skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'll bite. Not because I think I can change your behavior, but just so that others passing by don't end up taking your comment as having value.

> First it's global warming, then ice age, then again global warming...

Imagine a car that's lost a wheel and is careening down the highway out of control. The passenger screams "the truck behind us is gonna ram us!". Then: "we're going to faaaast, slow down!" Then it's "watch the barrier on the left, go right go right!", and then finally "watch the lightpole on the right!"

I assume you ridicule this passenger saying he doesn't even seem to know what the problem is?

> Then when they realize we have realized that they don't know what they are talking about they use vague terms as "climate change" to gaslight us into thinking they know what they are talking about.

It's impressive, really. Thousands and thousands of scientists spend their entire careers studying the physics of the atmosphere. From this they conclude, through painstaking work, backed up by data, that the atmosphere is becoming warmer – i.e. more energetic – due to human activity. The effects of this is aggrevated extremes. Hotter heatwaves. Colder cold snaps. Drier droughts. Wetter floods. And potentially (and now we're not in established science, but rather informed speculation) collapsing ocean currents that can lead to much colder temperatures in some places.

Yet you, brilliant NotGMan, you throw out all of that. You lean back, hammer your keyboard, and declare that these brilliant people "don't know what they are talking about". Unlike you, oh brilliant NotGMan, of course! _You_ know! Right?

Come on. Spare us.
And botulinum toxin only needs to exist in microscopic quantities to cause injury and death—would you eat a jar contaminated with it?
'It made me cry': photos taken 15 years apart show melting Swiss glaciers
I'm not going to file a bug report, that's more time than I'm willing to spend on a project I'm not involved in. I will say I'm using Termux 0.118 and Racket 8.13 on kernel 5.10 and Android 14 and am willing to answer questions.
> there’s no way for us to keep funding operations at the level they’re at

Good, hopefuilly Mozilla uses this as a chance to strip down all extraneous activities and focus on the core product again.

if $500m is 80% of operating costs, $100m per year sounds fine enough to continue to develop a decent browser.
It's just a more descriptive wording. Some people get confused since global warming doesn't mean it automatically gets warmer everywhere. Ironically, it should probably help you understand too...
How old is your globe? [pdf]
It's only global warming.
But more heat in one place could lead to cold at another one.
Those bushes not attracting many pollinators doesn't make them less invasive or noxious.
Are you saying that things whose concentrations are expressed in what in your daily life is a small number are unimportant? Would be great if you could be completely explicit about this, so that people can reply to something concrete. Thanks.
How to save the day with feature flags
CO2 storage is also dangerous and very deadly when it goes wrong.

Plenty of examples of natural CO2 storages (in or under lakes for example) that wipe out anything that breathes (including vehicles) in a certain radius.
It's not complicated. The temperature of the planet as a whole goes up. But depending on the effects (which are complex) some places may get colder, some wetter, some hotter and drier. The average adds up to an increase in temperature; this is global warming, manifested in changes to local climates.
How to tart a freelance web project and not loose your soul
Your suspicion is wildly incorrect, all (as far as I know) plants can utilize a liquid carbon source, model species are used specifically because they react similar to the vast majority of other species in their category.

Media must be sterile as described in the paper, obviously.
> In a verifiable voting system, voter usually get a recipe that he can verify, in later time, their vote have been counted. But what stop same recipe is handed out twice?

Different solutions exist for this problem, which is known as a "clash attack". For example, in the Floating Receipts voting scheme, those things that you call "recipes" are pre-printed on ballots and hidden under scratch strips. The scratch strip is removed at the time when the ballot is dropped into the ballot box. If the manufacturer of the ballots were to pre-print the same "recipe" on multiple ballots, it would be discovered during the verification phase, because you would in some cases have 2 different votes cast on 2 different ballots which would contain the same "recipe". So both voters look up the "recipe" online and they are supposed to discover only one vote corresponding to the "recipe".
Why Rust is the future but not for everyone
Very disappointing read.

Starts with an interesting claim "don't optimize for typing", but then it completely fails to prove it, and confuses itself in thinking that `auto` is an optimization for typing.

`auto` is:

- A way to express types that are impossible or truly difficult to express, such as iterators, lambdas, etc

- A way to optimize reading, by limiting the redundancy

- A way to optimize maintenance, by limiting the amount of change brought by a refactor

The insistence on notepad or "dumb editors" is also difficult to grasp. I expect people reviewing my code to be professionally equipped.

Lastly the example mostly fails to demonstrate the point.

