skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By "thought crimes", would you mean firing people for holding positions responsible for DEI policies which were assigned to them and which there was a legal obligation to enforce?

Because that would NEVER happen in the US, certainly no government agency would fire its own people for having following legally enacted government policy just because that policy was no longer in fashion (though still legal government policy, because Congress hadn't yet changed the law).
My mother-in-law couldn't get her old Word docs to format correctly on her new laptop (Win11 + MS Office365). Rather than fiddle around trying various settings I installed LibreOffice and with it her docs rendered correctly. Made her happy. Libre Writer reminds me of Word2000, which means I don't waste time learning new ways to perform mundane writing tasks.
I was a kid when I saw one, in Brazil, at a computer convention. It was, probably "Feira Internacional de Informática" in Brazil, in the early 1980s. The DEC team was incredibly friendly, even to two kids (I went there with a cousin) who would, maybe, be their customers, 20 years later.

I became one. My cousin followed another career.
Could be a fun target to run git-of-theseus on
I think the field will mature into a traditional specialist field like doctor/pharmacist. Well-paid junior positions may cease to exist, because we just don't need an army of juniors pumping out low-quality code anymore. But experts remain essential.

The GenAI economy transition will be very weird. The (US) education system isn't remotely prepared for it. Why pay a bunch of money for a 4-yr CS degree?
Yup +1 for this, it makes Lighthouse happy
Who among us has not thought "I could rewrite twitter in half a day in rails"?

:D

The grace which saves us all is that we do not have the power to follow every idiotic impulse and see it's horrible effects.

I found "Forbidden Planet" to be quite helpful in seeing that idea put forth in film- it's quite good and left an impact on my thinking around these kinds of things...

Unrelatedly, I am starting to feel like I am living in a timeline where we're seeing the collusion of two men who have been cursed via "may the gods give you everything you ask for." Perhaps a whole culture of that, in fact.
…So it is about the fact that you object to his support for transgender people?

Surely you see why this is, actually, directly relevant and important context for your statement. It’s not some general political leaning you’re talking about - lumping this (prejudice against a minority group) into the same category as something like banal disagreements over taxation policy amounts to deliberately obscuring what you’re saying behind innuendo.

If you’ve got something to say about his political views in a public forum like this, at least do the people around you the courtesy of being upfront about what you’re actually saying.
This sounds too good to be true, yet the paper is oddly compelling.

They don't claim to explain how it works, they just provide a method to find naturally occurring superconductive particles and sort them out, presumably, so we can further study them and hopefully, figure out how to make more, more reliably.
There was a driver in California who would provoke people on the road and then capture their unhinged reactions on YouTube, editing out the provocation.

Eventually he got in a car crash and got in a lot of trouble.
The people in the thread were complaining about having mixed languages in a core kernel module, not about the language being Rust. Replace Rust with any other language and their complaint would have remained. The Rust people complain about not getting technical arguments against their proposals, but how is "a module that's coded in two languages is more difficult to maintain than one coded in a single language" not a technical argument?
> This presumes these folks had that part to lose. Based on all available evidence, I don’t believe they had the empathy, compassion, or emotional health in the first place.
Even after climbing the mountain, they can’t stop, they can’t help themselves. It’s just how they’re wired.

Those are basically the same thing though. Acquiring extreme wealth filters out people with empathy; they either never had it or lost it.
It's at least half of what the article is about.
- "torched by these vandals"

That's such an apt phrase. It goes back to the time Rome was a great and prosperous civilization, and there was a barbarian tribe–"Vandals" is a proper name–who were incompatible with kind of high civilization, who rode into a weakened Rome and looted various treasures they liked. And torched the rest.

It's an apt language to talk about people who seemingly don't comprehend the value of the institutions America built up over a century, the deep soft power behind them; who see only fistfuls of cash that can be grabbed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(455)
Apple

I don’t like their behavior either but I’m trying to help you make sense of it. They have a profit motive which corrupts
But how can you translate that to dollars today?
The comment you linked to explicitly shows that a maintainer does not consider this "okay" at all. T-libs-api made a mistake, the community got enraged, T-libs-api hasn't made such a mistake since. The fact that it happened sucks, but you can't argue that they didn't admit the failure.
I disagree. Doctors are frequently incompetent, don’t spend enough time with patients to understand them deeply, and are not aware of the latest research or these nuances.

But leaving that aside, this is about patient control. Doctors should not be gatekeepers for diagnostics. I don’t even want them to be a gatekeeper for many relatively safe prescriptions, which is clearly a way to increase medical costs.
I used to facilitate the use of an alternative medicine (kambo), which could be dangerous if used incorrectly or given to someone with a contraindicated condition. (It has been linked to a few deaths and has recently been banned in Australia). It occurred to me that even a great signed waiver wouldn't save me if something went sideways and decided to stop. I honestly don't think a waiver wouldn't matter in cases like this too.
Right, I will reward youtube with my money when youtube creators don't feel like they are being chewed up by a machine for pennies and don't constantly have their businesses threatened from abhorrent things like "Showing footage from historical bad events" and "Saying fuck a few times".

