skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Like any aesthetic system built around an ideal, Solarpunk might not be practically realizable for most of us, but there are ways to implement the practical parts of the ideal in your lifestyle.

One of my favorite activities (which I do regularly) is "solar" cooking using an Instant Pot and an air fryer that both run off my domestic battery that is primarily charged with off peak solar power (either from my panels or the grid). This is how I cook 80% of my family's meals.

In my case I have a whole house battery, but in theory you could run an Instant pot off one of the larger capacity portable batteries.
Ask HN: Why there's no email address portability like with phone numbers?
Phone number portability has been standard worldwide for years, allowing us to switch carriers while keeping our numbers. Yet email addresses, which have become more important than phone numbers over the last 20 years or so, lack any similar portability mechanism.

If you've used a @gmail.com or @yahoo.com address for years, you're essentially locked into that provider. Changing means updating countless accounts and risking missed communications. Often there's even no way to update the accounts.

Are there any initiatives or technical proposals for implementing email portability that you're aware of? Given the EU's experience with digital regulations, could they pioneer email portability regulations to reduce vendor lock-in? If it's been just a regulatory oversight, is there a way to initiate this regulation by creating and signing a petition or something like that?

Edit: I see that some commenters are focused on the technical aspects and how the email protocols work currently. Technical aspects were not the reason for my question. The reason is to know whether such initiatives exist. The goal is to transfer the power from the corporation is to the people via government regulations. It's harmful when a decision as simple as creating an email address on a mailbox with a promised 1 GB of storage 20 years ago keeps you dependent on that single provider essentially forever because the circumstances changed and email became the primary means of identification.
Subversion is still an excellent choice.
You could do it in 3nm (or any modern, in-demand node) on 300mm wafers. You could not do it in an ancient node where there's no commercial demand, on 200mm wafers the industry is slowly but surely superseding. These old nodes exist because the facilities were built 40+ years ago and there's just barely enough demand to keep them rolling.

The Skywater fab ran its first wafers in 1987. You could not build such a facility today for the same reason you couldn't build a large-scale factory for carbureted automobiles or CRT monitors. People still use these things, there's still a market for them, they're still serviced, but you could never find investors to build new production capacity.
Not exactly one cycle for a multiply it sounds like. That 5 mips would be eaten up quickly. I have sometimes had to do fixed point math in the past 20 years and have had much respect for those programmers who came before me.
It’s not a deeply obscure user preference, it’s everyday life for millions of people. When you set up a new device, most operating systems have an accessibility step where you can pick the size of the text. That’s the user’s default and a lot of them don’t know how to change it on the fly for individual websites – and they shouldn’t have to because it’s crazy to expect them to adjust their settings every time they visit a new site. When websites fail to respect this, a lot of people simply get locked out of using them. Enough websites do it, and some of these people give up on the web entirely. For elderly people with vision problems, it can be especially isolating.

The only thing you have to do here is not do anything. Literally just don’t use fixed font sizes. It takes extra effort to make life worse for people with vision problems. Just… don’t do that. It’s easier than fucking it up.
I'm sure Russia, in response, will halt all offensive cyber operations against the USA. /s
> If you really do think that Terraform is code, then go try and make multiple DNS records for each random instance ID based on a dynamic number of instances. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can do that in Terraform.

It's possible a few ways. I prefer modules, and this LLM answer describes an older way with count and for_each.

It's always possible that incantation of the problem space has a gotcha that needs a work around, but I doubt it would be a blocker.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-you-really-do-think-that...
That's ok. Writing such a spec is writing the code, declaratively.

The only difference between that and writing SQL (as opposed to writing imperative code to query the database) is that the translation mechanism is much more sophisticated, much less energy efficient, much slower, and most significantly much more error-prone than a SQL interpreter.

But declarative coding is good! It has its issues, and LLMs in particular compound the problems, but it's a powerful technique when it works.
I ditched Terraform years ago and just interact with the raw cloud provider SDKs now. It's much easier to long-term evolve actual code and deal with weird edgecases that come up when you're not in beholden to the straight jacket that is configuration masquerading as code.

Oh yea, and we can write tests for all that provisioning logic too.
I touched what I thought was a stationary wheel on a lathe as a child. it was of course under flouro tube lighting: it was synced to the tube, the strobe effect made it look stationary. I've never forgotten it.

The guy owning the lathe made some short, sharp observations. But I also suspect he sweated blood later on. Explaining his role in this had I lost a finger or worse would have been nasty
This is great. And it’s sad to think this, but given current trends at the federal level and a competitor with influence, is there risk for the company and financing/operational options?
Since the 70s, costs have gone down by a factor 10-20x, and the technology is much better and safer.

