skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As I understand it, Yuzu was backed by an actual company that they setup to process their "donations", and by getting donations you could get privileged access to new builds.

So for Yuzu there was an legal entity making money off (Nintendo argued) selling access to playing pirated games.

Dolphin doesn't accept donations, so there's no good way of arguing anyone is making any money off it. Sure, Nintendo could go after individual contributors to Dolphin (if they can find out exactly who they are - presumably many of them are aware of the risks and try to stay anonymous) but it would be costly and it's unlikely to yield any positive results.
It's 0.987 by now, for what it's worth.
I agree and also disagree.

> There was no nuclear weapons race; once it became clear that Germany had no chance of building atomic bombs, several scientists left the MP in protest

You are forgetting Japan in WWII and given casualty numbers from island hopping it was going to be a absolutely huge casualty count with US troops, probably something on the order of Englands losses during WW1. Which for them sent them on a downward trajectory due to essentially an entire generation dying or being extremely traumatized. If the US did not have Nagasaki and Hiroshima we would probably not have the space program and US technical prowess post WWII, so a totally different reality than where we are today.
https://dynamicland.org/2024/FAQ/#Is_Realtalk_open_source
"Is it 'fair use' for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no."
Similar customs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchta
You can trade your stock for intel stock when working at any company. Stock grants really should be swapped for income and reinvested how you see best. So ultimately the total take home income is what should matter for any new hire. Take the higher paying and job and buy intel stock if you believe it’ll rise.
This is largely addressed by the article. Improved biodiversity (more fish, more native vegetation and the bugs/wildlife that go with it) as well as improvement of the water itself like the elimination of dangerous algae blooms.

From the article:
The dams also had a severe impact on water temperature and quality – growth of toxic algae behind two of the dams resulted in health warnings against water contact.

Also from the article:
"where we've seeded is green, we're seeing flowering plants teeming with life. I counted eight different butterflies in the areas we hand-seeded. There's moths, hoverflies, bees, birds. It's been a really exciting first year."
I mean, I have a lot more confidence that nvidia will continue to deliver products to a market that wants to pay for them over Intel at this point in time, even if the stock is likely to come crashing back down to earth soon. As an employee, I wouldn't really factor in stock performance necessarily, but the overall image and outwardly visible struggles Intel is going through tells me the internal struggles are probably far worse than the public or shareholders know.
Very cool. I do believe physical embodiment of computers is the future and the current screen/GUI paradigm will decline, but the embodiment will be different. The physically embodied computer of the future will be a humanoid robot, and we will interact with it the same way we do with humans: by gesturing and speaking. There will always be a place for screens, just as there is still a place for books, but we will have less reason to use them when we can accomplish what we want to do in more natural collaboration with physically embodied computers in the form of humanoid robots, alongside other humans.
I like those typefaces where people try to recreate/transpose/keep alive a quite physical impression into the digital realm.

I always think fondly about the font Brian [1] by Jon Hicks recreating his late father’s (I think architectural) writing.

[1]: https://hicks.design/shop/bryan
Related: Footfall and Lucifers Hammer (Both by Niven and Pournelle)
>the largest segment of them will tolerate

This is the target market. It's not power users, it's not computing professionals, it's not me, it's likely not you. It's my mom. It's your mom. It's people that don't really know what their computer is doing.
I believe one can use "capabilities" and seccomp to lock down a superuser process.
I think this contains mostly correct analysis with respect to hiring experienced talent, but under emphasizes how unique each process is per company. Experience is a positive, but less positive because of it.

There is a lot of potential that could be made from newer hires combined with focused in house training/experimentation - which is what all these businesses had to do in their initial expansion - with not enough people of experience at scale available, and they probably had to do a running training ramp up multiple times over multiple generations of growth. This is in general is an underutilized strategy - esp for mature companies that need to essentially build a new generation of tech in-house.
Stuart Hameroff's work in microtubules I think might be the one doing the closest work do discovering Quantum Effects in consciousness, and I tweet with him a lot on twitter. He hasn't yet been convinced that brains are entangled with PAST copies of themselves which is a core precept of my theory. The other person getting close to discovering the truth of my theory is Leroy Cronin, who has come up with `Assembly Theory` which is very reminiscent of my theory, but lacks the aspect of entangled negentropic structures being able to self-resonate. And also Michael Levin's work showing how he can get worms to have two heads even with the same exact DNA of the single headed ones (just as one example), is something I can derive directly from my theory. Since you're obsessed with my credentials: BS in Mech. Eng., been studying QM for decades, a software developer by profession since 1991, but thanks for the book recommendations, and most especially the genuine politeness.
Some of it is "Come work for us".

