skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is a significant recreational benefit. Flying feels amazing, and while I don't lucid dream anymore due to THC supplements for sleeping, I remember being fascinated and endlessly entertained by how _real_ it felt. I also remember quickly waking up upon the exciting realization that I'm dreaming. Rubbing hands together to stabilize the dream as you feel it slipping is a strategy I remember using.
Or skipping inadvertently back into that gullible state where you take the most outlandish stuff at face value and outright forget that you're dreaming.

Pretty amazing when is works, though
Keeping models in memory is more efficient than constantly loading/unloading them, so a process that keeps running is the way to go
Of course stopping climate change will save in the long run. The critical question is who should spend the money now to save money later. That is the crux of the free rider problem.
“Just because you are bad guy doesn’t mean you are bad guy.”
> rules out a relatively small subset of architectural choices which are arguably a bad idea anyways

Just because an algorithm is not representable in safe rust doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. See my other comment in this topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42164582 You’ll find similar parallel algorithms in all high-performance BLAS libraries. On my day job I sometimes do similar things in C++, using OpenMP or other thread pool for parallelism.
How does that mean anything to the people who need to be employed to continue living? We're not the ones with the ability to change this.
well quite. I'm in the UK myself.
> the basic technology for "much faster speed" doesn't exist.

…but we’re very close. The next technique will be flying near the sun then deploying a solar sail for a huge speed boost. Voyager goes 3 AU/yr, solar sail boost with todays technology will enable 7-9 AU/yr.

Highly recommend watching Slava Turyshev discuss his work on an SGL telescope, which employs this technique.

https://www.youtube.com/live/lqzJewjZUkk?si=57VS4oqbaKEXmyOR
That doesn't seem helpful. Nothing lasts forever, and if you don't figure out when it's going to fail, it's going to be sooner rather than later.
Why rewrite then? We should have only the strongest engineers, only those able to understand and thrive in any kind of spaghetti.
Why shouldn’t we use taxes as an incentive? What should be used instead? How do we account for externalities?

Why is simplicity desirable in the tax code? Who does it benefit and how?
I thought about doing something like that, but then I realised: what if someone linked to the trap URL it from another site and a crawler followed that link to the trap?

You might end up penalising Googlebot or Bingbot.

If anyone knew what that trap URL did, and felt malicious, this could happen.
Being the Third Engineer
What you're doing right now is called "coping".
It feels like ethnic anxieties have spiked since the election. Particularly among the prosperous with luxury time & beliefs.

However, that might just be my perception.
Legally, you may not be compelled to provide a password. But the same is not quite as true for biometric attestations. First, a cop can physically use your face or finger to unlock your device without your consent. Second, legally they are allowed to compel you to unlock devices with these measures.

https://reason.com/2024/04/19/appeals-court-rules-that-cops-...

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-supreme-court-fifth-a...
It could make more sense to bucket these three together if you're looking for what they have in common.

Australia 14.5t
United States 14.3t
Canada 14.0t

My guesses are: houses rather than apartments, driving everywhere, percentage of SUVS compared to sedans, meat consumption, general consumerism?
Is that a clever way of saying it’s about as fast as braille?
Imagine this concrete example: you are the best developer in the world in some specific area(s), except for UX/UI. If you wanted to create a relatively simple yet secure site with user authentication, even if described declaratively as “create a secure site with user authentication,” it would still take a significant amount of time to learn technologies like React and put everything in place. There are zillions of development teams doing the same work around the world.
Our understanding of physics has also gotten much better, for example our understanding of tensegrity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurilpa_Bridge

> The Kurilpa Bridge is a multiple-mast, cable-stay structure based on principles of tensegrity producing a synergy between balanced tension and compression components to create a light structure which is incredibly strong.
I mean, there's a case to be made there. More often than not, anti-depressants are the first option given when someone is presenting those symptoms. There is little to no effort to address the root cause. It should be a last resort. Sadly young people, esp young girls, are being given these drugs like candy. It should be medical malpractice.
I can already sense capitalbros trying to farm the organs of poor workers now
> The maintenance demands for using a heavy, evolving framework and a large graph of churning dependencies are tremendous and perpetual

Counterpoint: If you replace a frontend framework with backend components, as has been suggested a few times in this thread, those frameworks are even larger, and a lot of the basic functionality provided by React (such as components) is often provided by third-party packages.

Sure, if you're using something like jQuery, then it's smaller and more stable, but the functionality is limited compared to both backend and frontend frameworks. Which of course might be 100% appropriate depending on the use case.
It's a strawman to say that money is fake because no serious economist argues that money is "real". Of course it is fake. We use money because it's a useful way to organize society
Because that's an important part of security in the real world.