I will pay youtube when they change the algorithm and system to not reward clickbait, not reward god awful thumbnails, not reward literal lies, not penalize a channel for a single poorly performing video, etc.
I think this weakness is out of date. The privatisation of mass culture via social media (, the internet, etc.) provides highly asymmetric rewards for action via these "private" entities which can be strong-armed and hands-bloodied in participation in relevant "consensus-building NGOs".

Absent trump's election, the whole apparatus deployed to against media companies (targeting their ad networks to defund, strong-arming censorship, strong-arming participation etc.) would have went completely institutionally unaddressed.

> that would be dumb

Sure, given that your opponent can be elected your boss -- which happened, and now he's taking a wrecking ball to every agency which concerned itself with these tactics.

However, at the time it did not seem dumb. It seemed that trump was an existential threat to democracy. That may have even been to a degree true, but the dirty tricks approach has radicalized the far-right against the state in ways which used to be confined to the (previously targeted) far-left.
> Assuming everyone is acting in good faith

Why would we assume that Ted repeatedly using strawman fallacies, bleating appeals to emotion and acting like a victim...all the while shouting people down...evidence of "acting in good faith"?

When you shout over someone like that you're nothing but a bully.

> he fails to address the concern that a change they introduce would error downstream and someone else had to clean up afterwards.

Because that "concern" was a strawman. It demonstrated that Ted either did not understand what the presenters were asking for, or simply didn't like others asking him to do something, because he's very important and nobody tells him what to do.

As has been exhaustively explained by others in previous HN threads and elsewhere: the Rust developers were asking to be informed of changes so that Rust developers could update their code to accommodate the change.

Ted loses his shit and starts shouting nonsense about others forcing people to learn Rust, and so on.

> but most of all the moderator unable to prevent the situation from exploding

When someone is being abusive to others, the issue is never "the people on the receiving end are not handling it as best they can."

Further: did it occur to you that Ted's infamous short temper, and his "status" as a senior kernel developer, might be why the moderator was hesitating to respond?

Imagine how Ted would have reacted if he was told to speak respectfully, lower his voice, and stop talking over others. Imagine how the army of nerds who think Ted's behavior was acceptable or understandable.
How come we’re always talking about new and amazing tests, but I never am able to actually get these test at the doctor?
I always go to ublock origin settings and load all “annoyances” lists which are off by default. Idk how much that helps, but worth trying I guess.
If an incident of mobbing occurs in a Norwegian school the bystanders are held to account as well as the actual perpetrators.
Risk aversion can take different forms. A paranoid Larry Ellison vows to build a security state. A paranoid Andrew Carnegie built libraries, universities, and concert halls.
Given that "invoking corruption" is neither the plain meaning of those words, nor does it even make sense in this context, I don't think it's reasonable to claim Ted did so.
OK, I'm sorry for the touchy response. But I still don't understand your point.

Breaking a hash is a prototypical NP problem (ok maybe FNP). SAT is the prototypical NP-hard problem.

I was just trying to explain that using SAT to attack hashes is therefore unsurprising, and does not in any way imply that breaking hashes is NP-complete, the way that it would if the reduction went in the other direction.

Surely the same logic would make sense for another class M, if you had a problem "M-HASH" that's clearly in M, and an M-hard problem "M-SAT" to reduce it to? There might be other problems that you could also reduce to M-SAT, but mentioning that it solves all of M is what's relevant if M-HASH is in M.
Talk to any Canadian and tell me that trust in the US as an ally hasn't been irreparably damaged.

Global geopolitics are complicated. It's true on some level that no one trusts anyone else, but relative levels of trust still matter. There aren't many superpowers out there, if the US is seen as unreliable, China and the EU can step in and replace US influence. This has been happening in Africa for a couple decades or so, with China becoming increasingly influential.

These actions will drive US allies into partnerships with our rivals, which will make the US weaker. Everyone on both sides of the aisle understood this from 1946-2016.
You're wrong in your characterization. The Church may have built its empire upon a degree of information control, but breaking that control alone does not explain what happened. Everyone getting a Bible in their language alone wasn't sufficient.

What the printing press did was rapidly increase the amount, type, range and speed of information spread. That was a qualitative difference. The Church did not build its empire on restricting that, because before printing press, it was not even possible (or conceivable).

