skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Besides using a single binary static site generator that other people have mentioned, docker would solve this problem for you.
The problem with temperature should be technically solvable at small scale.

Something like a transparent fridge fueled by a small nuclear reactor that would trigger a thermostat to grant a minimum temperature each night. This could hypothetically hold arctic plants for a while, maybe a lot of time being extra optimistic.

A problem would be to protect the reactor and windows to be damaged by sand but if you have nuclear energy you have a source of electricity. The production would be really low in any case, but... not impossible, just extremely difficult.
> (+) which machine, though

A PDP11. Tbf, for most lower level languages it's fairly close to a pdp 11.
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Remote: No
Willing to relocate: Potentially
Technologies: Python, Airflow, Big Query, GCP , AWS, Looker, Git, Selenium, Beautiful Soup, ETL, Hadoop, SQL, Unity, C#, Firebase, Flutterflow
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pjQpfhc9c8kV5dltyUdKlxlTO-TIh4JV/view?usp=sharing
Email: warrenwilliams1996@gmail.com
Experience: Sales, Data Engineering, Co-Founder
Thank you! You put this much better than me.
> if these matters could be handled on a case by case basis rather than in some black and white "former presidents can" vs "former presidents can't" be prosecuted way

That's largely what's happening here. The President _can_ be prosecuted for things that fall outside of the official role as President. This is not a blanket immunity.
You're comparing "expensive custom solution" with "free off-the-shelf solution" when in reality it's "expensive custom solution" vs "expensive off-the-shelf solution". Source control at Google scale is difficult and you can't just wave a magic wand and make that complexity go away.
ParaFi Technologies LLC | U.S. remote possible, San Diego preferred | full-time | Infrastructure Engineer

ParaFi Technologies is a small team operating some of the highest-performing blockchain validators and node infrastructure. We are looking for a passionate, junior- or mid-level engineer to develop software and infrastructure (Python, Go, Terraform, Docker, etc.) and be an integral part of ParaFi Technologies' growth.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQUBpZCVa8fmfJiO...

You can apply by sending a thoughtful email to careers@parafi.tech
> Sure. You want a President to be able to carry out the roles of the office without concern that his or her political opponents will use the courts to try to punish those actions.

Hrm. Surely the implication you're outlining here is that the President will be breaking the law while carrying out "the roles of the office"? Is that not a concern?
> The 1st Amendment rights of the corporate-personed platforms were prioritized above the 1st Amendment rights of the people posting on the platforms - implying that as the conveyor of the speech of the individual speakers, the platform's rights subsume the rights of the speakers.

Well, yeah. As Billy Joel said, "Yes, you can speak your mind, but not on my time." I don't have to carry your speech if I don't agree with it.

> I really don't understand any of this, and it is alarming. Instead of Congress or the courts establishing a reasoable framework about how to regulate speech on the internet, it has just handed individuals' 1st Amendment rights to the people who own the internet.

I think, if you understood it better, you might be less alarmed. First, the Supreme Court didn't hand anything to anyone. It said that lower courts were incorrectly analyzing the First Amendment aspects of laws that regulate speech on the internet. It didn't say their conclusions were right, or even wrong. It said their analysis wasn't good enough.

Yes, Congress should create some guidance. In fact, I think they did - I think that's what Section 230 was. But two states decided they wanted a different set of rules, and wrote state laws. In a few more years, we're going to find out whether those state laws are constitutional. If they are (or even if they aren't), they're going to give some guidance as to what changes are possible to Section 230. Then, maybe, Congress will decide to pass something, and then we can have lawsuits about that.

TL;DR: For today, nothing has actually changed. Nothing.
I run sshd behind the HAProxy https://www.haproxy.com/blog/route-ssh-connections-with-hapr...
As a conservative I definitely disagree Republicans pushing such legislation, though I sympathize with the need to respond to what appears to be a systematic attempt to control the discourse.

The right strategy is a two pronged approach:

The first (and most important) is to address government pressure, and to establish strong First Amendment protections against Congress and federal agencies from putting their thumb on the scale. This unfortunately failed in Murthy v. Missouri, but since it was rejected for reasons of standing rather than on statutory grounds, I think there is good reason to think this could succeed in the future (especially because there is prior precedent stating that the government cannot pressure private actors to do anything the government itself does not have the power to do directly).

The second approach is to focus on how Section 230 is enforced. Section 230 grants broad immunity to social media companies to engage in content moderation without liability (as it should) but I think we need to establish what is meant by "good faith" moderation. The best way I see to establish "good faith" is to set clear expectations about what content is allowed, and any moderation beyond that is done by users customizing their own experience. A pattern of moderation which is contrary to stated policy, especially when it is contrary to the interests of users, could be "bad faith" moderation that would exempt the platform from Section 230 protections, and possibly be considered an unfair business practice (and thus subject to civil litigation).

I think this would be in the best interests of all social media users of every political stripe. And none of this would prevent social media companies from systematically suppressing conservative content as "disinformation", but it would prevent them from doing so surreptitiously or under pressure from the government.
Embedded/IoT is typically slow and small which is not a space PQ fits into.