Crypto is cool and all, but also creates plenty of footguns and is overall annoying to deal with. Legal solutions plug into the wider system of how adults deal with the world - courts, insurance, and yes, men with guns. It's not as solid as purely mathematical solutions, but it is flexible in ways that matter to real people in real-life situations.

Anyway, GP's point was more that banks are known to be subject to regulation wrt. accounts, they can't just shut you out and pretend you were never there (in contrast to e.g. Google which can, and does). They're not allowed to be too big to care.
I’ll have to check again, thanks
Mastodon is also confusing for a lot of people and when you point it out techies will appear to yell at you and tell you that "no in fact it isn't."

Whereas Bluesky has a familiar consumer app feeling to it.

Each of these sites also has a distinct vibe. Threads, for example, feels a bit like when Time Square turned into a kind of Disney property. It's clean and safe! But it also lacks a bit of soul.
Air pollution and CO2 emissions are different things. One causes cancer and heart issues, the other causes global warming.

Large amounts of particulate in the air (for example from a volcano) would probably cause global cooling since it blocks out the sun.
DOGE, the idea, exists today because in their 100+ year history GAO has nothing to show for responsible government spending. It's that simple.
One person's individual change is a drop of water in the ocean when compared to the vast amount of emissions and pollution and waste produced at scale by corporations.

Arguing to your neighbor why they should recycle their plastic water bottle can at most make an infinitesimal difference.

Creating a legal responsibility for Coca Cola to clean up the billions of plastic bottles it produces annually, on the other hand, could change the world.
Not NEARLY as much as the right. Lying on the right has become an entire industry.

Oh, and this "everyone lies all the time so we can't know what is true" is a very Russian narrative called The Firehose of Falshoods.
It's fascinating how Voyager 1, despite my lack of space knowledge, utilizes a nuclear power source for 40+ years, offering steady and reliable power without any moving parts that could degrade over time.

In contrast, India's decision to rely on solar panels led vikram lander to be dead in just 14 days due to lack of sunlight (afaik).

I'm curious about the rationale behind this choice when nuclear power seems like a far superior option. Can someone shed light on this decision?
I don't think I am presenting outliers (though I have edited the list to add some context).

US+China+Europe+Australia have cumulatively emitted 70% of all historical emissions. They are still 3x the world average and the estimated target. That's why they are on the list.

China is there because it is a common villain in these discussion. The low-(middle)-income countries are, in my opinion, never going to emit much more than they do now. They will never contribute to the problem but will feel all the effects.
About half of CO2 emissions are electricity, heating and transport. Not beef.

And for those we have viable solutions that either do not lower subjective quality of living or even improve it, but they are not sufficiently implemented by enough people.

Telling folks to stop eating beef now is compounding the problem by making people just give up.

We should first address the things that we have viable solutions for instead of loosing public support by insisting on reducing emissions in areas where there are no good solutions yet and some sort of asceticism seems to be in order.
a good passkey implementation allows multiple passkeys. you can have faceid on your mac, and you can also have a yubikey in a safe somewhere for disaster recovery.

also, passkeys get backed up in iCloud, so losing your device isn't really an issue. the disaster scenario is more what happens if apple locks you out of iCloud.
I recall the numbers are about reducing the man-made emissions to net-zero by 2050. I believe this must include some measures which counteract emissions which can't be reduced.
My point was that the word organization implies a planned structure, and a free market is explicitly not that. I'd consider it fair to say a market is a way of humans self-organizing, but a market is not an organization in any common sense of the word.
Discussed earlier:

"NASA reconnected with Voyager 1 after a brief pause" (30.10.2024)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41992394
Software development is simple, try to maximize all of these at the same time:

1. Performance

2. Reliability

3. Readability

4. Correctness

5. Maintainability

6. Extendability

7. Consistency

8. Adequacy

9. Simplicity

10. Predictability
Money isn't fake, it's a useful abstraction for describing the allocation of goods and services. We could describe the cost of transitioning from fossil fuels in terms of labor hours spent, miles not traveled in an ICE vehicle, tons of lithium mined, etc. But money lets us collapse all of that down into one number that we can get our heads around and which is useful for figuring out things like how much we need to raise taxes
What are you talking about? If you take 2.5% to spend it on better infrastructure and existing technologies (that are more environmentally friendly) and develop new technologies, you are not reducing GDP. GDP just measures the ammount of money a country spends.

Of course you need to spend money and energy (specially energy, everything in the universe is energy), but the solution is not to stop moving. We need to use energy and resources in order to switch to better technologies.
The alignment greatly reduced the amount of energy/propellant/weight to launch the Voyager missions with all four of the outer planets on the menu. Alignments that allow you to reach a smaller set of the outer planets with the same budget are more common: years or decades.

