We're several degrees detached from reason.

Is it not greater to let this amplification factor/trade happen? The free market succeeded, woohoo.

This resale limitation stuff is a weird wedge in the concept of autonomy/ownership in my opinion. Akin to regulatory capture. The manufacturer becomes the scalper.
Discussed at time (509 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32607187
Boeing has been growing its ranks of biznoids and letting the graybeard engineers retire. Smart keen young engineers would rather go work at Space-X than Boeing.
This phrase has always annoyed me. And if time isn’t an illusion, how does that come across differently than if it is?
We don’t have any way of determining whether these experiences are purely generated by the brain, and it’s not smart to claim it’s one way or the other without further evidence.
> The explosive growth certainly suggests

Also the LCOE:

https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...

They haven't put out a report for this year, but it appears they didn't for 2022 either.
"Remove title attribute tooltips."

Well, there goes so many library/plugins that specifically use the title attribute as roll over fly outs.
Cinebench is fine if you’re looking for how your cpu performs in cinema4d. The problem is users are using it as a general purpose cpu benchmark. It isn’t. It sucks at it.

SPEC is the industry standard for CPU benchmarking.
This was well recognized during the energy crisis of the early 1970's.

It took until 1982 but eventually it looked like alternatives to fossil fuel were going to be here to stay.

There wasn't very wide recognition of climate upset, which even now is treated as more of a future boogeyman.

The research was a "little" more urgent since the ongoing financial devastation from having all those dollars diverted to places like Saudi Arabia was continuing to undercut the momentum of nationwide prosperity completely. In real time.

Then one day the price of oil dropped precipitously enough to cause a world-wide "oil recession". Too bad for the oilmen. The rest of the world could breathe a sigh of relief. After years of inflation it was the only thing that ever came down in price, but it was a major one for people across the board. Dead cat bounced for about 5 years but alternative energy was still kicking. Then oil bottomed sufficiently to insure another 20 years bad luck for the oil business. But to them it was completely worth it because it put a stake in the heart of solar and wind.

Higher energy returns is in terms of investment dollars. There will always be a price for crude oil below which wind and solar have lower returns. Just like it was before.

The question is, can OPEC actually reduce the price below that point any more, and sustain it for the amount of time necessary to halt alternative momentum this time?

Seems to me some OPEC types have badly mortgaged their oil dollars to a greater extent than the original sheikhs used to do, so there may not be that much dry powder any more.

The recent agreement to cut back production specifically to drive prices up may be for immediate financial reasons. OTOH once immediate relief has occurred, maybe the floor will be dropped and those who borrowed for alternative purposes will be held underwater long enough to where they can't breathe any more either.
In my second paragraph I pointed out that this probably isn’t bias, this is Occam’s Razor. If the razor cuts against you, it’s your problem as a patient to fight back.

Is that fair? No. Does a medical professional have an obligation to take a patient seriously? Yes. But I bet busy physicians have an hard time avoiding being biased by direct experience with unreliable patients: drug seekers, people with mental health issues, people who want the drug they saw on Fox News ads, etc.
Previously discussed here. A New Scientist article which has more info:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550164
arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13386
I dunno. When I read the founding fathers, they seem pretty skeptical of power structures, both public and private. The way they configured the government, it’s clear that they had little trust that we’d have competent or honest politicians at the helm. Hence all the checks and balances and limitations to federal powers.
I'm curious why the rated that one hard.

They say the maximum length of the input digit string is 10, so there are at most 9 places where an operator can be inserted. At each possible insertion point there are 4 possibilities: insert one of the 3 allowed operators or do not insert anything.

That's only 262144 possible expressions. Just brute force evaluating all of them, filtering out the ones that do not equal the target, and then filtering out those that violate the no leading zeros requirement should be fast enough even on a slow computer.

The other hard ones I've seen have all allowed inputs large enough that brute forcing would be way too slow, and so cleverness is required. E.g., that shortest path in a grid problem that was posted a comment or two above. My first thoughts on that one were to just generate all possible paths with the obstacles ignored, and then find the shortest path(s) that do not cross more than the number of obstacles we are allowed to eliminate.

