skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Aside from this, the pretension is literally dripping from that sentence, my god.

It's difficult to value the "genius" of people (and frankly entire fields) who seem to apply most of their cleverness towards being inscrutable for no good reason.
Okay, I made some changes that should make the format a little more universal. And thank you very much for your patience with this while I work out some kinks. The initial link you had may still work, or you can try this new one:

https://refeed.to/feeds/4rVrwlAG.xml
Would you rather they slept in the sewers?
In fairness, this site skews super US/SV-centric, so a majority of people might read it as Washington :) Nothing against local abbreviations.

The ramifications of hijacking the wifi used by frequent flyers/tech workers between Seattle <-> SJC/NYC/etc have a very different 'vibe' to it than the actual one in the article.
Not yet but will shoot you a message when I do!
To wit:

> Held: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping
on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”
prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Britain's Millionaire Exodus 2024
Scheme, Common Lisp, Haskell, [edit] Smalltalk, probably more obscure ones...

Also, Erlang, Rust, and Clojure, though those have been rumored to be employable, so no longer get as much of the filter as you get when it was just people caring strongly enough to want to use a particular language despite the unemployability.

Whether that caring happened because of skill (to identify something good), or skill happened because of caring (to invest the time in exploration and thinking and practice), these communities seem to get more than their share of great programmers.

And so you know where to look for them, and you have a reason that they might want to talk to you.
It's refreshing to read the replies here as I am currently working in the worst codebase I've ever seen in my life. It's just unimaginably bad.
I was thinking the same thing. I'd imagine a LLM could do a pretty good job after you crawl the data from companies house.
I think its more about regulating where you can do certain things vs making it illegal to exist. For example its illegal to urinate and defecate in public despite these being automatic functions, sometimes involuntary and demanding release right then and there wherever you are. Despite this biological reality, we also understand that there are sanitation issues to allowing the body to relieve itself wherever it happens to be, so we have laws that criminalize public urination or defecation and attempt to direct this behavior towards areas where we can better handle that sanitation issue, and we establish guidelines of what that sanitary environment should be through the building code, and have our sewer departments expand capacity to meet this need.
Show me a greater fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution, which is not an enumerated list of rights, but an enumerated list limiting what the gov't can do. Why is that I only see you post the most specious legal arguments, rayiner? Why is it consistently the case that you misrepresent the basic principles of the US government in the service of facially decrepit arguments?
``In almost all textbooks, even the best, this principle is presented so that it is impossible to understand.'' (K. Jacobi, Lectures on Dynamics, 1842-1843). I have not chosen to break with tradition. V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics [5], footnote, p. 246

It's funny that this quote is not ironic at all, and in fact the authors of SICM include it because they agree with the assessment (by Arnold of his own textbook and its predecessors).

The SICM authors do indeed break with that tradition.
This was a targeted attack on internal systems at Microsoft, not some breach of Azure, as far as I understand.
I posted this because I think there is a human right to assisted suicide, but I am curious for the discussion about that idea. IS it a human right?
No, I do not think that. I'll copy/paste this from another reply I made to a very similar comment:

I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.

The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.

This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
Trump-Biden Debate – Wait but Why
Falling back on imperative is orthogonal to what to teach first. My original argument was that, when just starting programming, it is better to go with FP, as it is easier to learn PP or OOP additionally.

While, when starting with PP or OOP, it is incredibly hard to then learn FP.
Gah. Hopes dashed. I appreciate you pointing this out to me though.
> My experience … rulings.

None of what you mention really applies to specific court cases.

A judge can either defer to the agency involved, or spend a while digging into the underlying intent etc. The second may be “Better” or “Worse”, but if nothing else the first is faster.
Homeless need shelter and help.
It is inhumane that we let them rot on the streets.

City dwellers need safe and clean streets and public transportation. Kids should be able to walk to school by themselves.

These two things don’t need to be in conflict.
Homelessness isn't something that can be swept away.
That's why I included the "or": the other option is that the states will take up the slack (and they will take it up, we're already seeing that after Dobbs).