(Edit) Another thought, since you mentioned time—numerical computing power and the math required to exercise it have advanced greatly since the 1970s, and it's likely that some of the trajectories and maneuvers feasible (again with the same fuel budget) today, even if they took 100+ years to complete, weren't even calculable back then.
Very late but, nonetheless, thank you.
I find the destructuring logic in elixir much more interesting, and the watered down version in ES6 much more practical.

In elixir you can pop off as many as you like.
No, I'm not agreeing with you. You're agreeing with me.

Wait a minute... :-)

Sorry, somehow I managed to quote the portion of your message that I was agreeing with. You just said it more concisely than I could.

The aspect I disagree with is whether brittleness to change is more due to the complexity of the borrow checker vs interfaces with very constrained types. I mean, the complexity of the borrow checker definitely factors into it, especially with how late it runs (as you said) and the fact that it's all or nothing, which makes it hard to change things incrementally.

But (imho) the borrow checker is less complex than, say, the rules around C++ constructor variants. And RVO/NRVO. And name lookup. And definitely less complex than undefined behavior. I'd rather memorize the borrow checker than those. They contribute to some amount of brittleness to change, especially when monkeying with move constructors, but in practice it seems far less than Rust. I really think it's more about the specificity of types in the language.

I should probably mention that I still think it's a good tradeoff for many of the types of programs I write, but it is a tradeoff.

Anyway, this is all more just a realization that you sparked in me. It's ok if we, uh, disagree to agree.
From what I remember when I read up on this last time, the problem is mostly with the salary and pension system that has organically grown to some ridiculous complexity.
Right, fossil fuels cause around 8 million deaths a year from air pollution [1], so regardless of climate change it'd be worth making a dent in those numbers.

And no, air pollution isn't just a problem in places like India and China, it kills over 100,000 Americans a year and costs society $886 billion. [2]

The evidence of anthropogenic global warming existing is extraordinarily strong [3] [4], but you're right, even if somehow 97% of climate scientists with studies published on the matter from 1991 to 2011 and 99% of them from 2012 to 2020 were wrong (in addition to NASA, The European Space Agency, NOAA, the World Meteorological Organization, and the national academy of science (or equivalent organization) of basically every country that has one), it'd still be worth avoiding millions of deaths a year and having established independent energy security.

1. https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-077784

2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1816102116

3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

4. https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Fac2966
1.5 degrees celsius is 10% of the global average temperature. That is, to put it mildly, a shit ton of a difference
It depends. In fact the entire discussion is wrong, and neither rule has any real world value.

People are all talking about the format of the code, while what defines if it's a good architecture or not is the semantics. Just evaluating that heuristic (yours or the article's) will lead you into writing worse code.
If you are sincere then I think this must be the most reckless, unhinged proposal I've read on this website.

Are you really literally suggesting to start a nuclear war with Russia?
We were asleep at the wheel for maybe 20 years too long on renewables, but the pace over the last 10+ years has been mind-boggling, and especially the pace the last 4 years.

Nothing is going to turn that tide meaningfully.

I'd like to know how anyone with an ounce of reality thinks we're going to reduce emissions substantially faster than we already are.

Rome wasn't built in a day.
75% of the US is overweight or obese. You’re trying to make a partisan issue out of a not-partisan issue. Please stop.
Are those figures per capita for consumers or producers? Is Saudi Arabia scoring high because of the oil industry?

> Guess what's going to happen and who is going to suffer, despite not doing anything.

Low income countries also don’t have good tracking or data. I’ve seen lots of practices in developing countries that are really damaging environmentally (GHGs and other things) that probably don’t get reported or tracked anywhere, because they’re so local (things like illegal refineries, manufacturing operations with no waste disposal, stubble burning, etc). But they exist. In part those damaging practices are here because of globalism (economic pressure) and changing lifestyles, so it’s not their fault. But my point is we probably just need a global reduction in luxury and quality of life ultimately.
Even if we could there isn't much point. There just isn't very much out where the Voyagers are, and there won't be for a long time. We're shutting down sensors on Voyager because there just isn't much to see. It's just vacuum.

If we had something capable of getting to Voyager in a year that might be worthwhile, because it would stand a chance of getting somewhere interesting in a few decades. But we are absolutely nowhere near that level.
> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Ban fish and the man gets into farming and animal husbandry and doesn't need you anymore.

Eh, you're misusing the saying in an inappropriate way. It's about fostering self-sufficiency in people you want to help. It's not really applicable to rivals and enemies.