If that made it "out of reach" back then depends on what you mean with those words, but it's undeniably far cheaper and safer now.
Leaving spare parts for the lunar colony seems a fine idea.
How can we change this? I want so desperately to live in a world where capital takes a back seat but have trouble seeing the path to that.
> Perhaps he and other true geniuses can understand things transcendently. Not so for me. My thoughts are serialized and obviously countable.

You needn't be a genius. Go on a few vipassana meditation retreats and your perception of all this may shift a bit.

> any kind of theorem or idea communicated to another mathematician needs to be serialized into language which would make it computable

Hence the suggestion by all mystical traditions that truth can only be experienced, not explained.

It may be possible for an AI to have access to the same experiences of consciousness that humans have (around thought, that make human expressions of thought what they are) - but we will first need to understand the parts of the mind / body that facilitate this and replicate them (or a sufficient subset of them) such that AI can use them as part of its computational substrate.
Ask HN: What do you think of my new RSS reader?
I came across shademap.app a ~month ago, and had a "the internet can be so awesome" moment. I wrote to my property mates: "I found a cool free website for seeing shade at our site throughout the day and year. Maybe helpful for garden planning. Our address is loaded in [here]". Reply: "Wow! That is cool!". It seems to be very much in the solarpunk spirit (even more so with your engagement here). I hope to incorporate it into my solar installation work. Thank you :)
Show HN: FlakeUI
My high school woodshop teacher simply showed us his short finger. Lost in a table saw. We got the message.
I mean this is pretty obvious, they are both trying to glitch software to get a desired but unintended outcome.

I think if anything vulnerability 'researchers' should study speedrunners more than the opposite. They are shockingly successful and they have shown again and again that there is almost no limit to how much you can glitch software.
US Government Bitcoin Holdings
Thank you for keeping me honest, I concede the point; I was quoting from his Wikipedia entry and wasn’t particularly critical because I took an architecture class from him in grad school and liked him as a professor.
What would a product look like in this space?
I wonder if this is an example of "it works in practice but the important question is whether it works in theory."

Perhaps Penrose is right about the nature of intelligence and the fact that computers cannot ever achieve that (for some tight definition of the term). But in a practical sense, these LLMs that are popular are doing things that we generally considered "intelligent". Perhaps it's faking it well but it's faking it well enough to be useful and that's what people will use. Not the theoretical definition.
Email is portable. You need to use your own domain. If you use Gmail.com as the domain it isn't reasonable to expect yahoo can serve a Gmail domain. That's not how the internet works. There's a very easy and common solution - buy a domain for $10/yr and use email providers that let you bring your own domain. It is portable by design.
Are you ok?

(Your tone comes off as “rephrasing the original intent of the post as something slightly different in order to have something to whine about.” It’s just a bit of fun to brighten our morning, not a proposal to interfere with your online banking experience)
How are you handling creating multiple resources in parallel? or rolling back changes after an unsuccessful run?
> Companies primary goal is to exploit /everything/, and why wouldn't workers be included/

Yeah, but this isn't true as a blanket statement. Sure, most companies want to be profitable, and I agree "being profitable" is inherently exploitative. However, companies also generally produce useful products, the demand for which is often the primary driver of said profitability (i.e. economies of scale). So, it must be true that companies can often (and frequently do) have a different primary goal: "make a thing which has high enough demand for us to become profitable".

So assuming every company is out to exploit their workers is both narrow-minded and pretty obviously untrue, when given a little thought. It also turns out happier employees make better things--else, why would we constantly have people pushing for better working conditions? Some companies, by definition must meet some minimum bar of providing for their employees. This is often dictated by law, otherwise they will eventually be stripped away in search of "efficiency" (i.e. "profit margins"). However, this is strictly not true of many companies. Many companies go above and beyond the bare minimum when it comes to benefits for their employees.

I know these things because I have experienced them firsthand. I am not the only one who has done so, either, so clearly not all companies are actually exploiting their workers to the same degree. I would even go so far as to point out that some companies do their best to not exploit their workers. Even if this is purely done to differentiate the company from its competition, and serves to attract good employees, this is still a benefit to the employees of said company.

So I pretty soundly reject your hypothesis that all companies' primary goal is to "exploit everything". Not every company is an evil megacorp, and portraying them all as such does no service to the companies that are actually working hard to not be an evil megacorp.
I agree that the SDK is better for many use cases. I do like terraform for static resources like aws vpc, networking, s3 buckets, etc.
I took every shop class. Drafting, wood shop, metal shop, auto shop. I still have the desk I made.