But the grid can be up to 40x40. By 10x10 we're already up to 41044208702632496804 possible paths [1], so brute force is not an option.

[1] https://oeis.org/A007764
Yes, we are. If you don't see the analogy, I'm not sure that I can help you.
oh, that one. yeah, you might actually have a point with that one! However, at least it gave some purpose to the Red Lady other than smoke assassin.
What if they gave the Internet and it wasn't addictive?
That seems to be a bad translation, the original text means something like “sharpen something fully and it won’t last so long” (presumably due to it being more brittle). The text (like the rest of Tao Te Ching) is pretty vague and doesn’t actually refer to knives, so it could also be read metaphorically.
Ever since McDonnell-Douglas biz types moved HQ from Seattle to Chicago it's been downhill. Outsourcing has finessed the financials but decimated the engineering talent and institutional knowledge.
What is needed is a combination of practices: widespread adoption of <main> and <nav> tags, but also for search engines to see and respect these. How many times have you searched for some technical issue plus, say, PHP ... only to find that the PHP is really just a word in a set of "related" links, autogenerated by whatever the site is? Were that in a <nav> and that respected by the search engine ...

Until then, skip links aren't the worst idea.
Andreessen Horowitz is a known grifter and scammer. I don't know why anyone associates his firm with anything well thought out instead of a pyramid scheme. Just because he can famoozle big money out of old pension funds doesn't mean he knows much about startups.
Thanks for saving me the trouble to post that. Somebody needed to. DA - RIP.
The issue is we have no mechanism for the sort of support this work needs, short of parallel development with military needs.
a11y education was just absolutely abysmal when I started learning web development. Even if you had good intentions, figuring out how to make something accessible when you were building out new widgets required a lot of research. I think documentation has gotten a bit better since then, but it still relies on having an engineer that cares enough to bother learning about the topic in the first place.

If you compare Chrome Dev Tools now to what was available 10 years ago, the difference in capabilities was stark. My memory is fuzzy, but I don't think it had support for anything related to accessibility, but over the years they kept adding new features to make it easier to build accessible websites.

I think it's an education gap which can be closed with better tools and documentation.
>It'd be very difficult--impossible at some points--to read and write materials from other "dialects". However, with a logographic approach, everyone can understand that the character 工 means "work" even if I pronounce it like [wirk] and someone else pronounces it like [wak], for example.

I'd like to point out this isn't unique to CJK (Chinese/Japanese/Korean). Languages descending from or based on Latin can be understood, at least very generally, by each other because the equivalent words in each language usually have similar spellings or appearances.
Probably good to have some basic checks too if it's expecting a text file of SQL queries- like a dismissible warning if it's over a certain size or doesn't appear to be plain text
> I don’t trust the machines or the people who make them

This makes you consistent. I have no problem with this.

> I didn’t have to read the Harry Potter fanfic to know ad hominems are poor arguments

I mostly agree. But my point is that Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't actually have the qualifications. I want to be clear that academic degrees aren't necessary to qualify someone, just like they aren't necessary to qualify someone as a good programmer. But it is generally harder and the foundation is shakier. In this case, most of his arguments are founded on incorrect assumptions. They are often logical, but it doesn't matter if something is logical if the premise is incorrect.
Okay, and the direct version is that you responded to a general and rather vague comment about a holier-than-thou community by demonstrating in highly fluent detail exactly what that looks like in practice. To attempt a persuasive argument is by definition to engage in rhetoric. In the way you did so, specifically to persuade that the concern is unfounded, you behaved precisely as you sought to argue no one does. In short, you proved beyond doubt that your opponent's claim is valid. In rhetoric, there is no more abject form of failure.

Also, you behaved quite rudely as well as counterproductively - to the point that, if I felt any investment in the Rust community, I would now be asking you please to stop trying to represent it, at least until you can do so competently enough not to embarrass those you purport to defend.

If I found I'd erred as you have, it would bother me a lot. How you handle it is, happily for me, not my problem. But now at least you can't say you've never been told.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't disagree that Korean does seem easier, but I still think you are slightly confusing what the GP is trying to say.