In this case, the hubris of the 1990s cause the US to get into this relationship with China, and now that's going to have to unwind somehow (and doing that in a 5-D chess way is unrealistic). And anyway, it's not like China's goal was to remain dependent on Western tech forever, it's plan is to become self-sufficient on its own terms on its own timetable, and the best the US can hope to achieve is cause some disruption and mess that timetable up.
Perhaps it's too simple, but I like https://elenco.com/snapcircuits/
I wouldn't say that since SQL was an improvement over previous ways to query data which were more concrete, like writing C code to get what you need. As such we are on a level of abstraction higher. Thus SQL specifies the "what", not the "how", with respect to those previous methods. However in complex queries, since we are constrained by the relational model (PK/FK), we may have a feeling of having to specify too much details.
Tool functions allow you to define general-purpose code to be invoked by LLMs
What Business School Buys You: Notes on Optionality, Signals, and Networks
I have worked there too.
North Korean-linked hackers were caught experimenting with new macOS malware
I fear you're an optimist.
The simple reality is that humanity is unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without an alternative that is superior.

For every ton of CO2 that the west has reduced in the past decade China has produced three tons of CO2.[1]

We need another breakthrough on the scale of the Haber process.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?country=OWID_WRL~Hi...
It depends mostly on the bandwidth-delay-product and packet loss you expect on each connection. A there is a vast difference between a local interactive SSH session and downloading a large VM image from across an ocean.
Early in my career I started out really DRY, it in my experience and not just the code I wrote led to various issues down the line with unmaintainable edge cases. Especially if many teams are working on those things. It becomes really hard to support at some point. Now I feel much better making things DRY when it is really obvious that it should be.
It’s not your fault. You didn’t contribute to his death.

How he handled (or neglected) stress in his life may have contributed to his death, but’s that’s on him, not you.

Consider also that he may have psychological issues and/or been looking for a target for his frustrations and you were the most opportune at that moment. I don’t like to throw around the word “toxic” because it’s overused, but it seems to fit the bill here.
HIBP notifies 57M people of Hot Topic data breach
Probably mining and refining natural gas and oil?
It is incredibly entertaining. It is the closest thing to full dive VR we can get right now and I doubt we would ever get the "realness" as close as lucid dreaming without some physical hijacking in the brain.

The world is your oyster when you are dreaming and in control. That alone is enough of a draw for many people.
it just dawned on me how trivially simple it would be for memory controllers to implement ECC in UDIMMs, for every N words, reserve 1 word for parity. You gain ECC for a small decrease in capacity. Since the memory controller is on the CPU, it can easily abstract this away.
Title:

> Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

First sentence of the article:

> humans may have already caused 1.5 °C of global warming
So if someone posts "lesbians don't want cock" paired with a vomit emoji, and someone else replies with "I'm a lesbian and other lesbians thirst for my girl cock" along with an eggplant emoji, and then someone else replies with "sorry, but no to all of this; males cannot be lesbian" - which of these, if any, are you banning as homophobic or transphobic rhetoric?

Or, are you willing to tolerate differences of perspective on this issue?
Phones have a TPM just like a USB security key. The face id on a phone based passkey is just the equivalent of pushing the button on the yubikeys.

So they need the physical device. You cannot clone the TPM parts that are in newer phones. The faceID just unlocks that hardware on your phone in the same way pushing the button on a yubikey sends the key up.
> But it wouldn't something that could be stolen off bitwarden.

Hah. I'm not the only one thinking about ways to use AWS KMS for it!

But the attacker can still impersonate you and ask the HSM service to sign data for them.

Ideally, I really want a system with a proof of physical interaction. The existing HSM APIs are not well-suited for that. But if you can trust the software that runs on the service that provides the HSM access, then this can be done with minor caveats on macOS.
I find that part depressing as well, like who would even listen to gen AI podcasts? Not even vetted by a person but just pumped out as filler like it’s some kind of soil fertilizer. There is already so much good human made content on the web for nearly free if you only look. No doubt this AI slop will get in out way even if we don’t want it, but think of the effect this slop is going to have on younger generation.
My point is you need a society to use it and climate change will cause events which will make people question whether we still have one - which is enough for money to stop being useful. People in the west take a lot for granted.
Unfortunately HTTP/2 push is basically dead. Very few sites made use of it and Chrome removed it: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/removing-push
The CO2 intensity of any activity can be vastly different. Net-Zero goals require that you transition to activities which produce less CO2. This can be negative CO2 emmissions (e.g. planting trees/felling them/storing the wood).

Replacing high CO2 intensity activities (burning coal) with lesser intensive tasks (e.g. burning gas or renewables) is the key.

Solar and other renewables counteract their Co2 expenditure after 1-2 years.
reads like a chatgpt answer
I could say speed, but the main reason for me is because it is fun. And I like to see what I can make C do. :D
We are on the natural rise after a natural ice period. Just check long term temperature curves and stop looking short term, making it look like there has ever been the same average temperature on earth.