skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This is an indirect return to taxpayers... who are holding these currencies.

All of these are basically commodities and unproductive assets (like gold).

Warren Buffett in 2011:

> Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At $1,750 per ounce – gold’s price as I write this – its value would be $9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

> Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about $200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than $40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about $1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with $9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B? Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today’s annual production of gold command about $160 billion. Buyers – whether jewelry and industrial users, frightened individuals, or speculators – must continually absorb this additional supply to merely maintain an equilibrium at present prices.

> A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops – and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. Exxon Mobil will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

* https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf

A related note: Exxon Mobil was the second largest company in 2011:

* https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full...

It's no longer #2, but its market cap is a little higher, but it goes to another point Buffett often makes: don't try to pick stocks, but invest in a broad index fund.

For all of these, the only way to get a return is for someone to come along later and buy it (ideally at a higher (real) price):

> The main argument for a Strategic BItcoin Reserve seems to be that Bitcoin holders worry about an impending shortage of greater fools and need the US government to act as the greatest fool of last resort.

* https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1870564077535470079
I'm assuming that next, the US will invest in a "Strategic Tesla stock reserve."
Another fresh angle to loot the treasury and exploit suckers for profit.
Do you have any product/purchase info and links for that pricing please?
> The bureaucracy is all encompassing; it's in the military industry, healthcare industry, education industry, the consulting industry, and of course, the government.

I wonder why you didn't mention the energy industry. Hmmm.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=2024&in...
> In order to keep things simple for our users

This isn't simple, of course, hence the confusion that prompted you to reach out to legal and publish a dismissive clarification
I think the closet example here would be if the Federal Government had started a "beanie babies" strategic reserve back in the 90s.
That's like saying HR's budget is the same as Accounting's budget because they're both part of Incorporated Widgets, and that we should fire Bob in HR because Sandra is a good accountant. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense or reflect how these decisions are actually made. Funding more social sciences doesn't actually mean funding less other science, just like hiring an HR rep doesn't entail firing an accountant.

Different funds are appropriated for different purposes, funding the kind of research you're talking about would likely be connected to an NSF grant or a national lab. Note as well that science, like everything else, experiences diminishing returns. Putting 1000x the money into water treatment research won't get you 1000x the return. Allocating funds at the scale of the federal government isn't zero sum; you can saturate the amount of funding it's possible to provide, and it does make sense to spread funding around many different areas.

Incidentally, that research you want to see is probably in jeopardy because the grant funding it contains forbidden words like "environment."
What’s the name of the podcast?
So, I'm usually the huge Rust promoter, but we already have a lot of dotfiles managers, and Chezmoi, although written in Go, is right there.

What can this one do that the other ones don't?

The README lists features that, well, I'd already expect modern dotfile managers to be able to do.
It’s hard to write to an aesthetic that is this utopian. You’d have to be more realistic about it. What would the conflicts be? What would criminality and/or corporate (or other org) malfeasance look like? What sort of culture wars might exist?

But don’t make it a green Aesop. That’d be boring, and the whole point is that those problems are mostly solved. So what are the new problems? Make it an original conflict, maybe something we wouldn’t even imagine.
I'm not remotely convinced that LLMs are a chainsaw, unless they've been very thoroughly trained on the problem domain. LLMs are good for vibe coding, and some of them (Grok 3 is actually good at this) can speak passable Latin, but try getting them to compose Sotadean verse in Latin or put a penthemimeral caesura in an iambic trimeter in ancient Greek. They can define a penthemimeral caesura and an iambic trimeter, but they don't understand the concepts and can't apply one to the other. All they can do is spit out the next probable token. Worse, LLMs have lied to me on the definition of Sotadean verse, not even regurgitating what Wikipedia should have taught them.

Image-generating AIs are really good at producing passable human forms, but they'll fail at generating anything realistic for dice, even though dice are just cubes with marks on them. Ask them to illustrate the Platonic solids, which you can find well-illustrated with a Google image search, and you'll get a bunch of lumps, some of which might resemble shapes. They don't understand the concepts: they just work off probability. But, they look fairly good at those probabilities in domains like human forms, because they've been specially trained on them.

LLMs seem amazing in a relatively small number of problem domains over which they've been extensively trained, and they seem amazing because they have been well trained in them. When you ask for something outside those domains, their failure to work from inductions about reality (like "dice are a species of cubes, but differentiated from other cubes by having dots on them") or to be able to apply concepts become patent, and the chainsaw looks a lot like an adze that you spend more time correcting than getting correct results from.
> The teacher punched him in the face […] and banned him from the shop

Incredible story for another generation.