The majority seems to be brand-building. "See, we're not just 21st century colonialism! We make life better for you poors."

The World Bank has kind of a negative reputation, which makes it harder to do even the good work they're supposed to do.
(2023)

Overview page: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/end-of-an-era-th...

Some previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33394486
1987?

As near as I can tell there was nothing particularly remarkable about TSMC in the 1980s or 1990s.
IMO the goal here isn't to replace traditional software engineering. It's to bring computing to spaces. Museums, classrooms, town halls, etc, which requires a different approach.

The mental model I use is professional cooking in a kitchen vs home cooking. Different scale, tools, and approaches but some overlap in core ideas.

A pro cook can criticize a home cook's workflow and tools, but the goals are different!
Moon Channel has a pretty great post mortem.

https://youtu.be/7rzWR9JP1WE?si=wbsDoWLD7DatWlS3

The main TLDW: Yuzu was reaping huge income and bragged about delivering at-launch support for major Nintendo Switch games, thus directly diverting paying customers from Nintendo. The other major aspect was Yuzu was facilitating encryption key distribution which is how Nintendo was able to bring forth a legal attack.
his opinion is obviously biased.

If we say that half of innovations came from Alphabet/Google, then most of them (transformers, LLMs, tensorflow) came from Google Research and not Deep Mind.
Efficient market hypothesis dictates the price accurately reflects valuations. So if a stock price is down relatively, it's because the wealth of information available on it indicates its decline.
I think that it's actually helpful to a degree to be an asshole to be disruptive in a field. I expect you need a certain resolve of going against the flow. Something which is easier if you are an asshole.
It is also just rammed with tourists getting drunk and blasting bad schlager music on the non-main parts of the parade.

It's fun to see once as an adult, but repeatedly? It's just an excuse to get plastered under the guise of a cultural celebration.

Probably how Irish people feel about the over-commercialization St Patricks day.
I wonder if Global Foundries will become relevant again on the high end. They “gave up,” but they are working on some pretty small nodes now, 12nm, obviously not what TSMC is up to, but maybe they’ll catch Intel in 10 years. I’m sure they are fine for automotive.
Intentional Web Manifesto
There are many small dams that are at end of life and no longer worth replacing. The company that owned this dam was in favor of removing it.
I am not defending the use of Lena nor advocating for its continued use.

A similarly useful replacement should probably contain similar types and degrees of detail so that image algorithms can be tested. The hair, skin, fabric etc. in Lena readily surface an algorithm's compression and convolution artifacts. The Lena image was chosen in part for its technical properties.

Unlike the Utah Teapot also used for computer imaging, the Lena image is socially and academically inappropriate. Though suitable replacements can be found or made, most images are not suitable technical replacements. Doing so will probably be non-trivial due to the volume of existing technical decisions based on the Lena image. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500340.2016.1...
> Picking up slivers of silly putty from the carpeted floor was not fun.

One of my science teachers in high school told me about the time she got a chunk of sodium and a 50 gallon barrel of water. She threw the sodium into the water. It blew up as expected. But it also fragmented into a million pieces, and those pieces hit the dewy morning grass and also exploded, triggering a chain reaction. I think she said the students had to run around and stomp out a bunch of little sodium fires. That demo was not done the next year.

> if you drop something through it, it takes {some time}

This is totally unrelated to your story, but it reminds me of the demonstration where you take a strong magnet and drop it through a copper tube. It takes forever to reach the bottom (because the moving magnet induces a current in the copper pipe, which produces a magnetic field in the opposite direction). Honestly, it's probably the one science demo that blew my mind when I saw it. It's SO slow. And we had already learned about the math behind it, but was amazing to see in practice.
Data is based only on non-financial firms; I wonder what is the effect size of this exclusion. Economy said to be migrating up the value chain to financial services and using pervasive financial engineering, in GE, pharma, fintech, etc. The prospect of higher interest and more taxes would drive more such engineering.

Another question is the stock value loss attributable to dwindling market competition depressing innovation and demand.

Another is demand for stock: P/E multiples going up while most people are under increasing economic stress and lower investment puts all the burden on current stock owners to reinvest, but asset-weighted individual investors might be aging out.

Again, unclear effect size to all this. Hard to imagine being an economist.

But in any case signaling that US stocks long-term are likely to be bad seems counter-productive except as a threat to the incoming administration against increasing rates and taxation.
Absolutely, they're still handing out nobels after all.

Personally I think the ER=EPR conjecture and the complexity/action duality hypothesis are incredibly interesting. Technically ER=EPR was formulated in 2000s (maybe 90s?) and CA-duality is approaching if not just past 10 years old, but the thing about asking for breakthroughs is that they take a while to percolate. Ex Hawking radiation wasn't formulated until, like, 50-70 years after the "basis" (schwarzshild, Schrodinger) was formed.