I've never seen "仲人" before but I'm pretty sure it's some kind of person.

https://jisho.org/search/%E4%BB%B2%E4%BA%BA

仲 go-between (which I never saw before but I knew the radicals as "person middle" but didn't know what they were combined, but this one made great logical sense)

人 person

So while I can't "read" it (in Japanese) I can know what it means pretty confidently as kanji very regularly mean the same thing in compound words.

If I saw "なこうど" I'd have no idea because those hiragana don't mean anything to me until I learn the meaning.

Am I making sense? Like the first time I saw 花火 I knew "flower fire" and was able to guess firework.

same with 大人 being adult.

I'm not saying you are wrong that Korean is easier -- I'm saying, learning kanji can make it easier to understand a lot of meaning with never actually being able to "read" the words. and the reading is absolutely hard because of kunyomi and onyomi etc etc.
This was very much spot on. As a middle level manager I tried to bring these in our Healthcare business, but got very little traction. The senior executives could not or would not appreciate the benefits. A portion of the development team were more interested in skills for their next job. I cannot understate the amount of time, money and people we burned through by taking another path.

I am glad this technology survived in MacOS and its hardware.
I feel vaguely aligned with this just because I’m happy to complain about all the extraneous garbage on most sites. But, why does the site start on non-main content in the first place?
Fortunately I'm not a software developer!

Also yes, you're right about having good estimates for medical tests.

Mainly I take issue with your claim that "Running most tests twice won't necessarily give you any useful additional information." As long as it is directionally associated with the thing you're trying to test for (i.e. it has any medical value at all), then running it twice absolutely should give you additional information. "Not necessarily" I guess is true, but again, probability gives us the tools to reason about situations like this even if we can't estimate population parameters reliably.
New drug funding tends to come from the US government already. Drug company R&D looks more like "what patents can we buy out and jack the prices in?"
In general, no.

However a security camera that works with all operating systems just needs to expose a drive via USB… as has been done for decades now.
My understanding from folks familiar was the Evolve decided to cut Synapse out, not Mercury (prioritizing direct relationships with non bank entities vs via middleman). Is that not accurate? Evolve recently sunset many fintech relationships over the last 18 months, so it being their decision would not be surprising.

https://fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/p/evolves-problem...
Yeah the subject of my sentence was unclear. I was responding to the comment about IO in particular.
you can definitely build digital computers out of wood, and probably out of yarn as well. they won't be as fast as electronic computers, but being an order of magnitude faster than hand calculation is easily achievable, and ought to be enough to give them an overwhelming advantage at calulation — if you have something to apply that calculation to

(by 'digital computers' i mean the conventional, turing-complete kind, not special-purpose machines like the pascaline)

the romans (and the lydians before them) were routinely making a silver halide in order to refine gold from electrum; they used common salt, so they got silver chloride, which is a rather poor photographic material, but adequate to the purpose if your exposure is long enough. so photography was tantalizingly close for over 2000 years before it was finally achieved

because the first record of it is from pseudo-geber, evidently the romans didn't have sulfuric acid, which would have been quite useful for many things. but they had lead, glazed pottery, and nitrates, so they could have engaged in the chamber process

screws for actuating motion were documented by heron of alexandria in the early roman empire, and the screw press dates back further, so you could have built a micrometer

i don't know if you count iron smelting as 'advanced metallurgy', but electroplating was also tantalizingly close since the opening of the iron age; wire, iron, glazed pottery, vinegar, salt water, and copper were all available in every city, so you could easily have built a voltaic pile by putting a bunch of low-voltage cells in series — as some have speculated without evidence was done with the so-called 'baghdad battery', which dates from the sassanid period. but it's not clear what you'd plate onto what; perhaps you could tin-plate some iron, and then copper-plate the tin plating? gold and silver plating would have been out of reach

to me the most interesting aspect of this question is this: what advances could we make today, which in retrospect will puzzle our successors as to why we didn't make them for such a long time?
For the spectrum in question: FCC’s “US258 G117”, 8.4-8.45GHz reserved for “Space Research (deep space)(space-to-earth)”. Pretty neat.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
Most stuff starts on marketing fluff nowadays instead of the real meat
K-9 Mail is poised to be Thunderbird for Android
That is a bad argument - you're starting with an internationally absurd hypothetical and drawing conclusions based on it without drawing it back to the real world on the key points. We need to know what form the wealth is and why it is divided up in such a lopsided distribution before the argument gets interesting. Eg, maybe the septillionaire has a magic coin that everyone agrees is worth one septillion just because. He can't give a trillion dollars to everyone in the world because his wealth is indivisible and apart from the magic coin there aren't any real resources to divvy up. If the "wealth" is money in a bank account a similar problem occurs - if he gives out cash payments, there aren't more real resources so the only thing that happens is lots of inflation. Real living standards might not change.