We're at the scale now where majority rule at the federal level will usually leave 170 million people unhappy. If we can't get anything done at the federal level that might be a sign that we've hit the maximum size+diversity threshold for a functioning democracy and it's time to resolve more of our issues at a smaller, more local level.
>If this forces Congress to get their shit together and pass lasting laws

It won't. People will just suffer while federal workers sit around twiddling their thumbs, because they no longer have the power to figure out how to carry out their missions. And then this will be used to label their jobs as "waste" in order to justify shutting down their agencies. Tada, the real aim of vaporizing regulators and government services achieved.

If you found our perennial government shutdown circus entertaining, you're in for a treat.
I never understand this mentality. They continue to support expanding the power of the executive until it consumes all functions of government, while simultaneously declaring that Trump (and every Republican candidate in every presidential election) is basically Hitler. As if it is inconceivable that the technocrats they relate to will never lose control of government (and legislative agencies.) This, when a wrestling valet Berlusconi-level carnival barker was just elected president eight years ago against the (appointed through a goofy primary) übertechnocrat H. Clinton. That was their best and brightest, and the public was disgusted.

My theory is that liberals were made mentally dull by the Warren court, that it created this unacknowledged model of government within their minds where all actual controversies are low level, and will eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, who will simply dictate the consensus liberal opinion to be the law.

It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family. To fill in the gaps, the country is otherwise ruled through executive orders, and all resulting injustices from this system are to be straightened out by the Supreme Court. That world is very much gone, and nobody has adjusted because all of their theories on liberal governance come from a period during which this was close enough to true (although gradually less and less after Warren.) It is not now true. We (and liberals) can stop worshiping the members of the Supreme Court now, and simply treat them as smart, connected people writing opinions that we may or may not agree with, instead of some holy chamber of wizened elders.

It's profoundly anti-democratic. It's an exact counterpart to the theocrats on the conservative side, but not grounded in anything but current upper middle-class trends and a belief in Whig history to replace the belief in gods.

If we can't fix Congress, and get them to actually govern, there's no government worth saving. I'm not going to fight for the right of the president to unilaterally declare war, rule by executive order and Supreme Court dictates, or the actual functioning of the country to be delegated to unaccountable regulatory agencies. Doesn't spark joy.

edit: I think the existence of the Senate probably adds to the level of liberal cynicism about democracy. It should really be abolished or directly elected in a way unconnected with the states. We already have a geographically based body in the House. The Senate is clearly a distortion of democracy, like a sensory homunculus for representative government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representa...)
I would appreciate that! Please do!
I think most people do that all the time. Projecting authority is one of the most important skills in a world dominated by human institutions, because it's an effective means of manipulating most humans. Sad but true
great for food????

I've lived here more than a decade now but if you don't actually live in downtown or maybe Altstetten, then good luck food wise. Most restaurant are simply serve the same food which is boring after a while.

In Budapest and London there's a lot more variety.
In some sense it’s actually a genius answer to the spam arms race: refuse to participate. This way, the spam is immediately obvious. In the proposed word where sophisticated spam detection algorithms are built, the adversary develops sophisticated spamming techniques that become difficult for even an experienced user to detect.
> Dumb decision

Well, what's the alternative? Do you believe all local laws such as "FooBar park closes at dusk" are federally unconstitutional, and that actually enforcing any of them is "cruel and unusual punishment" against people who desire to camp there overnight?

Remember: It's perfectly possible to say that certain situations are unlawful/unjust/immoral for other reasons, it's not like "I think it violates the 8th Amendment" is the only option.

However, "it violates the 8th Amendment" is was what got argued in the court, and I think the conclusion is reasonable: The entire category of local laws (which are not new) are generally and by default not-against-the-8th.
Read the article, resistance came from a sense of personal repugnance and concluded in the form of personal attacks. It was irrational.
It's owned by the university.

Just the editorial is independent (no influence from university on topics/content published).

> MIT Technology Review is a bimonthly magazine wholly owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and editorially independent of the university.

> Technology Review billed itself as "MIT's Magazine of Innovation". Since 2001, it has been published by Technology Review Inc., a nonprofit independent media company owned by MIT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Technology_Review#:~:text=....
Good thing people from Boeing and Goldman Sachs aren't working in these agencies now, making these rules for the advantage of their former/future employer.
Can't have a home if you don't have a job. Can't get a job if you're homeless.

It's the year 2024 after the birth of Jesus Christ, mankind has produced more wealth and technology than we ever thought it was possible, meanwhile we're living this miserable life, working these shitty jobs, while less than 1% of the population has more money than they could ever spend.