Thank you for sharing!
Either it will be popular enough that other browsers will implement the open standard, or it will not be popular and no one will implement it in other browsers and few sites will use it.

Mozilla has a revenue of like $600M. They should have no problem keeping up with popular w3c standards. Hell, even opera, with only a tiny fraction of users can keep up.
Microsoft needs to stop trying to make everything work with everything. It’s ends up meaning their stuff is always broken.
The videos are amazing

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54353240540/in/al...
Regulation isn't the only thing that can make a market unfree. For example, some of the players in the market could be big enough to exert market power.
The larger picture is that our brains are very much influenced by all the chemistry that happens around our units of computation (neurones); especially hormones. But (maybe) unlike consciousness, this is all "reproducible", meaning it can be part of the algorithm.
https://archive.md/Egwuc
The function argument defaults to polars, but the actual benchmark code sets duckdb by default.

https://github.com/deepseek-ai/smallpond/blob/ed112db42af4d0...
Problems with New California Bar Exam Enrage Test Takers and Cloud Their Futures
Fairly recent research claims that hobby (backyard) chickens tend to have higher PFAS contamination than factory farmed chickens because hobby chickens get the chance to eat (a lot of) rain worms whereas the factory farmed chickens only get commercial food, no live worms. I do agree that location is almost undoubtedly key to PFAS contamination rates.

Dutch source for the thing about rain worms: https://nos.nl/artikel/2539934-hoge-concentraties-pfas-via-r...
Oh that is super odd! The doctor is not supposed to give you those. They are not supposed to prescribe you drugs without inquiring allergies and talking about side effects.

Also you should not be trust By webmd at all! How do you know they are not just asking someone AI to populate their data base or worse someone is making copy paste errors? If you can trust webmd you can an AI. Anything that is not a doctor is not to be trusted for life threatening advice

But I get it, it has worked for you so far with webmd so you trust it. Am also glad you are skeptical about anything new too.
The “fail to serve” wording in the headline is unnecessarily rage-baity.

It’s an interesting proposal, but trying to shame people into adopting proposed things is more likely to generate groans and disinterest in 2025 than to win converts.
> using tools and rigorous methods

Lots of speedrun strategies require surprisingly sophisticated tools. People will decompile/disassemble code to figure out what is going on. They'll run the game in an emulator and peek at memory values to figure out how the game works and how to manipulate it. They'll use these tools to set up their game state so that there's a sequence of bytes in RAM, then cause program execution to jump to these bytes, to run arbitrary code execution.

Here's a video of a speedrunner explaining some of the things he did to get two arbitrary code executions working together to speedrun Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MbaZY2DOW0 (it's about 15 minutes)

Here's the same runner using one of those arbitrary code executions to inject Flappy Bird into Super Mario World instead of just warping to end credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB6eY73sLV0 (it's about 6 minutes)

He didn't get to that point just by random pressing buttons until something interesting happened. He got to that point because he understands the Super Mario World memory layout well enough to manipulate it and execute the instructions that he chooses for it. That's vulnerability research any way you want to slice it.
I wouldn't trust the world's leading neurosurgeon to perform surgery on my ankle. Nor would I want my patent attorney to represent me on a murder charge. I'm also not trusting the pilot for the Marine One helicopter to fly me anywhere on a Boeing 737 Max. "SWE" is simply too broad a term to encompass all of the deep knowledge someone should have at some point in their career. That us, unless we want to talk about licensing software developers with certifications, which is a whole other can of worms.
The only people who disagree are people who don't have regular experience from both sides.

Graphical diffs that automatically handle merge conflicts visually with clicks to insert, undo and the ability for custom modification are MUCH MUCH more convenient with a GUI. Highly recommend the jetbrains conflict resolver gui.

I can assure you ANYONE who regularly has experience with both the CLI and that GUI(jetbrains) will hands down say the GUI is superior for merge conflicts. It is NOT intrinsic to the nature of merge conflicts. Any disagreement in this area stems from lack of experience or knowledge.

If anyone has experience with both and they have a contrary opinion, feel free to tell me. I doubt such a person exists though.
False dichotomy. Yes, you can broadly split people who find vulnerabilities into those who want to use or sell them, and those who want to get them fixed. And those who want to use or sell them will never tell the victim.

