skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am finding that most saved bookmarks are simply not that important, until one of them is.

I don't use bookmarks in any of the browsers because I use different browsers and devices and they don't all sync and I actually don't want them to sync or sign in which can become a time sink.

If it's that important *today*, I manually save "One-liners & Links of the Day" chronologically month to month in a hand-coded HTML file which is my home page which can easily be accessed from all devices and browsers. If I go back in the chronology and frequently access a link, I might put it at the top of the home page under "Favourites / Recents / Frequents."

To answer your question, yes: I have problems with bookmark organization.
The cryptocurrency industry Super PAC Fairshake is now #1 out of all Super PACs
Read the code in reverse
Then you simply haven't lived it -- a privilege you should be ever grateful for.

Many people try to be good at heart, but there are certain dens of scum that all but the naive, foolish, and equally villainous steer clear of (I was the first two). I joined a startup ran by the equivalent of a used car salesman turned finance exec turned founder. He employed some of his family, and many of his friends and prior colleagues. I was tasked with building the entire technical side of things from the ground up with a "short leash" in terms of resources, time, and such (albeit I came to find out they were never real constraints, just artificial pressure by a Jobs wannabe).

And so I did, because I could not get a job elsewhere, and this was a great career opportunity. I did this in good faith. Even when I had to work 100 hour weeks to put out fires caused by an endless amount of cut corners to reach some artificial deadline -- I still put in a good faith effort to do the right thing. Even when the executives plugged their ears and would not listen to a word that did not coincide with their reality (we need real engineers, and your salesmen need to stop lying to their customers about products we don't have, because I cannot develop 6 projects in parallel. No, you cannot hire a bunch of bodies from a 3rd world country at low wages to staff augment a project behind some delusional deadline).

And so I went from a bright, fit, and jovial young man into a balding, vitriolic, and frankly psychotic goblin. I'm still recovering from the PTSD -- and your post did "trigger" me into an emotional flashback. For that I apologize.

You may have taken my exasperated and irritated tone at face value, as someone without much emotional maturity or inward reflection (i.e. teenagers with self-esteem issues and grown children who spend all of their free time idly consuming entertainment). But this is where I vehemently disagree with your characterization, and will flip it back onto you: perhaps you simply haven't lived enough to understand both view points?
I am concerned about all kinds of nanowires. If they are sufficiently strong, they should be able to damage your lungs in the exact same way that asbestos does.

Not through a chemical reaction, but a mechanical process that damages cells. The damage makes it easier to mutate. Which creates a long-term potential for cancer.

Silver nanowires should not be as strong as carbon nanotubes. But are they stronger than cell walls? If so, the potential exists for the same kind of harm as asbestos. Will we only learn whether it happens in practice only after they are widely used?
AI companies reportedly still scraping websites despite protocols to block them
I disagree, it's not silly. I love it when these things are specified, they help give me context and sometimes are a decider whether I start reading at all.

HN is too broad a forum nowadays and apparently you can't make everyone feel welcome. Which is fine but I'll not accept "silly" or "could not care less" labels. They are subjective and attempting to present them as facts is not productive.
https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-epyc-9754-bergamo/2
The whole point is that I literally don't care. Nothing ever has, nothing ever will and nothing ever could happen to me because of cookies or whatever data the browser extension can use. So much time wasted managing this.
California AI bill becomes a lightning rod–for safety advocates and developers
Given that the cases started appearing as early as 2015 and started ramping up in 2019, no.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/mystery-brain-...
> dang is a Taoist

The Rationalists got one thing right at least: "We are only aspiring Rationalists". (I would add: "Or so it may seem.")

See also: Science, Humanism/Skepticism, Atheism, etc.

> maybe physicists are hedgehogs who imagine themselves foxes

Maybe....but one thing that can be observed is that they often imagine themselves to be omniscient.

> Kaczynski.. too much of a logician? (Dare I suggest he was special XD?)

You may!
I predict that the "belittle them until morale improves" tactic won't ever work. In fact, belittling them seems like the small man tactic in comparison with a simple affinity for tribal history (real or otherwise).
If it's limited to New Brunswick, and there is something to find, you'd be better off looking at environmental causes. Flint, Michigan may be a better comparison than CoV2 vaccines.
Computer is cool school
Every website clearly states what country it's in and who the target audience is. Except if it doesn't, in which case you know it's the Americans.
While in the mathematics of the later part of the 19th century and of the 20th century there have been developed many theories with very abstract concepts for which it may be claimed that those concepts have been invented in the minds of some mathematicians without a direct correspondence with the world experienced by them, such a claim would be false about almost any concept in the mathematics developed until the 19th century, because almost all older mathematical concepts are just abstractions of properties of the physical world.

