skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Look up all the latest CSR reports / think tank analysts who track PRC missile developments. Or former Pac fleet deputy chief of intel Fanell who confirmed tandem PRC hypersonics struck moving ships at sea a few years ago - two high end missiles from different sites 1000km inland synced to hit moving hull in time+space. This fairly straight forward technology for country that has space program, especially mars/dark side of moon where communication is just one big killchain problem. Because carriers are so slow, highend missiles so fast, maneuverability/adjustments relatively easy problem, carriers can never get so far away from where fast missiles will not be, and fast missiles only need to make minute course corrections to compensate.

PRC commercial sats can track individual fighters. PLA has enough ISR (look at all the Yaogan launches within just last few years) now for persistent IndoPac coverage, they don't need to pinpoint/loiter/luck etc, they essentially know where a carrier is within meter level accuracy at all times, including SAR to look through clouds. They're not spitting out spacex # of paylods but they've put up 100s of imaging satellites in last few years, with more coming, and likely have enough just commercial imaging now to track US carriers globally without losing sight of it.

This is not meant to condescend, but essentially your talking points are based on popular misunderstanding from online opinons that poorly regurgigated a series of online articles explaining why carriers are "not doomed" from Naval Gazing ~5 years ago, but even in those essays the author specifically carved out PRC nascent carrier kill chain at the time as the exception. It's 10 years later, PRC now has 100s times better ISR coverage missile capabilities, the talking points are even more out of date. The caveate of the articles was always, carriers are not doomed, except for maybe against 2015 PRC whose has XYZ (ISR, # of launchers / salvo sizes, level of informatization) that puts the fight pretty even. It's almost 10 years later, PRC has increased XYZs by magnitude, it's not level playing field anymore. i.e. PRC deliverable single salvo size went from, 2015 maybe a US CSG can successfully defend if dump missile defense into VLS and airwing to 2024 PRC who can launch enough to satutate any CSG loadout at ranges where they can't effectively operate.

E: this is not mentioning PLA system destruction warfare that will also degrade fixed targets like replenishment fleets who has to reload in port, the tldr is they can simply disable the entire carrier group (really all of USN) by limitting them to single deployment assets by denying airwing/escorts fuel. There are many ways to break USN carrier conops that are not designed against peer adversaries who can reach deep into USN logistics chain.
The two party system is a huge weak point.

Consider what it means for someone who wants, say, limited but substantial restrictions on abortions. Their choices are a low-restrictions party or a party that attempts to ban it entirely every chance they get. Where’s their representation on that issue? Doesn’t exist.

Further consider that if they decide one of those is closer to their position than the other, and they take that issue very seriously, they’re now stuck supporting the entire rest of that party’s agenda no matter how much they hate it, if they want to vote close to their own views on the issue.

Repeat for all other issues.

The system basically guarantees most voters don’t agree that much with the party they end up supporting. WTF.

And the only way to fix it is an uphill—scratch that, up mountain—battle against the two parties, since they benefit greatly from the current system.

[edit] it’s a weak point, to clarify, because it enables all kinds of bundling of terrible, unpopular, and even dangerous-to-democracy policies with other issues. It elevates those unpopular positions by holding other issues hostage, basically.
> Is there a variant of "there exists a program that prints BB(8000)" that doesn't rely on some sort of axiom of choice?

Why does it rely on the axiom of choice? It’s a consequence of the obvious fact that for every integer n, there exists a program that prints n. This doesn’t require choice.
Pain means different things to different people. To date, I've calculated turning off ads in Windows to be less painful than reinstalling a new OS. I've had to find and change settings 3 times in the past 10 or so years, and then 3 times in the past year, but my Windows does not have ads (I also don't use Microsoft aps). This is admittedly galling, but I have a feeling I'd be messing around with Linux settings at a similar or greater rate.

This isn't really an excuse. I've been meaning to get a test install of Linux on my laptop for a while, but I've been putting it off due to the expectation that it will not be a pain-free process to get all my stuff running as I like again.
https://archive.is/oHGPs
Ooooh, that's a really fun idea!
My understanding, tempered quite a bit from LWN comments on its coverage of the CRA, is that without money transferring for the parties involved, there is no liability.

I suspect you're in the US (I think I saw a US location in your Twitter bio before the login page replaced it), the rules for Europe are different and applying an American viewpoint on how business relationships occur gives an inaccurate perception of things.
Don't speak ill-will of anything or anyone in an interview, it's not going to bode well for you. At a minimum, people don't want to work with people who focus on the negative
To be frank, this is an issue where there's an abuse of terminology going on, although the people asking the question probably don't realize there's an abuse of terminology.

"Is X computable?" is asking if there is a program that is capable of printing X out. For any integer, the answer to this question is trivially yes.