I also think the article is overly optimistic claiming that ECC is “hard” because of the need for careful curve selection (even though we have very good established curves), but I find it hard to believe that PQ algorithms are immune to parameter selection problems and implementation challenges.
This is like qualified immunity (usually for police), but applied to POTUS.

You want public servants to be able to do their jobs without fear of time-wasting litigation.

But, if you grant blanket immunity, the poilice (or POTUS) are free to do whatever they want.

We're quite clearly tilted way over into "do what they want" territory.
I mean... I used to do that back in 1997. Before I wrote a perl script that would generate my site from a bunch of text files. My script would also ftp the files but that was replaced by rcp.

The benefit was making sure the links all worked and common page elements like the site navigation, header, and footer were all consistent.

Many folks in that era would use an IDE like HomeSite, FrontPage, and DreamWeaver... these would have template features that you would generate your site from. These tools were very much like using my script only slow and expensive.

I do get where the author is coming from though. There are some static site generators that pack more features and require more configuration than a space command centre. I don't get the appeal of those. The key is to keep it as simple as possible.
Similarly, I find jQuery refreshingly easy and simple compared to React.
> What manufacturers like about cloud enabled devices is that they can automatically upgrade the firmware and they can get semi-accurate counts for usage.

What they like is that they can charge you a recurring subscription for "service"
QC at a very very very limited scale works and it’s not clear that it can be made to scale to solve problems faster than classical.
> In 1906, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. that headnotes have no legal standing and therefore do not set precedent.
If you need to understand why this is bad, then you need to read the dissent. The dissent makes it very clear why this decision is a bad one and what presidents can do while still being considered immune.

"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution,
the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the
President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since
the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies
about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes
to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his
own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson,
J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the
most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under
the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
Just subjective rating from human perspective, I guess. I feel like any metric I'd come up with to try to capture it specifically could be thrown out the window by not knowing what I may encounter. What if they've figured something completely different out that doesn't involve transistors? Or even computation or electricity as we know it for that matter? Think of something like those creatures from Arrival, who just kinda looked like floating blobs but ended up being way more advanced than humans.
_looks pointedly at Apple_
The Chevron decision allowed the Reagan EPA to not enforce regulation that was added by Congress to the Clean Air Act during the Carter administration.
libui
libui
A president can still be impeached and removed, they may not "serve their debt to society" but the harm can be stopped by the states.
Saildrone | Software Engineer(s), Security | Hybrid in Alameda, CA or Washington, DC | US only, no visas

Saildrone is on a mission to help scientists and sailors better understand the ocean and everything in it, to preserve a healthy ocean and a safe, sustainable planet. We make autonomous sailing robots that travel the oceans, measuring almost everything they can find along the way. Think of them as floating maritime tricorders. Saildrones have discovered new underwater mountains[1], circumnavigated Antarctica[2], and even traveled right through hurricanes[3]!

We are expanding our Security team with two software engineers to help cover a wide array of needs: building security services, helping other teams assess the security of their own work, running pentests and tabletops, teaching security classes, and working with auditors to prove we do all the above. You read that right - we do SWENG, APPSEC, OFFSEC, SECED, and GRC all at the same time! I can guarantee you'll never get bored.

I've listed two positions, but we're flexible on levels for the right candidates:

* Software Engineer: https://careers.jobscore.com/careers/saildrone/jobs/software...

* Senior Software Engineer: https://careers.jobscore.com/careers/saildrone/jobs/senior-s...

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/underwater-mount...

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20190809011553/https://www.bloom...

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230609092913/https://www.nytim... and https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/saildrone-hurricane2021/index.html
Ask HN: Tracking your oncall investigation process
I want to be able to automatically track all of dashboards I open, queries I submit, terminal commands I run, etc. etc. in an automated way so that I can build a time-tracked document of my investigation. This would be super helpful for others that are hopping on to the investigation to see Where Things Are At and also would save time by not having to manually retrace steps and document the process.

Ultimately, I really do think that an LLM could synthesize the steps I've taken--and the steps that others take on their oncall rotations--to resolve issues and produce a document of patterns for diagnosing issues that my team is likely to encounter.

I feel like this _should_ exist already, but there's a ton of productivity/time-tracker applications that don't quite fit this bill. And I get that this is hard--I don't want keyloggers and spooky things monitoring me--but I would in some circumstances like this when shit hits the fan and I need to investigate quickly (and don't have time to log everything I'm doing...)

Any thoughts here on a product or a process improvement that you can recommend?

Thanks!
At least with this one they've rescued us from doing national politics like a banana republic. You can't arrest Presidents for doing things they had the total latitude to do as Presidents. We can't have the courts deciding whether Presidents had good or illegitimate reasons for any arbitrary decision that they made during their presidency. It's madness.

If a president took a bribe for a position, prosecute him for taking a bribe (if it's not a gratuity, because Congress has declared tipping politicians legal.) But if he could have made the same decision because he liked someone's tie - it's nothing but second guessing, by a likely hostile later administration.

These people appoint all their campaign staff and big donors to government jobs. If that's legal, then any reason for anything they do which is left up to their discretion is legal. If it's not legal, have Congress make it not legal.