Capitalism should be left behind, we're ruining the only planet we have. It's a system with a critical bug deep in it's core and it'll never be fixed.
>But agencies are political animals, subject to the whims of the current president, who can potentially change every four years. Courts are much slower to change, and much less vulnerable to the political whims of the current administration.

Kagan agrees that executive agents are more political and shorter-lived than judges. Which is part of why she dissented. A federal judge has no constituents, no chance for replacement if the will of the people is ignored. A bureaucrat is appointed by an elected President, so there's at least an indirect avenue for accountability by the people.

>If the law is ambiguous, courts must resolve the ambiguity.

If it's a matter of law, the courts did resolve disputes in step one of the Chevron deference system. Federal Judges are considered experts in law and Congressional actions. If the dispute falls outside of the legal framework (e.g., Kagan's examples of which new polymers count as proteins, or reasonable ways to return the sound level in a national Park to a near-natural state), then the judge went to step two of Chevron deference: defer to the subject-matter experts in the agency. It is ridiculous to expect a judge to get a crash course in hundreds of complex fields that could actually prepare him or her for an informed ruling. Deferring to the people who've studied and practiced the topics seems like the better choice.
What sucks is that as a person in a populous area my vote counts less than someone who lives in a rural area.
>Adblocking does not constitute "theft" under even the most strained comparison.

As long as you accept that things like walking into a restaurant bathroom and taking a roll or two of toilet paper or going to a bank to take one of the pens don't constitute theft under even the most strained comparison. Using an ad-supported site with an adblocker is imposing costs on a service provider by abusing a service provided under certain assumptions that you're knowingly and deliberately violating.
This is a vacuous argument. The vacant homes are largely either temporary (moving out before prepping to sell) or in the wrong places (no jobs). The homeless need more homes where they live and work (or seek work).
What about going to a homeless shelter, or to a municipality that does allow homeless encampments?
There are not. The census definition of "vacant" clung to by people pushing this viewpoint includes uninhabitable construction sites that happen to have the doors and windows installed, homes that have already been rented or sold but the new occupant hasn't moved in yet, homes of deceased people still in estate probate, homes being repaired between tenants, and many others. Only about 9% of census-vacant homes are what a normal person thinks of as a "vacant home".
I sometimes use these in Windows when I expand characters with FormD[0] as part of username validation.

If the expanded count doesn't match, a diacritic might be present.

[0]
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.nor...
Not that I care politics but one should think why reform and why the label "far right"? Why now?
Trespassing... on public goods?

To me, who grew up in Central Europe and is obviously biased, that is wild.
So we're set on expending resources.

If we're going to spend the resources to incarcerate these folks, would not the resources be better spent (with much better potential RoI, no less) on assisting persons in obtaining living situations?
Cost to send a person to a housing facility with high security is probably much higher than the cost to give them housing with no security.
Hammer meet screw.

Companies House is already a large graph of companies and ownerships. You can do this with naive methods easier.
Yesterday would you have said "Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the executive did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws."?
The English language evolves over time. In the context of AI, the word "hallucinating" has been popularized by the corporations creating these products because "it's fucking wrong" doesn't have quite the same ring to it for marketing and general bullshitting purposes.
"Some creative jobs maybe will go away," Murati said in an interview at The Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth University last month, as quoted by Fortune. "But maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place."

Why should the jobs have not been there in the first place? If someone is willing to pay another person to perform a job, so be it. It's their money. To say it maybe shouldn't have existed in the first place seems.. narrow minded.
Discussion from when the argument was being heard: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40107034
Love my QC25s. I got them in mid 2018 and they have been great since. I replace the earpads ever 2-3 years when they blow out, but that's been like $6 each time.

After I got a $25 bluetooth adapter for them, I've stopped wanting to get the 35 or 45s all together.
There's no reason there couldn't be a statistical increase in turbulence without a statistical increase in accidents if the intensity hasn't crossed a threshold for the amount of turbulence todays planes can safely sustain.
Sad day! This guy was a hilarious and talented writer. If anyone is looking for a book to pick up this weekend, I'd recommend checking out some of his work, especially if you like hard drinking Jewish nihilist detectives.
Homeless people don't tend to have the mobility you imagine.
> while macOS is on the up and up

Ehh I wouldn't go that far. I still vastly prefer it to Windows or desktop Linux, but I am growing very tired of the change-for-the-sake-of-change redesigns that are typically worse than what came before it. Half-baked changes that take years to be cleaned up, if they ever do. Though, that seems to be common across all software these days.