For instance, what happens when you connect the two electrodes of a battery to the pins of a semiconductor diode will differ depending on whether you negate the battery or not (i.e. you revert or not its connections). What happens with a ball (or with a thrown stone) will differ depending on whether its velocity is positive or negative, and so on.

Additions and subtractions of physical quantities, therefore also negation, happen in the physical world regardless of the presence of sentient beings.

Humans can recognize such properties of the world and give them names and integrate them in coherent mathematical models, but the base concepts are not inventions, they are the result of empirical observations.
This. Even though you/we are [mostly] focusing on the tech aspect of the world, make no mistake; the “business side” (or the political) can kill your migration project more suddenly and decidedly than you can spell ‘strangler pattern’.

So, to add to the comment above:

- does your migration affect the clients and the way clients work in any way? No matter how small, if the answer is “yes” then you need to ensure full buy-in from the clients. Even if your migration went flawlessly from a technical perspective, if a large enough client didn’t realise that V2 comes with some change that he doesn’t like, and when the change hits him after the migration, he raises this as a problem and escalates the problem high enough up the food chain with the message “this is not working for us” then you are going to be rolling back, regardless of the technical stuff. So, realise that the clients are big stakeholders and they need to be managed from the beginning of the project until some time after your V2 go live. In my experience the best results come from bringing them close to the project early and get some buy in by having them e.g. do some end-to-end testing if V2 and get them to accept the V2 before the go live. Preferably in an email for if things get ugly at some point (it happens, is sucks).

- also as the comment above says, don’t ignore the political. You should know what every important stakeholder gets out of this? Don’t forget personal ambition, ego, promotions etc as possible motivators for stakeholders. Who of the stakeholders are supporting your project now, and who is not? And just as important, what may change for a stakeholder to “switch camp” from supporter to not. Maybe the stakeholder is a mid-level manager who is measured on some
KPI and V2 will make his KPI look better. So he’s a supporter. But then his company gets a new ceo and the KPIs change. Now he is no longer a supporter because V2 doesn’t give him anything he wants. And he’s actually now against your project because he has to commit some resources to it, but doesn’t get anything, so actually if your project is killed he frees up resources and doesn’t loose anything.

From one developer to another; The tech part is the easier part I’m sorry to say.
Yeah, I can also wake myself from those dreams by raising my heartrate and it won't be throbbing when I actually wake up.
Sure, at _really_ high doses anything can become toxic. And we're talking about multiple grams of silver, enough to cause skin staining.
It seems to have a lot of bearing.
The actual title seems to be "Testing AMD’s Bergamo: Zen 4c Spam" which I really like because for the perspectives of 20 years ago this would feel a bit like "spam" or a CPU-core "Zergling rush".

As I said before, I do believe that this is the future of CPUs core. [1] With RAM latency not really having kept pace with CPUs have more performant cores really seems like a waste. In a Cloud setting where you always have some work to do it seems like simpler cores but more of them is really the answer. It's in the environment that the weight of x86's legacy will catch up with us and we'll need to get rid of all the waste transistors decoding cruft.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40535915
The method in this paper relies on precomputed camera poses as input, but there have been tons of papers published on the topic of eliminating this requirement. Here are a few: https://dust3r.europe.naverlabs.com/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07064 https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08760v1 https://x.com/_akhaliq/status/1734803566802407901
In fact, the technology has never got to the point where it works reliably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping
Overthinking? Refocusing on bodily sensations may calm your mind
Maybe the devil is either intelligence without love or love without intelligence. The latter can do just as much harm.
My statement applies even without the destructive environment part - even though that was already mainstream 23 years ago! See Red Faction. No, just making a real-life place a detailed part of a video game is going to cause the pushback I mentioned.
> This exercise involves looking at a piece and imagining which square it would be best placed on, without initially worrying about how to get it there.

Without using Stockfish, how does one do this in their head? What rubric can you use to evaluate whether one square is better than another? (I’m a very low level player, obviously,)
Is that official? In spanish, decades ago, the word for battery was "Pila"

"Pila" is a heap of countable physical units, either stacked or disordered. But pila is commonly a fixture for liquids, like septic tank is pila séptica

And batteries were mostly lead-acid. Hence, a pile for/of acid.
Agree, think about it as scribbles we make on the scratch pad when thinking through a challenging math question. It mostly serve as input to our ongoing thinking process, rather than persistence of thoughts.
> Windows is a better desktop OS, with more tools and software.

What tools are you using on Windows specifically? Visual Studio, maybe?

I only ask because, other than workflow-specific tooling (Photoshop, etc), no one is creating non-Electron GUIs anymore, and with non-GUIs Windows used to be far behind for Windows-specific software.
I think it's not that it has historically been overvalued, so much as the valuation wired into us hasn't fully accounted for the consequences of mass reproduction.