- There's a point made on naming (distinct from `auto`): absent a wrapping type, `dataSizeInBytes` is better than `dataSize`. The best way though is to have `dataSize` be a `Bytes` type that supports conversion at its boundaries (can be initialized from bytes, MB, etc)

- What's the gain between:

auto dataSet = pDatabase->readData(queryResult.getValue());

and

DatabaseDataSet dataSet = pDatabase->readData(queryResult.getValue());

The `dataset` part can be inferred from the naming of the variable, it is useless to repeat it. The `Dabatase` is also clear from the fact that we read data from a db. Also, knowing the variable has this specific type brings me absolutely nothing.

- Their point about mutability of the db data confused me, as it is not clear to me if I can modify a "shadow copy" (I suppose not?). I suggest they use a programming language where mutating something you should not it a compile time error, it is much more failsafe than naming (which is hard)

I'm sad, because indeed one shouldn't blindly optimize for typing, and I frequently find myself wondering when people tell me C++ is faster to write than Rust, when I (and others) empirically measured that completing a task, which is the interesting measure IMO, is twice as fast in the latter than in the former.

So I would have loved a defence of why more typing does not equate higher productivity. But this ain't it.
Eeeermm... I haven't heard an explosion, but 4+ hours has passed. Are you alive there, dude?

Jokes aside - I'm always happy to be corrected, so please go on if I made a mistake somewhere.
>No one at google sits around thinking "i want to preserve our monopoly status". They are thinking "I don't want to be crushed by someone"

I guarantee they are thinking both, but both are pretty much the same statment anyway.
> You have to simply put in the work, and it is brutal, long, thankless, isolating work, on top of the Herculean task of creating something people legitimately want and connect with.

I never understood complaining about touring/being a musician being a hard job. You are living someone else's dream, stop complaining. If you don't like it, simply don't do it. My 9-5 soulless work is hard as well...

> haven't failed over and over, haven't paid for it with blood, sweat and tears, haven't stuck to their guns until they eventually get lucky

Isn't that true for most endeavors if you want to get good at something? Including cs.

Most musicians, at least in my experience, often don't understand, that it takes more than a good music to speak to people. And people feeling addressed by you is what usually results in someone making it. However, this is hard to fabricate, if you are gonna spend most of your creative process how to address certain group of people and then fabricate your art to fit into that, it probably won't feel as authentic as someone who actually lives their lives, lives their struggles and socially acts like them. It will be hard for a 45 year old person to address Gen Z for example
> the self fulfilling prophesy of considering things dead

This is quite sad, GANs are an amazing piece of tech and it doesn't seem like they are finished yet. The rule in ML is that it's never over for a method, so maybe someone somewhere will get GANs fashionable again. There's many things like this in ML though...

On the FFHQ point, are you saying currently GANs are better at benchmarks like FFHQ where the target is realistic looking images? Or better at representing the training data?

> Karras wrote custom cuda kernels for StyleGAN

I didnt know they wrote custom kernels, perhaps for my StyleGAN post I can try triton and write a custom kernel for the operations. However, I've never looked into this.

What does it mean to have a backbone? Does it just mean the underlying architecture used in the method? Also, on the decoder only vs encoder-decoder point, taken that way it's very difficult (almost impossible) to have diffusion models have a better efficiency than GANs?

Thanks for the detailed comment, you've given me a lot to think about.
Hey, thanks for your comment. I hadn't heard of Curtis Warren before, but he looks like he'd be an interesting case study for the next story I write on the subject. Good tip.
> This post can definitely be considered a “religious” opinion piece

The author certainly has that right, because the post steps on two programming religion landmines, from how I read it:

1. strict static typing (without type inference) is good.
2. code should be written to allow IDEs to enhance navigability, rather than written on the assumption that IDEs will be the sole provider for navigability.

I believe there is a point to be made in the "when we don't know what we're getting back, that harms navigability" camp. But as another commenter posted, there's a point to be made in the "when we overspecify what we're getting back every time, that can harm readability, too" camp.

I can't express where this balance is. It's somewhere between poetry and a legal document, the prose where you can really get into a good book and enjoy the world that the author presents. Some people really like the beauty of a short poem. Other people may require precise wording that leaves no room for enjoyment or interpretation. The rest of us can have the majority of fun somewhere in between.

Where that "in between" equivalent would be in my day-to-day programming, I'm not entirely sure, because what I'm writing could be a short script where brevity is vital (poetry-ish) vs some section of unfortunately highly complex code with lots of tests for edge cases (legalese), and all the other code where I'm still world-building and conveying ideas (prose). And I believe that complexity should be spelt out as precisely as it can in the code itself, rather than rely on the hope that somebody else is using the same IDEs and features as me. I've tried using type inference where it seems fine to use, and then spelling out the exact type that a variable wants where it isn't clear what might get returned, all in the same app, but it comes across as sloppily inconsistent in my mind. Ah well.
Thanks for your note - I've relented and changed the text to black. Appreciate you picking that up and letting me know. Cheers.
That would be amazing. Fuck the hot summers we currently get. My AC is wasting so much money...
I'm very disappointed to see climate change deniers on this forum.

