skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd hesitate to write off the severity of their difference to any Christianity you might recognize.

The Green family wields a personal antinomianist doctrine reserved for the rich and powerful. Under their brand of Creationism, God has given them literal dominion over the world (Genesis 1:26-31), and not exercising that, whether or not in defiance of conflicting secular laws, would be a denial of the mission of their faith.

I remember my first time hearing them called "Wahabbi Lobby" in the mid-2000s after the FBI had "spoken to them" about ISIL targeting early (pre-)Christian sites to plunder artifacts, knowing the Greens had a taste for them.

Consider the implications. What would have happened if your local church had sent money or took a secret mission trip to aid Al-Qaeda?
This collaboration makes no sense to me. I suspect that's because I'm just disconnected from the target market here. Can anyone explain the logic?
Why wouldn’t quick trips work on surface transport? Sure, it takes a long time to go far - surely nearly nobody ever went from London to China and came back a week later until it was practical to do so on planes. But for short distances it still would have been practical. I’m guessing there were people going from London to Manchester for a few days well before the 1970s.
> How would you feel if an American insulted your leader with a derogatory nickname such as "Agent Orange"? Europeans are so used to expressing disdain for the US that they hardly even notice themselves doing it.

This happens literally every day. There's a bunch of xenophobic stereotypes about my country I've only ever heard from Americans, and on average I've received far more vitriol from them than from my fellow Europeans.

Maybe your views are colored by your subjective experiences, without being truly representative of the objective facts? Because I have no idea how else you could have the idea that what you described doesn't happen the other way around.
Your Doctor's Algorithm Might Be Broken–and Nobody's Checking
The subject of the word "evil" hasn't been given enough importance in recent modern times, IMO. It's as if the church and almost everyone else is afraid of discussing it. It is an uncomfortable subject for sure, but to ignore evil is to suffer it's results.
It is certainly somewhat interesting that, unlike the Chinese, the Amerindians never used a wheelbarrow.

https://www.wheelbarrows.co.uk/evolution-of-the-wheelbarrow/
Yes, unfortunately there are no other mice that have the infinite scroll wheel and I’ve come to love it for office work.

They’re generally pretty good about warrantying them, but life is short so I don't always bother.
I understand this isn't an official EU project, but with the ongoing trade war and Europe's desire to distance itself from US big tech, I'm excited to see what they develop.

Americans might appreciate this too, as the internet today is dominated by a handful of companies, leading to excessive polarization. The first thing that needs competition imo is Youtube, there is nothing like it.
> What exactly do you find "snide" or "sarcastic?"

I haven't read the article, but certainly the phrase "whose entire schtick" doesn't belong in journalism that purports not to be sarcastic or snide. That's the kind of thing that goes in a Tumblr post.
I guess that’s why the saying is that “history is written by the victors”.
You have this in India today, yet wheeled luggage has
completely displaced unwheeled in any airport
Quadlet is a nice alternative for use-case of docker compose to "run all these interdependent containers in a production-like environment". I wish it (or something) was better about the other use-case of docker compose: development. docker compose will bring up the db, redis, opensearch, and other random dependencies, an nginx proxy, and a dev container with `.:/app` mounted as a volume. You can bring up all those containers together, destroy them together, check in the docker-compose.yml file, etc...

Quadlet wants me to have all the files in `~/.config/containers/systemd`, so they're really not isolated to the project any more, and not in a convenient place to be checked in and shared with other devs (who also have to be using podman). Most still use docker, its what's availabile on codespaces and other hosted dev envs.

So we use docker compose, with a checked-in yaml file. I use podman, so I have to manually add `:Z` to all the volumes, but regular docker chokes on that. I wouldn't mind having an alternative to docker compose for development, but Quadlet doesn't seem like a good fit.
Fantastic article on leadership - thanks for linking to it
>That’s just not how things work at FAANG

Hey, it's me, the person who said that!

>I read their blog post and they should be hired

Yes, that's what happened. Obviously, it's not "I read your blog, sign this contract, and you're hired." The actual sequence of events the one time I said yes was:

"Hey, I read your blog. I work for team X at company Y. Are you interested in working here?"

"Yes"

"OK, HR will contact you."

A 20-minute call with HR, followed by an invitation to onsite team interviews. One day of interviews. Job offer.

I have no idea what the internal process for that was, but I assume they have some referral program or something like that.

>In 2005 (20 years ago), how many people blogged?

I started blogging before the word "blogging" existed. I wrote my blogging software without knowing it was "blogging software."
vibe coding? nope. 100% vibe life
> the microphone array found in the following Apple Silicon laptops:
> MacBook Pro 13" (M1/M2)
> MacBook Air 13" (M1/M2)
> MacBook Pro 14" (M1 Pro/Max, M2 Pro/Max)
> MacBook Pro 16" (M1 Pro/Max, M2 Pro/Max)
> MacBook Air 15" (M2)

Does it mean M2/M3 don't have similar array of microphones or rather not tested?

I'm even curious if this is only supported on Linux or MacOS as well - not sure if apple provides dedicated microphone stream for each mic?
> The ultimate feeling is one of aimless ambition. I want to do and achieve, but wherefore all the effort when chilling brings almost the same result?