My overall point wrt. inventions is this: yes, it may end up turning for the best. But at the time the invention of this magnitude appears and spreads, a) no one can tell how it'll pan out, and b) they get all the immediate, bloody downsides of disrupting the social order.
> Internal company documents from 2019 and 2020 show thousands of reports of “serious physical assault”

> By this point, Matthews had already been reported for rape at least once to Hinge. Court documents show that he had already allegedly sexually assaulted nine women and drugged 10. Not only did the apps allow him back on, they featured Matthews’s profile.

> Match Group didn’t make it easy for the Denver prosecutors to convict Matthews. A search warrant was issued for Hinge in July 2023. Two months later, prosecutors were still empty-handed – with the judge in the case asking at a hearing whether he needed to start “dragging people in to get stuff done”. It wasn’t until February 2024 that the Denver district attorney’s office said they had finally received documents returned by Match Group.

Disgusting. I didn't see any reference to "Duty of Care" in the article, but I hope this case is used to establish precedent of holding tech companies accountable for the same "Duty of Care" standards you'd expect from a brick/mortar business.
It is your imperative on their platform. Why are you protesting to me? It’s their policy and they have a profit motive leading to this. I don’t like it either!
You really need look no further than P2025's recommendations on 'abortion' and Trump's actual track record 2016-2020 and his moderate stated positions on it, to suspect that the Romper Room is in no way being considered a roadmap. That's a big one and many Onward Christian Soldiers have been angered by it. Too bad for them, women rule! Reducing the size of the Fed and reducing its partisan component is a natural for any incoming President. He also aims to reduce the partisan lawfare component that has been used against him, instead of leaving it in place to do its thing again. Those under the Executive branch should not operate under the assumption that they are occupying forever-jobs.

But if you're being all insinuatey there's no rules, go for it! Welcome to the world of 'played a significant role in', 'could have laid the groundwork for', 'involved with' and 'claimed that', 'been labelled as'. Those are pieces of insinuate-string used to connect real things on looneyboards such as my favorite one in "A Beautiful Mind" that became a movie trope. Even Project 2025 Wikipedia is rational enough to say "Not to be confused with Donald Trump's package of proposals, Agenda 47."
Maybe specialty hardware? Are there handsets yet which can connect to starlink?
If the PhD had _increasing_ value it would offset its _increasing_ cost. Furthermore, not everything is linear over every range. There's only so much debt you can put yourself into and there's only so much ROI education can promise.
To be clear: I mean UB in the C standard. The cases where there is UB are mostly spelled out explicitly, so we can go through all the cases and define behavior. There might be cases where there is implicit UB, i.e. something is accidentally not specified, but this has always been fixed when noticed. It is not possible to remove all cases of UB though, but the plan is to add a memory safe mode where there is no UB similar to Rust.
Reminds me of the the Simpsons scene with the pixie stick:

"Don't hog it all!"

"Go to hell zitface!"
The key words being "may be." The fact is that a bunch of kids working for an essentially unofficial department of the government were given root access to all sorts of systems with no oversight. We simply have no idea how deep the damage goes.
No, that isn't right. It's the culture differences, not locations, that are being compared here. Location is only correlated to those differences; being in Japan vs being in the US doesn't guarantee the comparison.
I think there's a big difference between -- hall monitors making stuff impossible and what we're seeing now. USDS part of the executive branch made things more difficult, but if you'd given those folks even half the runway these doofuses have right now, imagine the sort of good they could've done.
> which is actively hostile to a second Rust compiler implementation

Which is hilarious since Linux itself was actively hostile to the idea of a second C compiler supporting it. Just getting Linux to support Clang instead of only GCC was a monumental task that almost certainly only happened because Android forced it to happen.
call the intake people at Grellas Shah and ask for David Siegel, or for a different partner as appropriate.
I mean tons of retrospective studies are literally "IRB exempt" (and highlighted as such in their methods) where no explicit consent is required or needed. Physicians doing case reviews don't need consent of the patient this work. Doing retrospective analyses for defining clinical phenotypes on patient data that has been aggregated isn't needed either. Collecting clinical MRIs to do deep learning doesn't require an IRB.

IRBs are only REALLY required when you are intervening in patient care or pose some theoretical risk to a human.

Some institutions still want you to submit approval for institutional data, but as a non-lawyer it seems that's much more of a CYA policy.
If comments as benign as "thin blue line" causes fragile entryist/activists to flee, I say Ted and the kernel team are doing the right thing. Projects as critical as the Linux kernel shouldn't be battlegrounds for the grievance of the week, nor should they be platforms for proselytizing. Marcan and others like him leave long paths of destruction in their wake. Lots of projects have been turned upsidedown by the drama they seem to bring with them everywhere. The salient point is contributors need to be more than "drive by" submitters for their pet projects. This isn't specific to Rust in the kernel, look at how much of an uphill battle bcachefs was/is.
it's expensive, the risks of losing are big and they dig into your whole life and basically ruin it. But agreed more people should be in these roles or at least advising these people, but the money is bad and it requires a different set of skills.
"Eccentric Orbits: The Iridium Story" by John Bloom is a must-read for anyone remotely interested in satellites, communication networks, or corporate management. The project achieved several outstanding engineering feats, then fumbled into an almost unrecoverable position, then rose from the ashes into the small niche it holds today.