But when people are asking "Is BB(6) computable?", that's not really what they're intending to ask. What they're trying to ask is "is it possible for us to figure out what the value of BB(6) is?" In a more precise sense, the question is "Can we prove {BB(6) = x} is a true statement for some value of x?"

To some degree, I think Scott is being somewhat specious here. The question may be somewhat malformed as written, but it's also pretty clear to an expert what the question meant to ask, and--especially when you're targeting a more lay audience--insisting on giving the trivial answer to the clearly unintended question isn't likely to help the situation much.
A place that skipped the recent invention of the "hypertext link", which enables you to access stuff in half the clicks.

But don't worry, once they upgrade to Windows 98 and its new desktop experience, they'll update the lingo
Yeah, great point. It's how you process and store the data that's important.

One of the key rights individuals have is to request that ALL PII about them is deleted from all of your records, and you have to comply with this request within a certain timeframe, and a maximum of 30 days. This includes backups, logs, everything.

Obviously, it's impractical to try to edit old backups to remove PII, so you have to be careful how you deal with logs in the first place - you might want them to be backed up on another machine with a maximum lifetime of a few days, you might want to not back them up at all and only backup your aggregated data, etc.

But keeping logs for a few days can be justified for as you saying DDOS mitigation, post-failure root-cause-analysis, etc, but the defaults for that data should be to delete that data as soon as it's no longer useful for that purpose, which for most companies will be a couple of days, maybe another couple for the weekend. You can keep it still further, for instance for active analysis, but the default should be to delete it as soon as possible.
The ridiculous part is making this comparison on a per-country basis. Whole regions and their populations have been ruined by industries closing overnight to move abroad. Yet, by simplistic accounting, they should be considered winners?
Is there an example of somewhere posting these malformed URLs?
The "ads" on a mac are a drop in the ocean compared to the experience on Windows.
All but two of the videos are broken for me on both Chrome and Firefox. I would love to see the rest!

I encourage people to read the original Propagator Networks paper by Alexey Radul (advisor: Prof. Gerald Sussman of SICP) referenced in the Prior Work section. It's full of fascinating ideas.

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/54635
The post is on a theoretical CS blog, talking about a question in a theoretical CS textbook. Why shouldn’t we expect it to use theoretical CS jargon?
> He was addressing an important point that you cannot treat everyone that opposes taking down confederate monuments as white supremacists.

But you could, correctly, characterise everyone taking part in that march as having white nationalist sympathies. Because it was a white nationalist march: that was the point.

There cannot be "good people" on the side shouting "jews! will not! replace us!", because if they were good people they wouldn't have been there at all.

Trump was trying to create a false equivalence because he knows those people are his people. And he did it again more than once. "Stand back and stand by".

Fuck him, fuck excusing this stuff and fuck bad-faith pretence that Trump was talking about some bigger picture: he was talking about the people at that rally.
> How can we justify not steelmanning a ternary approach to halting? Can someone show me one proof which doesn’t rely on “muh do the opposite

I don’t even understand what you are getting at. But humbling ourselves and learning new things, especially such influential thoughts that mathematical giants such as Gödel and Turing gifted us with (and were since refined by hundreds of very smart people) should be the first step. All these thoughts were refined over a century, or half. It’s not some proposition that sounds cool and might later be proven wrong.

A Turing machine is fantastically simple and the halting problem is well-defined over it — it has n states, and one of them is labeled as HALT. Does it ever get to this state? There is no ternary option here.

(Note: Turing didn’t even consider them halting, but used an equivalent problem)
Yes, this is clearly true. Pardon the hasty first reading and deleted comment please.

It doesn't address what I am claiming though.

The busy beaver is not defined entirely by halting vs not-halting.

Looping beavers are excluded as well.

The middle ground I am claiming is that there is a middle ground between non-halting and provably non-halting.

I'm claiming there could be a non-halting Beaver that is impossible to prove, which would mean there is no answer for the BB function.
"Europe" is not a useful description of the location in this case. There are too many differences between countries, universities and even faculties within universities
SEEKING WORK | REMOTE - WORLDWIDE | LOCATION: US

Building an MVP & you need to make sure it generates revenue?

I am an engineering-oriented sales leader and do the stuff that most engineers struggle with (idea validation, prospect interviews, copy creation, sales A/B testing, etc.).

I help build and execute your go-to-market so you can have a revenue-generating MVP.

(10+ years of sales experience, prior VP of sales for multiple SaaS companies)

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacob-haynes/

- Email: jch2457@gmail.com
If it keeps my kid from driving too fast and being a danger to himself and others, absolutely, yes.
That sounds pretty easy to game. But I think in these cases, they take what they can get and can’t really game it.
I think some of this is fine, but doesn’t match the pressure people put on themselves in Europe, and the expectations people put are put under in the US.