There's also been a ton of productive research integrsting computer science and physics lately ( on hn last week: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16850 and 2022 novel prize; https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-n...)

Also JWST just keeps on giving, and gravitational waves were only confirmed in 2017. If you extend a bit further higgs was in the 2010s

So, in summary, in the late 10 years
- we've shown a break in our intuition of physics (nonloca-realness, that 2022 paper)
- proposed some novel yet elegant theories (CA-duality, and I'd hope you'd begrudge me er=EPR)
- confirmed some insane provings to the underlying reality (gravitational waves)

If those aren't noteworthy, I'd ask what you consider noteworthy any why you consider it noteworthy
What's functional programming all about? (2017)
That is a fair point. But if a product doesn't fit people needs, there is no need to disparage it.

For fairness, I bought a Remarkable 2 and works fine, but I do not use it anymore because it does not fit my needs.
the hybrid datastore (graph, vector, key-value) seems like a smart way to handle different types of information. But as it scales, how do you plan to manage issues like memory bloat or outdated context? Is there a strategy for pruning irrelevant data to keep the system efficient?

Exciting work overall!
By what metric do you consider INTC to be low? I took a look because I'd be happy picking up some cheap INTC, but it still looks expensive to me.
I feel that mobile screens and AR are going to be the future
And how did they come to own their land? You trace the claims back enough and it'll resolve to "some ancestor took it from someone else at the point of a spear".

Yes, this falls under the same umbrella of theories that Nozick's rectification [1] falls under, where the same critiques and remedies apply.

A land value tax achieves the same goals while leaving in place all the nice free-market stuff you're talking about.

Now you're speaking my language. I'm fully on board with land value tax, as it purports to achieve many other goals that I value, such as fixing up a lot of dysfunctional city planning and development.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/#RecHisI...
Not yet. There are some offshoot projects if you want to play & experience:

- https://folk.computer/

- http://tablaviva.org/
Hardware Support for the Arm Memory Tagging Extension (MTE)
For sure it can’t be good to put our heads on a heated seat for hours a day, every day for decades.
You would be surprised, but nvidia’s employee stock plans allow to select the purchase price within the last 2 years https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/benefits/money/espp/
For at least some of the investors, a successful exit doesn't require building a profitable business.
> think you misread. Beef caws (male) usually live 1.5-2 years

I'll assume I misread "caw". But this apparent multi-sexed beef cattle beast you now speak of is even stranger still.

> What do you mean by wrong ? These are the figures of modern practice.

Under modern practices, the productive lifespan of a cow is usually around 4-5 years, as echoed by your links[1]. If you're only getting two out of your typical cow, something is afoot with the management of your herd. If you are culling them before their productivity has been exhausted, how are you squaring the resources you put into their unproductive early years? In other words, how the hell is your farm managing to stay profitable if you find a cow older than four to be abnormal?

[1] Which was strange in its own right. Can you not speak to the subject yourself?
The Musk derangement syndrome sufferers do not have the intelligence to see people as multifaceted creatures.
That’s neat. So it was a static composition that the gameplay was tweaked into fitting?
The past decade is a difficult framing to ask the question in. Notable breakthrough results are usually understood in hindsight and a decade just isn't a lot of time for that context and understanding to develop. Science also doesn't necessarily develop in this way with consistent progress every X timespan. Usually you get lots and lots of breakthroughs all at once as an important paradigm is shattered and a new one is installed. Then observations with tiny differences slowly pile up and a very blurry/messy picture of the problems with the new paradigm takes shape. But none of those things feels like a breakthrough, especially to a layman.

That said: I'll submit the first detection of gravitational waves as two black holes merged together in 2020 as meeting the bar of "notable breakthrough in the last decade".
A tool to create fluid and attractive user interfaces with disconcerting ease
Obviously, physics never creates any math but discovers it, there are no new things under the sun.
The place I work at now wouldn’t exist without the cloud. We simply don’t have the money or manpower at this stage to run everything in house relative to the growth.

That being said, a design philosophy I’ve imposed is KISS with largely off the shelf OSS solutions, that way we have the ability to move the software elsewhere in the future (I’d love to run in house if we get big enough). Of course, nothing is that simple but it’s much harder if not effectively impossible with something built significantly out of vendor-specific libraries and platforms. I don’t mind managed solutions as long they are completely swappable.

Unfortunately, the people before me used DynamoDB as our persistence layer, but I digress.
Appreciate the reference, I wasn't familiar with the ICAO noise standards.