The effect of carbon dioxide on global warming has been proven a million times over. Small percentages can significantly affect heat capture from the sun. A quick overview[1].

Even at 0.1% CO2, you'll feel it (light-headedness, dizzy). Around 3-5% you'll be dead.

CO2 is rising at a rate 100x faster than pretty much ever. But you're right, its only 0.04% i'm sure we'll be fine [2]

[1] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-glob...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-surging-f...
You can’t land wherever you want in a plane? I’m two minutes walk to my local station, and a 15 minute drive to the nearest airfield.
Only in the beginning and it's not linear. One track can be used by an infinite amount of people with very little to no congestion, unlike roads.
There is a lot of research done right now, funded by the EU. But uncertainties are huge, and the tipping point for the Amoc could be between 2050 and 8065 [0].

It's a complex problem, and almost impossible to model correctly, but that doesn't make it science fiction.

[0] https://www.climate-tipping-points.eu/post/why-we-cant-predi...
MySpace seems to have never published a technical post mortem on the cause of the data loss.
> it is not an exclusivity agreement - it is a default agreement.

But it kind of is an exclusivity agreement. Have you ever tried to change the default search on an iPhone? There is only a very small list of curated searches you are allowed to pick from, and you cant add your own.
Yep, the time where we don't need AC in Europe is long over. But the laws haven't caught up with this development yet (i.e. no mandatory AC in apartment buildings yet, or worse, some landlords actually seem to think they can forbid you from having it) which is very frustrating.
If you want to develop further on this, you could offer some kind of E2EE version where you generate a shared secret (and use the QR code for sharing), and each device can use that to encrypt and decrypt the calendar information. You would have no knowledge of the content because the shared secret is generated on-device and never sent to the back end.

Drawback is that then you need to make some decisions about whether you encrypt the metadata (i.e. the times and durations of the event) or not. If you don't, well, [metadata is data](https://ssd.eff.org/module/why-metadata-matters). If you do, then the clients have to fetch everything from the server and any display/filtering/etc need to be done on the client. It's not impossible, you could look at some kind of syncing database like PouchDB, for example, but it adds complexity.
That's probably a better place to post it.
I’m talking about the subject matter. Something as petty as growing some lawn or flowers on my own land. I can’t imagine asking for permission to do that.
Not the *real crème de la crème”, unless it is a photo op. Not regularly, and they have access to limos whenever the occasion calls for it. Their staff handles the logistics and staff quite often use automobiles. But an occasional trip to Lincoln Center, sure. Even shopping on 5th Avenue, though the packages will be delivered later by an auto or van or whatever vehicles those sorts of people use.
You misunderstand.

Yes, Chevron was a level of deference given to agencies (like the EPA) to interpret their remit. If a law says "The EPA shall have authority to regulate emissions", then the EPA would be given deference to interpret what an emission is, and what a regulation is. They are the experts, after all. This was brought into sharp relief when a Supreme Court justice recently, and repeatedly, mistook nitrogen oxide (a greenhouse gas) for nitrous oxide (laughing gas). And by recently, I mean less than two weeks ago.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the case that overturned Chevron, repeatedly cites Marbury v. Madison, the case where the Supreme Court vastly expanded its own power by, in part, giving itself the extra-constitutional power to declare things unconstitutional. Indeed, some of the arguments in the opinions of the Court is that Chevron, or any deference, is unconstitutional because the Courts have sole discretion to interpret the law, "to say what the law is".

The overturning of Chevron was not an abuse of extra-constitutional power, but it was a decision made from a Court hoisted with their own petards. It means every. single. interpretation. no matter how small, no matter how obviously within the scope of the statute, is now up for litigation in a full-scale trial with all the appeals that will follow. It is so massively disruptive that the Supreme Court would've immediately declared a Major Question if it were anyone else other than the Supreme Court doing it. But I guess the Supreme Court can act without limit and that's fine.

> Again, it's about declaring that the executive branch misinterpreted laws passed by Congress.

Not true. The Supreme Court didn't merely say that the National Marine Fisheries Service misinterpreted a law passed by Congress, it said that Chevron deference is overturned. It was the only thing the Supreme Court held in its decision.

And this decision, as with most others, is very clearly the result of corruption and political alignment: if the composition of the Court had been different, the decision would have been different. This is a direct result of the Trump appointments, of having a conservative supermajority who are there to legislate from the bench. This cannot be ignored.
Apple unfortunately declared XPC to be a private API on iOS, whereas on macOS it is the foundation for sandboxing custom services.