For me in the U.K. there were 7 chapters to my thesis that I worked on for roughly 3.5 years. Two of those were “failures” in that they weren’t publishable as positive results but the others worked OK. One was an algorithm paper and I published the source code to GitHub because while it wasn’t useful to me (slower than the competing algorithm we already used) it was applicable in more general situations and it has proved to be so as people have emailed me about it at various times and it’s been cited.
Not in EU, but I've bought from keysfan and godeal24 a few times and was always satisfied. I would never use it for a business, but for home use it's been just fine.
Even if you do need Windows for your software, projects like Wine are making progress every day. There's only a few things I use that don't work out of the box, and for that I have a stripped down Windows VM.
Anyone is aware of custom mobile llms?

Optimizing and loading in your own voice, selecting your primary language and adding a little bit of personal knowledge like nicknames, location and stuff?

My pixel 8 apparently can use / load local models but don't have the time right now to follow that rabbit hole
There's no problem. It's just the same model as Microsoft with the only difference that Microsoft works with an ecosystem of hardware manufacturers vs. being the sole one.
I'm not sure if this is true. Just having people use Linux does not produce or port any software to Linux.

Now you could argue that it increases the market share of Linux, but for that, it needs to be a market, i.e. software vendors need to have a way to monetize. And the question then is if you're not ending up with the same issues you have on closed-source proprietary software.

Generally speaking, I mostly had better experiences with commercial software in my life as a "user", both professionally and in private.
Thanks for posting this.

>It seems like Safari always puts `.com` when URL does not have a TLD

This doesn't even seem that helpful of a redirect! Plenty of sites don't use .com. Might be better to turn off this functionality completely.
If I buy a laptop from Dell the cost of Windows is also baked into their margin. And you equally get years worth of free updates. The point is that "MacOS is free, Windows costs money" is a bad comparison both from the end-user PoV and the actual economics of what's happening.
> True performance is our top priority

The server is written in Node.JS
This. It's not like we are looking for something slightly better than git in some opinionated way. There's plenty better than git. Mercurial is better than git and as old as git. Git won. Everybody uses git. Everyone who knows, how to use git, is mostly comfortable using git. At this stage we either need something ground-breaking (and I don't quite imagine what this cold be in the context of VCS - even truly semantic conflict resolution barely cuts it, while simultaneously being pure unattainable magic), or I don't think this is gonna float. I don't need it. Who needs it?

It's a relatively easy thing to adopt something you don't need, when you are the only person involved. But VCS is pretty much in the same category as instant messaging and social network platforms are. In a sense, maybe it is a social network platform. I don't see it happening and I highly doubt I would want it to happed, even if I knew this jj stuff better.
Precise and to the point.
They bought the PR package today apparently.
You got to search a bit more, look outside Germany too. It's legal in all of EU.
But China has its own powerful models no?
> The experience is much better in Linux than the other OSes these days

Until the next system update breaks Wayland or your GPU driver again.
Parent poster knows what the Chevron Doctrine is, and is commenting on the outcome of the case which established it, which is mentioned by its full name in the second line of the webpage you linked.
Similarly easy enough to replace/recreate if you truly need to change something as needs evolve. KISS tends to be a guiding principle for me above most other things.

Of course, there are some times where following a certain pattern is easier over time than other approaches that may mean more bugs over time. In particular, why I'm a fan of the render the current state state approach the likes of React/Svelt etc implement along with say Redux. It's slightly harder to grok, but you can avoid entire classes of bugs with judicious use.
Docs as code (2017)
It's a perfectly valid view and if the interviewer values dogma more than the ability to look at pros and cons (and the willingness to go along with the "good-enough" solution the team already has momentum towards), then that's on them. Lose-lose for everyone, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Edit: I think this would be much easier to accept if the job market weren't so tough right now. You could shop around for an employer better aligned and who "gets it."
I have never received a single code from any reseller that wasn’t being sold to multiple people, resulting in blocks.
They want to be first-movers in the buzzwords space.
> Btw 1 foreign worker rarely equals to 1 local. Even just the quality of their work isn’t equal usually and averagely, and language, culture, distance, etc differences are on top of that.

Full agreement here. 1 exploited foreign worker will have much more output than 1 local unionized, low working hours worker.
We need more professional software for Linux. I can't switch my work PC because Autodesk, Bentley and Dassault products to name a few. Personal machines that just run Firefox and things like handbrake or VM stuff, linux works great.
I'm in general agreement. But that doesn't mean that we should stop talking about feminism. Women's issues continue to be relevant, for example 1 in 4 women has been raped or sexually abused compared to 1 in 20 men. Men's issues are also relevant, for example suicide is three times more common in men than in women in the UK. But neither has to be a distraction from class struggle.
Desktop Ryzen 4's and newer have a very small iGPU that's just enough to put up a desktop (and presumably a framebuffer fast enough to feed a discrete card's output into)
Using debian (and with an upgrade to 12) with gnome feels very polished. I think I'd call it close to a "default" linux experience. That doesn't sound sexy but it means it's the happy path, thoroughly tested, no surprises. The closest thing I've had to an issue in 6 months is extrepo duplicating some repo keys, it was as easy to fix as deleting the file once.