But those who notice a problem do have some point of aggravation past which they'll just go "I can't be bothered; fuck 'em". You really do want to make it as easy as possible for them to report. (And alsp make it seem as safe as possible; having a reputation for suing reporters is also terrible.)

Now, in practice, I don't thing security.txt is a particularly useful way of doing this, but it is pretty easy to add.
to the value of the work, this seems like an utterly tokenistic reward. But the actual work is funding prizes in theoretical and practical explorations TOWARDS the target. Nobody is decoding Aunt Ginny's memory of that beach holiday, this is about being able to read connection state held in a brain, at the individual neuron level. The basic inputs which would be used, in some mythic future, to get to the feel of gritty sand on a beach in a 1950s wooly bathing suit.
Vesuvius erupted, but when exactly?
Do you run a paid bug bounty program? I saw an interesting presentation from Finn.no about how they got most of their vulnerabilities through that, basically none from their security.txt file, and a handful from people contacting the CISO on LinkedIn.
This is the most frustrating interview I have ever tried to watch
> I'm sure there are some corporate superintendents, but I've never seen one

Live near a big school district (major metropolitan area), then you will see the corporate and career political types in the CEO office.
Yes. Because writing code is so easy a bot can do it these days. sets the everything else that goes into writing code that wants to be captured, so following process is about how much you love future you, who has to come in three/five/ten/twenty years from now and figure out wtf you were thinking when you wrote this. Did I mean to use > instead of >= or was I just careless?
https://archive.ph/Cj7uo
https://archive.ph/lcFZa
Ah!

Cape Station does look much more significant. [0] 400MW of power plant capacity with 2028 COD and mostly contracted with SoCal Edison? Good job.

[0] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/cape-station-enhanced-geoth...
This comment chain gave me a good laugh.
Chobani commercial.

It's nice image. But don't think Chobani is doing much different than any other dairy product manufacturer.
>> [it's] the hardest thing I've ever done for my health ... I've robbed myself of the one joy I had left and now I have none

> [but] my dose is fine [because] I'm under the care of a physician

Get a second medical opinion from a doctor experienced with prescribing these drugs.
No, on all of timelines, finality, and who makes the final call. You're making very confident statements about a complicated process you don't seem to know all that much of.

> After a week, if the merchant doesn't object, the funds are released to the issuing bank. [...] it's ultimately the issuing bank (i.e. the customer's) that makes the final call

The funds are moved immediately, but within a given timeframe (depending on the network, but usually much more than a single week), the merchant has the option of clawing them back once again. That's called a "second presentment" (see for example [1] or [2]).

The issuer then has the option to submit a second chargeback if they still believe they are in the right, and depending on the type of chargeback, the acquirer (and by extension merchant) might get one more chance to send yet another response. If they are still disagreeing at the end of these steps, the case can be brought to the network, which then makes a final ruling, but that's very expensive (and the losing party pays), so it's usually avoided.

The money moves from issuer to acquirer and back for all of these steps. Only if the issuer makes the last move, and the acquirer does not challenge it, is the chargeback considered "won". All of that is usually hidden from at least cardholders via the provisional credit mechanism mentioned above.

In any case, your assertion that the issuing bank has the last word is simply not true.

[1] https://developer.mastercard.com/mastercom/documentation/get...

[2] https://chargebacks911.com/second-presentment/
Once a replicator is invented, human economic systems don’t make any sense. In a society without scarcity, money is meaningless as anyone can have whatever he/she desires nearly instantly. Of course, there are great discussions around what this would do to people psychologically and thus what such a breakthrough would do to human civilization.
Shandu – Open-Source DeepResearch
Shandu is a cutting-edge AI research assistant that performs in-depth, multi-source research on any topic using advanced language models, intelligent web scraping, and iterative exploration to generate comprehensive, well-structured reports with proper citations.

https://github.com/jolovicdev/shandu

https://x.com/LangChainAI/status/1896229011291779347 Even LangChain reposted!

Please give me advices, and if someone can test it out so i can fix more and more bugs!
I highly recommend this game:
https://thefuture.wtf/

Not affiliated with it, I simply found out about it through the "srsly wrong" podcast a few years ago.
This is excellent news. Private sector companies are going into space, landing on extraterrestrial bodies. Hope this spur more activities outward.
Exactly this. I've worked at a few places now where there were RTO policies that many workers ignored. But periodically low performers and/or people that had lost political battles were denied promotions or fired and their poor office attendance record was cited.
I agree Google has too much market share and sway over plenty of browser features.