Plus, "Early calculations showed that 77 satellites would be needed, hence the name Iridium", is an eternally cool piece of trivia.
Does the author really think we've never held large sporting events in these cities before? Never hosted international events like the Olympics before?
the top of the money game is the bottom of the real game
>Talk to any Canadian and tell me that trust in the US as an ally hasn't been irreparably damaged.

Firstly, I have no sympathy here. If you trust any foreign government that's not accountable to you to begin with, that's on you.

The upshot is that this serves as a good lesson and wake-up call for Canadians and for us in EU as well that we need to start pulling our weight in the world and looking out for our own interests instead of letting ourselves at the mercy of foreign powers.

People need to learn lessons the hard way on their own skin if they're too stupid to learn from past history, like how Czechoslovakia was fucked over by its allies in WW2 and gave to Hitler on a platter. Don't rely on supposed allies to fight your battles, look out for yourself. That's why I'm a big fan of the Swiss's neutrality system and France's post-WW2 nuclear deterrent program. A strong military is better than stronger allies that can change their mind.

And secondly, nothing is ever irreparably damaged. 80 years ago Japan and US were at war and for over 50 years they've been strong allies. Canada also invaded the US in 1814 and burned down the White House and yet they've been each other closest allies after that. Similarly, in 20 years Russia could be the west's best friend. So relationships between countries change all the time based on how the wind blows. Nothing ever lasts forever, only gullible fools with no understanding of history try to hang onto such idealistic beliefs.
..and after China just slapped you upside the head ($1T moved away in a couple days last week) with DeepSeek (oh man, that name --and it doesn't seem like anyone gets it haha)?

It sounds like it could help you to know my opinion that cloud-based training with massive capacity and, of course, cloud-based inference the way Apple does it (with PCC), makes a lot of sense; but the idea that centralized OpenAI/Anthropic/Claude style inference engines that would somehow carry out the applications for most of mankind is truly ridiculous. (Hey, Meta got something right for a change --you know, because their hands are on the actual wrenches, unlike the execs at those other companies.) That kind of Cloud AI you see today will die with the imposition of very heavy regulations that are already on their way and those systems will become brokers for more distributed agents to find other agents. This is a good thing because it gives them a way to preserve (rather than cannibalize) their existing business models.
And also doesn’t require any kind of registration. You just get the voting papers mailed in, and you hand them in at the place of voting - together with your ID for verification.
Ideal Customer Profile. The author should define this because even I, a business owner, tend to forget.

Relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43039003
David at Grellas Shah would be my recommendation. They're a boutique-y startup-oriented law firm that understands these issues.
No, no, no! Down Larry, down. Bad dog.
Why is the US contribution so critical to anything outside the US when there so many other rich countries that could pick up the slack? Does this mean that besides US no one else cares? I can't believe that's true.
The one that had the most personal influence on me was the chapter from Michael Abrash's Graphics Programming Black Book:
https://www.phatcode.net/res/224/files/html/ch17/17-01.html#...

CPU are very different these days, but the process he goes through is essentially unchanged.
> Academia is not about truth or beauty and never was.

I feel this idea is tired--like a 1978 Ford Pinto banged up and running on worn out re-treads. Will it go somewhere? Maybe, but not too far, not comfortably, and unlikely to end up where you want it.

Academia started as medicine, math, theology, and philosophy, if memory serves, and has given us so much of the basic research that leads to the applied technologies we have today.

The incentive structures get weird, certainly, like resources on the Serengeti.
I guess you could question the specific example, but to me the question sounded like "why would you do rebases".

Like, for various reasons?.

The point was that it's way easier and way safer to do rebases in jj, and it straight up allows to do complex stuff like the mentioned example easily and inderstandably, idk
I keep saying this, and nobody believes me, but I'm just going to keep trying:

These things happen because so often we focus the privacy conversation on corporations, which is exactly where the governments want it to be.

My controversial but strong opinion is that privacy from corporations matters very little, but privacy from governments matters very much.

We need to stop allowing the conversation to get distracted by talking about cookies and ad-tracking and whatnot, and always bring it right back to privacy from governments.

Yes, corporations and the government are often in cahoots here - but even then we should be talking about how wrong it is for governments to be buying/taking/demanding data from corporations - keeping the focus squarely on the government.

The worst thing a corporation is likely to do (other than giving your data to governments) is to sell you something. That's all they want. They collect data so they can make money off you. That's not so scary to me. Governments want to put you in jail (or freeze your bank account, etc) if you get out of line.