Before the printing press, a poet was valued and valuable; today, the feeling of valuation remains, but instead of each village of 160 looking after their own poets and bards, it's a power-law distribution where Taylor Swift and J. K. Rowling are worth hundreds of millions to billions while the person at the end of the top 100 best-seller lists absolutely needs a second job.
> That's kind of the point though: being reasonably sure that a commit contains a tree that the committer had seen at some point, instead of making up history with commits that contain trees that the committer never saw at any point at all.

I don't really understand why this would be important. If I'm the one committing, I can rebase however I want to rewrite history before merging, so if I'm super adamant that a commit that looks a certain way exists, I can just make that commit and then put commits around it as needed to ensure that it can be merged with by fast-forward to preserve it. If I'm not the one committing, why should I care about what intermediate states that the person who committed them don't even care about enough to preserve?

To me, the issue seems more that the UX for doing this sort of thing is not intuitive to most people, so the amount of effort needed to get the history rebased to what I described above often ends up being higher than people are willing to spend. This isn't a particulary compelling argument to me in favor of merging workflows though because it doesn't end up making the history better; it just removes most of the friction of merging by giving up any semblance of sane commit history.

(edited to add the below)

> When someone rebases `n` commits, experience has taught me I can't trust any commits other than `HEAD`; chances are any commit printed by `git log "HEAD~${n}..HEAD^"` was never checked out by anyone, much less tested at all.

I definitely agree that generating broken commits during a rebase is not a good thing for anyone, and I'd be super frustrated if I had teammates doing that. At least personally, I make sure to compile and run unit tests before continuing after each step of a rebase after I've fixed conflicts; there's even the `x` option in an interactive rebase to execute a command on each commit (which will halt and drop into commit and allow you to amend before continuing if it fails), which is unfortunately not super well known.
> A rather delightful property if you want to attack anonymity in some proposed “everybody just uses cryptographic signatures for everything” scheme.

I don't follow. Surely the entire point of a public key is that it's public, and the point of signatures is to show that something belongs to you. An anonymous signature makes no sense, because signing something is putting your name on it. If you wanted to be anonymous in the sense that your public key cannot be recovered from a message, you wouldn't sign the message.
Two decades - see Red Faction, which is a first-person shooter from 2001.
This makes sense for checkpointing and restoring long ML training runs.

Doing this on a networked application is going to be iffy. The restored program sees a time jump. The world in which it lives sees a replay of things the restore program already did once, if restore is from a checkpoint before a later crash.

If you just want to migrate jobs within a cluster, there's Xen.
Recovery for ECDSA is a well known technique but it makes verification much slower and makes batch verification impossible. It also doesn't really result in a size reduction in most cases where a key must already be communicated somehow.

It also depends on the message hash not depending on the public key, which prevents the signature from being a proof of knowledge of the private key (you can just pick a random message and random signature and it will be valid for some random pubkey which you don't know the private key for)... this can result in security vulnerabilities though the requirements for it to do so are a bit contrived (but I seem to recall finding some examples previously).

Implementations also potentially infringe a specific known patent -- one that appears to have just been transferred to a patent troll. So recovery users, hold on to your pants!
An easy example of this is from reading books. Chances are you imagine your own scene in your head of how the characters or setting might look like, with much more clarity and depth than what few descriptors the author supplied. In that sense you’ve been communicated something through language but you aren’t thinking within the bounds of that communicated message, your thoughts go beyond merely what is written and add their own sensibilities to the message. None of this was communicated explicitly, but it exists as thought.
The two main problems are how to manufacture them at scale, and how durable they are.

A thin outer layer on your clothing tends to get fairly rough treatment. Think about sitting down, then scooting your butt back. How much force was that? Amd if this is anywhere other than the outer layer, it won't work as well.
I hand code my business website by hand, fun and it's actually fast once you know what are you doing. Best thing is you can actually optimize everything properly by building things to be exactly as needed and make fine refinements. Even with animations and stuff, it's total weight is below 1MB (854Kb).

But this is not for everyone, not only the lack of knowledge (which is fine, not everyone has to write their websites manually) but also lack of interest. Great for tinkerers to deal with the challenges and make it do.
I use memory saver on Chrome and it helps substantially but Chrome just doesn't feel right. It might be the most secure browser out there but performance is lacking. Modern software should be more efficient than this. There is open-source Rust browser engine in the making called Servo (https://servo.org/), I hope they eventually come up with more efficient browser.
This is really neat, kudos!
Not only that but this is so far away from the actual problem being solved that it’s just kind of annoying.