You can hopefully see the logical issue here with the argument - we can both just pick absurd premises and point out that we could get our preferred moral outcome from them.

Although my hypothetical isn't as absurd as it might seem on its face. Zuckerburg's wealth is divorced from physical goods for example. Facebook's real consumption is only a couple of server farms worth of stuff. We could seize all the servers but it is hard to see what resources could be freed up for better uses in the real world.

> I think we all agree that wouldn't work for a functioning society--we have to have some limit.

No we don't. If the highest living standards (in a for-everyone sense) resulted from infinite inequality, we should go with that.
Zetier | Hackers and Developers | Full-time | Arlington VA | ONSITE | zetier.com

Zetier delivers high-impact operational wins across the defense, intelligence, and commercial communities. Our deep expertise and robust capabilities catalog directly address real-world challenges with tailorable end-to-end solutions, battle-tested infrastructure, and 24/7 on-site support. We're committed to developing and delivering multi-discipline solutions to consistently overcome modern challenges, anticipate joint operational requirements, and shape future operational landscapes to ensure our clients' enduring success.

Apply here: https://zetier.com/careers/
You guys made a valid point. I got a list of 1000 highest traffic sites in the us in 2023, and I did a skim to remove sites that might be actually useful, but apparently I missed a lot.

This was an afternoon project after I read the article about how 16 media companies own ~600 top media sites that's getting organic traffic.

I submitted an update with a more cleaned list (no more .gov and a few other misfires).

Truth is this project is probably better if it uses a crowdsource approach to the source list (like SponsorBlock). It's a bit out of scope for me since I'm not a developer. I just make things I think is fun. My hope with this thing is to raise more awareness to this problem of large brands publishing SEO garbage, and then maybe someone smarter will come along actually make searches usable again.
Thankfully, a Hoopy Frood was available this day.
Canada has spending limits, but they aren't in $, but in procedures.

It varies by province, but Alberta will do n heart surgeries per year, and who gets them is by triage
I agree. As a metaphysical ponderer, I often consider how "illusion" is fundamental to our understanding of science. Consider this: all physical laws and theories are verified through human experience on a time scale, ie: under these conditions, you will observe this result. There is always an observer and at least two points in time. Time, and observation of it, is the ground truth of all physical laws, of our very experience of the universe.
When I see someone complain about how programming in interviews isn't practical, most of the time that tells me that they haven't spent any time thinking about the difference between programming talent and programming knowledge, and have been coasting by in a world that elevates mediocrity.

Do whatever makes you happy, but as an interviewer I see far too many "experienced" candidates who show themselves to be absolutely garbage at conceiving, planning, structuring, and writing code all while complaining about how impractical it is to be asked to show me that they aren't bullshitting their supposed proficiency.

You can get all the brownie points you want for having 20 years of experience when I start seeing that years of experience make more of a difference than they currently do in this godforsaken industry.
This is boots theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I would market it as a security camera.

Just “camera” implies I might take this to the colosseum or to take family photos.

But without a view finder and with deleting old photos I don’t think that is the use case.

It is super niche though. Most security cam buyers would at least want cellular or wifi to capture the images “so far” before the thief steals the cam itself.

So this is for situations where small is the main thing, I suppose almost for spying.
To you personally in everyday life, or in general?

Because they're concerned with the latter.
It is the recruiters who are being unreasonable.

20 years of experience only serves to indicate that you are probably not up to date with the frameworks and languages of the day. For some unfathomable reason "good engineering" seems to be conflated with using the latest and most buzzword-riddled tech possible.