I tried to build a steam engine in metal shop, but failed. I was able to build a working one in the metal shop in college.
it’s not uncommon for engineering orgs to have mentorship programs where mentor and mentee aren’t even on the same team.

now i’m not suggesting you turn this into a full-time thing but it wouldn’t necessarily be too unusual for you to spend an hour call with this person to help them along a bit.

if they seem like they’ve got a good head on their shoulders you could even turn it into a regular cadence even just for career advice or something. could be monthly, quarterly, etc.
Show HN: Three.js Mars terrain explorer using NASA MOLA and ESA Hipparcos data
Hi Hacker News,
I recently participated in a 24-hour hackathon and Levelsio inspired I built using Claude a browser-based Mars exploration game using real telemetry data from NASA's MOLA and ESA's Hipparcos missions. If you have a high-resolution screen, you can even see an accurate star map in the night sky.
I'm currently hosting it at mars.paulius.trade for the next month and am curious to see how much of a Mars exploration experience can run entirely within a browser.

One interesting direction I'm considering is deriving APIs from this project - specifically for Mars elevation data and star positions based on lat/long coordinates. This could enable developers to build their own location-aware Mars applications or accurate celestial visualization tools without having to process the raw data themselves.
I'd love your feedback, and contributions are very welcome!
As mentioned in another comment there is the WARN act[1] at the federal level. And many states have additional regulations. In practice, employers would often prefer the people laid off just stop working immediately than continuing coming to work knowing they are losing their jobs soon. And I think employers can offer employees a severance agreement where the employee waives their right to the 90 day notice in exchange for some other compensation, such as a lump sum payment.

However, there are exceptions. In particular if the company is small enough, or the layoff is below a certain percentage of employees, it doesn't take effect.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retrai...
> Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court had at their disposal a second dictionary. In the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a “schema” is defined as “a structured framework or plan: outline”. “This is a difference in name only”, said the court. Argh. Schemas are now file layouts. We lose.

This is really bad. Words have different meanings in different domains. You can't just point to a dictionary definition for the wrong domain. This is absolute madness and should be grounds for termination as a judge. Imagine how angry that judge would be if you did that for some random legal jargon that is very different from the common definition of a word!
That's funny, I thought Zelensky was the one who came in calculating. He had already agreed to the "deal", but (a) insisted on not signing it remotely, but instead flying all the way to the US; (b) waited until he was on camera with Bush and Vance; (c) changed his tack and tried to get Trump and Vance to agree to more than what had been previously discussed, thus baiting them into confrontation; (d) hopped on a plane within 2 hours, when Trump had stated publicly "all he needs to do is come back and say 'I want peace'"; (e) headed straight to the UK where almost all the EU leaders were already waiting and had a photo op done.

It really looks like a carefully crafted narrative was planned and carried out to intentionally smear the current US administration.
We Use Bad Color Maps and What You Can Do About It [pdf]
More on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxhardware/comments/15v2y21/stay...
The first question is not the question I'd like answered. What I want to know is this:

> Why does the computer have to work within a CONSISTENT formal system F?

Humans are allowed to make mistakes (i.e., be inconsistent). If we don't give the computer the same benefit, you don't need Godel's theorem to show that the human is more capable than the computer: it is so by construction.
In one sense the more solar we install, the more energy is produced, the cheaper that energy gets. I'd suggest that's a feature not a bug.

I'll start by noting that in my region variable pricing does not exist, so that effect is not in play.

I'll also note that we use a lot more energy during the day than at night. They are very much not equal. (Residentially, WFH, about 75% of my daily energy is I the daytime, and hence "free".)

Lastly I point out that storage is the next silver bullet. I generate excess during the day (10 months of the year) and I have a small battery attached to the home. Potentially a larger battery in an electric car. Grid-level storage solutions (perhaps sodium-ion, perhaps something else) will radically move the needle.

Maybe one day we'll have so many panels installed that energy is "too cheap to measure", but its not today. Water is still measured, and that's already 100% renewable.
Consider a bit of a different case. I run a service that exposes an API, and some fields in some response bodies are enums. I've published a Rust client for the API for my customers to do, and (among other things) it has something like this:

#[derive(serde::Serialize, serde::Deserialize)]
pub struct SomeEnum {
AValue,
BValue,
}

My customers use that and all is well. But I want to add a new enum value, CValue. I can't require that all my customers update their version of my Rust client before I add it; that would be unreasonable.

So I add it, and what happens? Well, now whenever my customers make that API call, instead of getting some API object back, they get a deserialization error, because that enum's Deserialize impl doesn't know how to handle "CValue". Maybe some customer wasn't even using that field in the returned API object, but now I've broken their code.