-----

edit: gaganyaan, you are wrong. If you think that the entire point is that a president cannot be prosecuted for taking a bribe, you should reevaluate your understanding of the entire point.

> Under Monday’s decision, a former president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe, but prosecutors could not mention the official act, the appointment, in their case.

> Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the rest of Roberts’ opinion, parted company on this point. “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” Barrett wrote.
Just curious - why not open source?

(really cool btw, super impressive)
> I'm fairly sure there's a full and complete list of these is explicitly in the Constitution.

Roberts disagrees in the decision (p. 17):

> Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an ac- tion is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.

> But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary respon- sibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States “in a broad variety of areas, many of them highly sensitive,” frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756. And some Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or pal- pably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023) (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 755–756 (noting that we have “refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support”).

> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect. Indeed, “[i]t would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government” if “[i]n exercising the functions of his office,” the President was “under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry.” […]

> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For in- stance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal vio- lated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. Ibid.

* https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Please don't take HN threads into political flamewar hell, or any other flamewar hell. That's what we're trying to avoid here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The next sentence addresses that—there are reasonable disagreements to the extent that some actions are legal or not.
Re: "Abrahamic faiths and their adherents came as invaders and colonizers".
The entire defense you've repeated here is one his people would love for everyone to believe - thankfully most don't. Orange man is bad for many real and legitimate reasons, the fact that he's had the legal resources to fail upwards this long not withstanding.
I want something that just publishes my markdown files in my Obsidian vault as a static site.
> It depends on your needs, some use a templating language (like Handlebars, Nunjucks, Pug, etc), others might write a script to build the site

That sounds an awful lot like a static site generator to me?
Reminds me of a comment I made a while back reflecting on past teaching experience. Programming is easy to teach, provided you have a fairly friendly context to teach under. Teaching programming in the context of p5js and by making a bunch of simple visual / interactive "toys" is easy.

It gets complicated when you have to build websites and apps to actually solve some kind of business / consumer need, and I would argue it isn't even the programming aspect that makes it complicated. Rather, it's the fact that the thing you're building is built atop a layer of dependencies that you don't really know anything about, who in turn have their own layer of dependencies. To use these dependencies effectively, you need to know about some of the concepts embodied within them, such as a render lifecycle if we're talking about some kind of frontend js framework, knowledge that isn't precisely "programming knowledge".

And I as I mentioned before, this is why I think I'm not too worried about LLMs getting good at programming.
Legal fiction. It was convenient to treat them as persons for legal reasons, but it's now clear that we need to clarify that with an amendment.
Here is a very simplified TL;DR of the decision:

A president's internal planning and discussions with his team are are at least granted "presumed" immunity unless the prosecutor can establish that the act in question fell outside of the office. So for the President pressuring Pence to uncertify the election results, prosecutors would need to make a case that it was outside of his power to do so - the reasoning behind it is largely irrelevant.

When it comes to interactions with external groups - be it local election officials or even the press/media - prosecutors need to establish whether the president was acting on an official basis or an unofficial basis. (And they are clear that the president acting on behalf of his party or his campaign would be unofficial).

> "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

My reading of the decision is that of the four counts against Trump, three can proceed so long as prosecutors can make a case the actions were not official acts.
Amazing naming choice - doggos like to dig!
i don't think that's included in "official duties".
We’re not talking about Winamp. A more accurate comparison is the Adobe CS suite: no one use CS5 anymore.
RouteLLM: An Open-Source Framework for Cost-Effective LLM Routing
Thinking is harder than most people program.

Solving a problem is a complex process that has a small amount of programming even if it is a programming problem.

Programming is communication with both a computer and a person. Have fun!
I love Excalidraw.

It is not as powerful as draw.io or something, but its small set of tools and default colors are perfect for me when I need to sketch a diagram without needing to think to much about the format instead of the content.

The draft style of Excalidraw helps me to express the idea of informality, like I would do if was writing in a whiteboard explaining something instead of writing a formal document to be published.
You're crazy. This is really cool.
Easier fix would be to click the little [-] button next to the comment to hide it so you don't read it, or even just scroll past it.
Also a must read: How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker.

Pinker advocates for a model of mind that has multiple streams of consciousness. In Pinker's model of mind, there are multiple agents constructing models of the world in parallel, each trying to predict future states from current state plus current input data. A supervisory process then selects the model that has made the best prediction of current state in the recent past for use when reacting in the current moment. The supervisor process is free to switch between models on the fly as more data comes in.

Pinker grounds his model of mind in curious observations of what people remember, and how our short term memories change over a period of sometimes many seconds as our mind switches between different agent interpretations of what's going on. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Pinker concerns himself with why and how witnesses are unreliable, not for legal reasons, but for how those unreliabilities might reveal structure of mind. Pinker's most interesting observation (I think) is that what we seem to remember is output from the models rather than the raw input data; and that what we remember seeing can change dramatically over a period of many seconds as the supervisory process switches between models. Notably, we seem to remember, in short term memory, details of successful models that make "sense", even when those details contradict with what we actually saw. And when those details are moved to longer-term memory, the potentially inaccurate details of model are what are committed.