I found no way to sandbox things beyond the sandboxes provided by iOS extension points (which are mostly XPC under the hood, but with no control options for the app).

Apple makes heavy use of XPC to sandbox iMessage services, but on iOS that remains an Apple-only feature.
You'd search reddit how? Using their search? Good luck.
Last time I checked climate models the cooling wouldn't even offset global warming and just send Europe back to the 1990s in terms of temperatures.
> "you only need high school knowledge" means nothing to most people.

I think people intend to use it to tell people the barrier is low. But by trivializing the difficulties of calculus (may be easy now, but was it before you learned it?), you place that barrier higher than it was before. The result is the opposite of the intent.

I'll even state it now, as someone who highly advocates for learning math:

You don't even need calculus to build good models. At most, a rudimentary understanding of algebra, but I'm not sure even that. A little programming skill, which can freely and easily be obtained, is all that is necessary to begin. So if you can read and can motivate yourself, you can build good and useful models. It might just take longer if you don't have these yet.

With that said, be cautious that you fall victim to your success. The barrier to entry may be (very) low, but it is a long way to the top. So don't ignore the fundamentals and use your excitement and success to motivate yourself through the boring and hard parts. Unfortunately, there's a steep curve to reap the rewards of your math knowledge (in ML. You'll reap rewards even in daily life much sooner!). But it is well worth it. ML is only a magical black box because you have not achieved this yet (this does not mean ML becomes a white box). Not knowing what you don't know makes it hard to progress. But I promise math will help illuminate things (e.g. understanding when and where CNNs vs transformers should be used inside architectures; how many parameters you need in hidden layers; how to make your models robust; why they fail; how to identify where they will fail before it happens; and much more. These are enormously helpful, and more if you wish to build products and not just research papers or blogs. If models are black boxes due to the composition of easily and well understood functions, I think you can probably guess how small and subtle changes can have large effects on performance. You'll at least learn a bit about this concept (chaos) in differential equations).
Can you tell me link please ?
No.

As a species we are a pitlies, merciless, relentless machine. We poison the sea. We poison the land. We poison ourselves. We are geo-engineering our planet to a point way beyond our environmental tolerances.

Because we need our phones. We need our cars. We need population to grow because otherwise nobody's making money, and we need arable land to feed that population.

We will burn.

You will all burn with us.
If you've got something to add to the conversation please share it and don't be cryptic!
> It's impressive, really. Thousands and thousands of scientists spend their entire careers studying the physics of the atmosphere. From this they conclude, through painstaking work, backed up by data, that the atmosphere is becoming warmer – i.e. more energetic – due to human activity.

All good until you understand that unless you are part of those experts (true experts, the one who never parrot anything and won't fall to ego self-tricks), you need to prefix your paragraph with "the scientific consensus brought to me by mass medias is:".

Fact is you seem very vulnerable to Gell-Mann amnesia compounded by Wikipedia "reliable sources" bias, from the way you write.
Yep, I refrained from using them. Also too expensive.

With the advent of Amiga hard disk I didn’t need that much disks anymore. I bought mine - 50mb! - at the World of Commodore 1991 I think.
It's a lovely ride. Even longer distances aren't too bad - to get to the alps, we take the night train from Amsterdam to Zurich. https://rail.cc/night-train/zurich-amsterdam-oebb-nightjet-n...

The train is a superior experience to flying in pretty much every way, the challenge is often cost - trains can be more expensive. And, of course, this is really only possible because flying doesn't have its externalities priced in.
I like the idea of Organic Maps in general, but using it in Hong Kong is awkward; not only because in many cases it uses Pinyin Mandarin place labels (which locals never use) but also because requires me to download 200+ MB of “China Guangdong”—a large but, critically, distinct in every de jure and de facto sense place beyond a border restriction with no free travel (considering in the case of, say, Kaliningrad, with the same situation and even smaller/sparser place, I would get a separate download). For me it raises questions about who exactly is behind the app and why should I trust its privacy promises.
The customer in this case is Google, not the users. The users are the product, and apple are selling their eyes for $20 billion a year.
Yeah, a lot of the issue is familiarity. He's a pretty standard suburbanite and the train confuses him.
> we didn't have a system that props up superstars.

such a system does not exist.

Superstardom is a natural phenomenon in the industry. Just like sports or really, any mass entertainment. The only way to achieve the "thousands times as many artists making many thousands" is to have separate communities of music markets that do not overlap.

I dont think that's feasible on the internet, and i certainly would not support any laws that tries to bring that into effect.

There's nothing wrong with a tiny number of extremely famous, extremely successful artists.
How do you get seven times?

Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy.

Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.