Adding #[non_exhaustive] means I at least won't break my customers' code when I add a new enum value.
This isn't kaspersky's research?

Around a̵ ̵w̵e̵e̵k̵ ̵a̵g̵o̵ ̵(̵?̵)̵ a couple days ago someone made a post on /̵r̵/̵c̵y̵b̵e̵r̵s̵e̵c̵u̵r̵i̵t̵y̵ /r/hacking where he made a scraper and analyzed all the malware he could find. The repo amount was in the ~1000s repos that he shared in a spreadsheet. Github as a domain is feasible as a malware dropper domain due to it being allow listed by Microsoft. The attackers seem to use bots to use the releases section of other repositories, the code is there, too, but incomplete.

They were also targeting many popular games like Fortnite, Valorant, CS2 and others with their cheats that contained the malware. It was kind of interesting to see because they used a lot of screenshots in the README files that seemingly were enough to convince gamers to install the malware.

The dropper/stealer samples that I took a look at were python obfuscated bundles targeting Win11 and lots of different browser cookie storages, password managers, and even replaced the MetaMask extension inside the browser profile with another one after stealing all the session cookies and passwords. As an exfil technique they used discord, and you could see lots of different ranks of the discord server, with the API tokens and paypal ids and other things that they automated their payments with.

It was super interesting to see that they switched to using python there, because it's an odd choice from a redteam perspective.

I still have the deobfuscated code somewhere, not sure if I can find the link to the original research article again. Couldn't find it with the shitty reddit search.

edit: Man, this weekend been way too long. Here's the links to the original article from only a couple days ago:

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/1izryuk/github_scam...

[2] https://timsh.org/github-scam-investigation-thousands-of-mod...

[3] The google spreadsheet (archive link because traffic limit has been reached I guess): https://archive.is/ijiWP

edit 2: The pubhtml file of the google spreadsheet I have also on my hard drive, but it's ~23MB. Maybe I can make a gist out of that later? The spreadsheet didn't show an export button or UI, that's why I used wget at the time.
How do the solar panels get made?
I could only make it about 35% of the way through the article before it went off track on a bunch of side quests.

I think this is an important topic, and ultimately this is a good move for everyone. It's just so damn hard to find any sort of neutral coverage about current events where the word "Trump" must be mentioned.
My shop classes paid off handsomely for me. I recommend taking them.
How do you expect to get to the Moon before SpaceX? The Space Shuttle ended up costing $2+ billion per launch, and given it's a government program - getting anything on it from an untested company who didn't already have major connections would be near to a nonstarter, and that's even if they could casually foot the billions of dollars it would have cost.

FireFly launched as a private company on a Falcon 9 so their cost was probably a peak of ~$0.07 billion (to maintain units) which may have been able to be privately negotiate downward given the nature of the mission.
Try Fork, it's still obviously git, but it's the easiest I've found so far: https://git-fork.com/
I didn't think inside out 2 was a very good movie.

It had good ideas but didn't do very well with them (contrary to the first movie, which was great). I'm not surprised a movie which wasn't "just a sequel" managed to beat Moana and IO2.
Ever since fixing my showerhead I’m completely ruined for hotels, their showers are total garbage.
While we are at it, I want companies to disclose that a brand is made with cheaper ingredients or meets a lower quality expectation. Can think of some loopholes myself though.
I've never had any time for Penrose. Gödel’s theorem "merely" asserts that in any system capable of a specific form of expression there are statements which are true but not provable. What this has to do with (a) limits to computation or (b) human intelligence has never been clear to me, despite four decades or more of interest in the topic. There's no reason I can see why we should think that humans are somehow without computational limits. Whether our limits correspond to Gödel’s theorem or not is mildly interesting, but not really foundational from my perspective.
But, truly, what is the solution?

I mean, you can use static analysis or similar, but you generally can't check every line of code for every open source lib you pull in, let alone its dependencies.

Seems that, once you decide to use open source, you are actually making a choice to trust to some extent.
The tests are probably LLM generated as well lol
He's talking about how they've moved from planar transistors, where layers are just deposited on top of each other, to transisors with increasingly complex 3D structures[1] such as FinFET and Gate-All-Around, the latter having multiple nanowires passing through the gate like an ordered marble cake[2].

[1]: https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/what-is-a-gate-all...

[2]: https://anysilicon.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-gate-all-around...
Are they suggesting authoritarian communism or some sort of sci-fi anarchist communism? (which would be pretty pro-individual-liberty).

Open borders seem pretty pro-liberty as well. What’s more authoritarian than a government telling you there’s a magic invisible line on the ground and if you cross it, that’s crime?