Modern linux can be a boring and productive place if you want it to be.
> In practice this'd probably need to be resolved in court, and I'm sure not a single SME using Plausible or similar will even get a stern letter, much less fined.

Agreed.

Plausible just makes false claims like:

> All the site measurement is carried out absolutely anonymously. Cookies are not used and no personal data is collected. There are no persistent identifiers.

That's a heavy statement and it is simply not true, as you quoted:

> an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person

hash(daily_salt + website_domain + ip_address + user_agent) will fall under this definition.

But again, you are right, better then anything any other service does
You can virtualise macOS (in Fusion) from the installer from the App Store, which is just a .app you can get anyone to download
If you’re using ZFC, there is (TFA mentions the state of the art is BB(745); Yedida and Aaronson’s original work on BB(8000)[1] is quite fun to read from a programmer’s point of view). But the second form still exists (if you accept excluded middle)—you just can’t prove which one it is!

Specifically, ZFC is consistent iff ZFC+“Y&A’s machine does halt” is consistent iff ZFC+“Y&A’s machine never halts” is consistent (a theorem in a fairly weak ambient metalogic). So you can take a stronger set theory that does prove the answer, it’s just that thus far we have no reason to prefer theories that answer yes to theories that answer no.

(You don’t have to accept excluded middle, and it can on occasion be useful not to[2], but pragmatically you’re going to have a lot of difficulties even with first-year calculus unless you do.)

[1] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2725

[2] https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2017-54-03/S0273-0979-2016...
WiFi-to-WiFi hotspot is a good idea, I don't think all phones can do that though. I once used my rooted Android to spoof my Wifes MAC address to use her in-flight WiFi she paid for after she was not using it anymore.
> Welcome to Ghacks! Consent Management

> We and our [165] partners place cookies, access and use non-sensitive information from your device to improve our products and personalize ads...
Why is double click new? I have been using it for many years as a phrase when presenting concepts and have heard people use it too
> “let’s two finger pinch on this.”

A move known as 'The Asimov'.
I've seen these circular plots a number of times and I've never once found them to illuminate the underlying data, even a little bit.
As far as I'm aware national parks in the US were created on land that didn't really have anyone living in it (maybe Indians in some of them), you'd have to go back to the early middle ages to find similar areas in Europe (I'm guessing but at least in places like Italy I'm fairly sure of that)

I really really wish we had similar expanses of untouched nature here in Europe but unfortunately it was all gone by the time people started seeing untouched nature as something to preserve
Yes, but they're very close to being standardized and have multiple existing implementations among different browser engines and also non-browser runtimes. (Of course, I don't think the threading proposal is exactly what OP had in mind for the case of general WASM perf improvements, but you are right it is in practice a big performance barrier in the bigger scheme.)
An act of Congress (I believe it was Dodd-Frank) capped debit card fees at a very low amount (fractions of a precent). An exception was left in for small banks to continue to charge credit-card-like rates for debit cards, around 2%.

Since then, every fintech has had essentially the same business model:

- Come up with some kind of "innovative" thing to sell consumers on that results in them generating debit card transactions. (Online bank account, instant international money transfer, loan, etc.) - the trick is that to get the money, you swipe that debit card.

- Partner with some small bank so that they are one the one providing the debit card. The law essentially has a loophole on it allowing this.

- The fintech company sets up essentially everything, with all the small bank does is have automated accounts created for cardholders when the fintech's software says so. No money is kept in the customer account until the moment of that debit card swipe - then it is instantly transferred in and instantly transferred back out for the payment.

- This requires reserves, but the fintechs and small banks collaborate on how to get good interest on the reserves involved.

There are now fintechs which offer "fintech as a service" which will set all of this up for a tiny bank who can then offer this to any other fintech with almost no involvement from the tiny bank. All they have to do is sign a few papers.

The definition of a big or small bank is based on the amount on deposit, so they are careful to not actually have any money on deposit.

Congress needs to correct this abuse, immediately, and only allow the larger debit card fees for traditional checking accounts held by consumers where the money involved is held on deposit at that bank.

Edit: one of the major problems here is that small banks are often not staffed for adequate cybersecurity for global operations like these; they do just fine doing hometown community banking, but are very vulnerable to being cracked like this. Yet another reason small banks that are providing big-bank services should be regulated like big banks.