I wish there was some sensible way for code that’s purely about optimization to live entirely separated from the code that’s about solving the problem at hand…
Thank you, I intentionally went for this full-width format as I too don't like reading long articles in a skinny single column template that Medium and Substack default to.

As this is a personal website that isn't selling anything, I have no need for email sign up popups and the like.
Are those people not part of the culture that they reference? They're literally telling you how they do things, as a member of said culture.

Are people not allowed now to reference successful methods that they practice, and their origin for social proof, lest they be too uppity? That's a weird take.

If they aren't part responsible for the referenced culture, as a member of it, than who is? (Forgetting for a moment that this is irrelevant, to the point in question, and the question is solely being used to tear the person down).
This is a bit like denying the English King Arthur because the bulk of them are descended from the Saxons that King Arthur was supposed to have been fighting.

Our connection to the land is no less real than our connection to our ancestors from 2000+ years ago—both are largely social constructs, made up of stories that we tell with our modern friends and family. I don't see any compelling reason to say that the modern Greeks are more entitled to Alexander's legacy than the modern Macedonians, given that neither ethnic group is actually descended from Alexander (his family was all murdered) and neither culture bears any resemblance to the culture of Alexander.
Neat, bonus points for colorful log messages in console. One thing though: any ideas what is causing horizontal scrollbar to appear in Firefox? I observe this issue on several websites, but never figured out the issue.
An individual can create computer in mind,
But cannot create mind in a computer
Indeed, but this isn't hypothetical. A large fraction of multiplayer games operate by sending inputs and requiring the simulation to be deterministic.

(Some of those are single-platform or lack cross-play support, and thus only need consistency between different machines running the same build. That makes compiler optimizations less of an issue. However, some do support cross-play, and thus need consistency between different builds – using different compilers – of the same source code.)
And for rest 10% of earth is inhabited... And even less is actual things like buildings...
> enabled by violent coercion

The violent coercion is key, not starvation. Isn't it interesting that every example of an abuse by free markets actually turns out to be the government doing it? The anti-chinese laws, debt slavery, slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.? It's almost as if these things won't happen with free markets!

> generated an enormous amount of wealth

I dispute that. Slavery was dying out in the US by 1800 (as evidenced by its disappearance in the northern states). The cotton gin revived it, but only for cotton, and it was dying out again by the time of the Civil War. The South though the North needed its cotton, but the North was importing it from Egypt. Egyptian cotton (not raised by slaves) was cheaper even including shipping it across the Atlantic.

> made it unattractive for the south to risk seeking a global maximum (investing in industrialization) a strategic misstep for sure.

So they sent their money north to found industries? That doesn't make any sense. Why didn't they invest locally, and get more slaves to work them, if slavery was so enormously profitable?

Slavery is terribly inefficient. First of all, your slaves hate you. They will work as little as they can get away with. They'll sabotage anything they can get away with. They'll piss in your oatmeal. They'll kill you if they can. You have to employ armed guards at all time. You have to provide cradle to grave care for them. They are expensive to buy. If your slaves don't have the right skills, selling them and buying ones with the right skills is far less efficient than just hiring a plumber. And so on.

The Nazis had all these problems with their slave labor war production. Sabotage by those workers was a constant issue.
Artificial systems don't replace humans. There aren't processing facilities chopping us up for parts. Artificial systems don't kill jobs as the function remains.

Artificial systems provide a value incentive that could be realigned with humans. That would be beyond difficult as there are so many downsides to hiring humans, but it could happen.

I posit that this will be the same fight as inhouse tech versus outsourcing tech. Eventually, whatever mechanism is implemented will prove to have a negative value for the company. Realignment will occur and the coin will flip to the other side. Inhouse becomes outsourced or outsourcing becomes inhouse. It's inevitable.

The same is inevitable with artificial systems versus human intervention. Flip.
This article has so few details in so many words. A committee decided 40 people wasn't enough to call it an epidemic, but there is no information to suggest that malice is involved. Have they declared epidemics for smaller clusters? Then there are claims of the number being 350. Is _that_ a lot? Over what time period were the 350 or even the 40 identified?
Stupid question: could you literally just put a grid of coolant tubes through a cube processor? Think like the shape of control rods for a nuclear reactor. Power supply is also tricky with a cube chip, but could you electrify the coolant flowing through the tubes? Half of the tubes positive, half negative. So the tubes through the cube double up thermal and electrical conductance.

EDIT: stupid idea #2: what if you also used peltier cooling to route heat out of hot spots?
Obviously it’s the strongest.
The data for traditional finance is extremely expensive.
The flip side is, if you don’t want your browsing habits shared with every data broker on the planet, you have some say in the matter. You’ll get used to it, given time…