If I'm reading things correctly it looks like Stage 5 caps out at 50dB, whereas a cursory search on the decibel levels for a supersonic boom comes up with 110dB.

That seems like a pretty large divide! Am I missing something?

Edit: A sibling comment appears to have addressed my confusion.
It's certainly not good, but if you require 2FA to, say, change the email address attached to your account, or make withdrawals, or other important actions, it's not game over.
U.S. to Accuse Russia of Using Its State Media to Influence 2024 Election
The end user doesn't pay for the software and so is not even a part of the market at all anymore. The target market of Windows is OEMs and Microsoft's "business partners", with a shift lately from the former to the latter.

Windows is no more sold to your mom or mine than it is to either of us. It's sold to people who aren't even users.
This seems to have proven that growth leads to higher earnings and equity prices.

Of course less taxation and a drop in interest rates will lead to more earnings over time and higher valuations. The crux is that he frames the drop in interest rates as a matter of "luck", as if the government just happened to be dropping them, as opposed to the government reacting to the drop in good/service prices by lowering rates, as a result of innovation, to maintain price stability and the 2% inflation target.

Company A makes more of Good #1 for less money due to Innovation X, and can charge less money. When this occurs across the entire economy, the fed has to drop rates to prevent broad deflation in prices. Lower rates show up as more earnings. The alternative with fixed rates would be that Company A's revenue, after its impressive innovation, would remain roughly the same (or fall) while its competitors' revenues fall (more). The real (adjusted) growth in equity prices, earnings, and revenue would still be going up at the same rate IMO.

It's entirely possible (maybe not likely) that a landmark innovation could deflate prices for most goods in the future and bring us back to low or even negative rates, which would (per his measurements) show up as higher earnings and equity prices.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but this paper seems circular to me. What would be more compelling is an analysis on the future of goods/services availability, as interest rates and taxation are downstream of those. For example, what does China's potential decline forebode for good availability? What about the hyped up potential panacea of AI?
Mobile screens are the present, in the form of phones. Unfortunately there are fundamental physics problems that make AR too limited and too cumbersome to entirely replace screens for the foreseeable future. I highly recommend Karl Guttag's blog to learn about the problems that will hold back AR for a long, long time: https://kguttag.com/2023/06/03/slides-from-presentation-at-a...
I judge the beauty of math and code by the how concisely and simply they can model the object in question - if the math exists abstractly and isn't trying to model any actual thing or concept it isn't particularly beautiful to me because it isn't an accomplishment of expressiveness - it's instead just a coincidence that if you put some symbols together you only need those symbols.

There are, of course, times that concise expressions aren't possible and multiple strange and arbitrary values come into play (coefficients of friction or earth's gravity at sea level aren't particular nice numbers or expressions) and that just tends to highlight how beautiful things are when those icky real-world numbers can be canceled out and you're left with a clean expression.
I have spent zero money on shaving since I baught an electric shaver years and years ago.
> Imagine a world where you're billed proportional to usage!

I see a world of even more surveillance. One where people frequently install uBlock-like tools to stop the counting and apps install invasive “cheat prevention” DRM mechanisms like some AAA games. A world where someone is billed astronomical amounts because they forgot to close an app, where people are constantly nervous the whole time they use a tool, and unscrupulous companies make programs run just a bit slower to rake in more money.

I don’t like subscriptions either, but that doesn’t sound like the solution to me.
The payments are tied to real milestones like building fabs. Intel cannot spend the money on organizational inertia because that wouldn't get them the money.
Discovered Vs invented
I disagree with this, it's making a big complex mess trying to solve for the wrong requirements.

The sites that care the most about "a real human" would never use this system anyway, because need to know your real identity, like with a bank.

For the rest, they don't actually need to know "a real human", but instead than an account represents a significant investment. That way they can have confidence that (A) the operator will care about following rules in order to keep it and (B) it is not feasible to have too many sockpuppets.

_____________

So... Forget digging up your birth-certificates or getting a passport, forget government officials interviewing you across a desk, forget the requirement for fancy digital wallets, and forget the overall privacy nightmare of biometric data.

Instead, simply imagine your local library along with... a vending machine!

How does it work?

1. Pop $X into the machine. [0]

2. Tap on the screen to select which charity gets the profit.

3. Take the one-time code(s) it prints out.

4. Register on the website, using a code to prove you have "skin in the game". The website validates/burns the code. [1]

Easy!

[0] Yes, I know this imposes an overt price on participation, but I'd argue it'll be less onerous than what is being described in TFA, which imposes a covert burden of taxes and application fees and travel-expenses and interview time.

[1] While someone could theoretically make a site that says it needs codes but actually collects them for later use, that would be easy to detect simply by entering a fake code, and everybody would have an incentive to try it.