However… CSS features are a W3C specification and are an early stage [1]. It’s a process that vendors draft and agree on and can terminate.

On top of that I wouldn’t characterise improving css with functions isn’t a _churnful trendchasing_. If anything this will improve accessibility because it’ll be easier to manage size, colour, and motion preferences with better abstractions than media queries everywhere.

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-mixins/
No, that's meaningless precision. meaningful precision would be stars by category, not a generic overall assessment
Pointed out well!!!
What are you doing programming if you can't handle interfaces and leaky abstractions? that's basically the job!
Sorry, this is a ridiculous claim. This spec has been worked on for years in the CSSWG with participation from multiple browser implementers, Igalia, and other community members.

Custom functions have been a huge web developer request for a long, long time and is one of the remaining gaps between standard CSS and Sass/LESS, after variables and nesting shipped. Mixins are next, and they'll be good too.

Not every advancement in the web platform needs to be some kind of conspiracy.
> We have to reduce spending by a massive amount to get to fiscal sustainability.

How does that jive with other countries that have both higher spending and fiscal sustainability?
We do not, but I am prepared to pay a bug bounty out of my own compensation, for usual corp reasons. We don’t share this of course unfortunately, so I’m relying on good faith reporters to come forward at which point they get a Willy Wonka ticket if the vuln is legit (and not Burpsuite canned reports or the like). It’s…not ideal. You operate within the org constraints you must operate within.
> On one hand, it would take them approx ~1 sentence of blog to say "We won't sell your input info to anyone" and this drama goes away.

I wouldn't count on it.

A pinky promise isn't legally binding, but the contract terms are. Too many companies have screwed over their customers in the past. It's 2025, nobody is going to trust any "promise" a company makes. If you give them a finger, it's all but guaranteed they are going to try taking your hand.
Geothermal is limited by the flux* of what you can pull from the ground, which sort of scales with capital costs.

Reducing the draw from the well at time X, leaves more available at time Y. In this way, the capital cost is reasonably preserved and your correction is offered.

--It's not exactly the same thing as flux
---I haven't verified the relative losses here of delaying utilizing the available heat, but rather am assuming the OP is correct about what I believe to be their point*
> Issuing bank decides.

No; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43237555 for details.
I don't think cratering the economy actually helps Trump, Musk, or their billionaire friends. Billionaires need a functioning economy to continuously make money. Economic implosion might bring a period of horrible instability after which a few of them may end up at the top, but it's with a non-negligible chance of things like "We triggered a war and all my investment has burnt down" or other nice stuff.

My best guess is that Trump and Musk are led by an intense hatred of everything the "old government" stands for, and acting emotionally, ignoring long term consequences.
Ice Moon: building an immersive experience for Apple Vision Pro
Why would you receive any more or less garbage to contact information in a security.txt va just having a security@example.com email on your contact page?

You’ll get the same amount of spam and irrelevant random bug bounty demanders. There’s no substitute to having someone look at the messages and find that needle in the haystack.

Though there are some signal to noise ratio tricks: https://xkcd.com/1181/
The boring answer is meetings. Chapter 3 of High Output Management has a great treatment on the topic, and it covers both middle management and the executive level, including a timetable from one of Andy Grove's days. Here is a quote where he summarizes:

> As you can see, in a typical day of mine one can count some twenty-five
separate activities in which I participated, mostly information-gathering and -
giving, but also decision-making and nudging. You can also see that some two
thirds of my time was spent in a meeting of one kind or another. Before you are
horrified by how much time I spend in meetings, answer a question: which of the
activities -- information-gathering, information-giving, decision-making,
nudging, and being a role model—could I have performed outside a meeting?
The answer is practically none. Meetings provide an occasion for managerial
activities.
Most of that kind of conflict was usually framed in terms of human vs alien. Sometimes it was still within the federation (Worf trying to get someone to kill him when he was injured and likely wouldn't fully recover for example), but a lot of it was dealing with outsiders like humans having to deal with Ferengi who had very different ideology when it came to things like greed or women's rights.

For outsiders, while the show was pretty careful about expressing a respect for differing cultural views, they did seem to side one way or the other. When there was disagreement within the federation it tended to be a single person or small fraction with an unpopular opinion (like the guy who wanted to disassemble and reverse-engineer Data) creating conflict vs a sizable faction.