It also requires a lot of little utilities for stuff that should really be built into the system (window management until Sequoia arrives, making third-party mice usable).

The hardware is better than it's ever been though.
No other political parties are constructed as a limited company controlled by a single person, that's what's so interesting about Reform.
Maybe I am missing something but it feels like massive overreach from SEC. Wouldn't this make basically any software / front-end that performs token swaps via smart contract interactions illegal in the eyes of SEC? Or is the key issue the fact that Consensys has profited from it by having additional fees?
> It is inhumane that we let them rot on the streets

Agree. But is it cruel and unusual? The court says no.
I often see this (gp's) sentient on HN and it is quite surprising to me given how people here specifically work in technology. Are we not intimately familiar with how one typically starts with small trial groups before we scale, so that we understand the effectiveness and safety? Or are we just "move fast and break things" and leave a mess in our wake with no one spending time to clean anything up. I guess that would explain enshitification.

But seriously, S-curves aren't just about how the middle part looks exponential. Both ends are slow. Slow to start and slow to end. When technology B replaces technology A it is (almost) always WORSE than technology A initially. The difference is that its theoretical maximum is higher. Because guess what? In the long run if you stack a bunch of S-curves together, you get an exponential curve. And this is how so much technology has improved, including transistors, solar, batteries, and so on. Sometimes this slow start can be on the order of decades! The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X (1983) wasn't "a failure," it was a step to the IBM Simon (1992) which was a step to the iPhone (2007).

So if you're exclusively chasing things that are better *now*, you won't make any progress. You have to invest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
You will not be open to lawsuits or criminal prosecution because bugs are introduced by all devs all the time. It is part of the job. The judge and jury will ask why only this person is being prosecuted - could it be because of retaliation?

Realistically, most PIP focused managers are so deluded about engineering that they wouldn't be able to tell when an issue would occur in the future - could be as simple as DBs filling up with writes, or a high cardinality metric exploding the bill, or an expired cert. Clever motivated engineers are so skilled that they will find something.

The real fix is for management to change their attitude and practices. Just do that.
> implicit congressional delegation of interpretive authority

That’s not constitutional.
A bunch of cheap land or vacant homes 3000 miles away aren't going to solve the homeless problem in your city, or any other major urban area. Ultimately people stay where they want to stay, for a variety of reasons.
There is a charity run homeless shelter in the town where they were camping on public grounds.
Are you asking if it did bend to the right? You’re asking if an additional conservative vote shift in a hairline composition shifted the balance? Would you be asking the same if it was a 6-3 liberal majority?

This courts been in power for 8 years and has overturned 3 major ways that the government operates:

1. Roe v Wade overturned so that the government is back in charge of reproductive rights decisions instead of leaving it as a deeply personal decision for a family to make on their own. There’s pretty clearly a lack of any evidence that late term abortions are a cavalier thing. When it gets that late it’s not a change of mind thing 99.999% of the time.

2. Brady and similar decisions basically removing congress’ and states’ abilities to regulate guns

3. Chevron doctrine overturned so unless congress writes impossible laws the courts get to arbitrarily define ambiguities even though it was delegated to the executive to create justifiable well researched exposition of those ambiguities.

Basically, this court has already delivered 3 major decisions shifting American politics in pretty drastic ways in the 8 years. This is certainly not a liberal or status quo court.

And the court itself has serious perception issues of accepting gifts and bribes (and significantly reducing the definition of what counts as corruption in the first place, which is well outside their mandate considering these are actually laws congress passed). They’re badly in need of cultural reform as is congress and in both scenarios adjusting the number of representatives and the number of justices is called for to relieve the pressure that’s been building.
Be sure to get your bus ticket to shantytown after you get out of jail for existing.
No, but I think frauds will be over represented in politics.
Great, if only 9% of vacant homes are what a normal person would think of as a vacant home, we can still give every homeless person 2 homes each!

The issue has never been housing inventory in an effort to making housing more affordable. If the past 4 years have shown us anything it's that even with skyrocketing interest rates and new construction matching pre-2007 levels, homes are still 40% more expensive than they were in 2020.