Surely you have more you want to do and achieve than just that one side hustle? Have you never wanted to write a novel? Learn a musical instrument? A language? How to speedrun your favorite video game? Contribute to open source? Plant a vegetable garden?

There is so, so much to do, and instead I spend all my time working to keep a roof over my head.
If they wanted to “save the environment “, they would have gotten a bus pass.

You may argue that a person needs a car, but I would argue they have chosen a specific lifestyle requiring one.
I think it's entirely possible that different people experience pain very differently.

If true, that makes it fundamentally impossible to fully communicate about it.

I read an SF story where telepaths were as doctors. They'd enter the patient's mind, feel what they feel, and recognize the symtoms, because they had actually felt how all common conditions feel.

Maybe we can get to something similar with AI and brain scanning one day?
I don't think this accurately defines transhumanism, at all.
YouTube TV, Wiz, and Why Monopolies Buy Innovation
The reason I hate LinkedIn is because I haven't had one straightforward career path. I rewrite my resume to tailor it to whatever I'm applying to next, which generally means removing all the descriptions of each of my old jobs and updating them with the tailored version every time I apply somewhere.

I don't really think there's a way to fix that, because I don't think there are enough of us (or enough people looking to hire us) to build a substantial userbase.

I just want to highlight it as one of the reasons some people hate LinkedIn, which has nothing to do with spammy feeds or influencers.
you were around 20 years ago and heard zero stories of some individuals who skipped the weird pothole brain teasers because they had clearly already proven themselves (or better yet, were potential compettion they bought up early?). I fail to believe it was universally that strict.

Yes, I can see someone standing out in 2005 making helpful blogs qualifying under this. I can see it in 2015 as well if they are a subject matter expert or happen to otherwise be explaining the exact concepts a certain team needed.

I can't verify it firsthand, but clearly processes can be waived if desired. I did an entire interview gauntlet for my first "big" tech job in 2019. My lead hired the year prior describes his process as a director calling to him over lunch to talk about the company and basically got the offer on the spot, as if it was the 60's all over again. The director was in the same room as me nodding as my lead told the story.

Heck, even a mild anectode: a colleague of mine (maybe 2-3 years ahead of me in experience) was able to skip some coding test stage at Amazon to move through the process faster because he negotiated being close to another offer. Great worker but he didn't have any fancy accolades nor side projects/blogs. It was just a burning hot market and FAANG wanted whoever they could grab with good experience.
> Except Christianity would find transhumanism exceedingly bland, for being an unoriginal repeat of the Original Sin; the latest scheme of humanity to be a God.

Well God is an engineer and he gave us technology & curiosity as his greatest gift. Being aware of our own mortality both as individuals & as a species is what drives us to to try and beat it.

To be fair, blame the serpent (or Prometheus).
Not discounting Einstein's singular contributions, but he had help in putting Riemannian (also called Bolshai-Lobachevsky in other parts of the world ;)) geometry to use:

> This idea was pointed out by mathematician Marcel Grossmann and published by Grossmann and Einstein in 1913.[7]

(from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity)
The whole universe is the “god particle”, let’s call it “universal potential, the totality of all.”

As for entanglement, entanglement breaks down through heat and interaction. Entanglement must be insulated and maintained (in mass) or it decays by environmental interference.

I’m fairly sure that entanglement is the synchronization of a hyperdimensional vibration, of which there are more unique vibrations than there are particles in the universe, so theoretically yet not practically, one might change the vibration like a radio dial and run across the entangled synchronization with the randomized vibrations of all other particles. You simply would never know if it were entangled with a random mote of dust drifting in the cosmic void, or otherwise.

This said, I also believe not being synchronized gives each particle a unique scope of identity. Thus it allows our minds to be subjectively our own (by default), and yes I propose that our minds entangle and may entangle.

Be glad no such correlation as you suggest exist, for fools always believe their wisdom is the extent of universality. There is always something more even great minds have not yet considered, and one may never know how existence may be manipulated for whose own interests.
Unfortunately those assholes are now in power, and you are now an un-person.
Host Obsidian Vaults on IPFS
Hey! Co-founder of Orbiter here

A lot of our principles around building an open web hosting platform fall in line with the "file over app" philosophy, and we believe IPFS adheres to this as well. We put together a tutorial on how you can turn an Obsidian vault to a website and host it on IPFS via Orbiter. Would love to hear your thoughts!
I have this complaint about a lot of more modern history, which is that the idea of the great man theory is so abhorrent that some historians have started to treat the concept of free will as non-existent where the forces of history are so powerful things were all but inevitable. People are driven by economic, environmental, and societal factors. But sometimes there is an individual that makes things move one way or another.

I usually like to take the example of WWI, it was probably going to happen regardless in Europe eventually. But King Wilhelm II was an individual that has specific psychological aspects that drove it to happen the way it did. A different king would not have created the alliance situation that made the specific powers fight on their specific side. If King Wilhelm didn't try and emulate and thus alienate England, we might have seen England and Germany against Russia and France.
I worked at a company with very similar performance metrics and it was as counter-productive as you would expect. The surprising thing is that the management wasn't that bad overall but they worshiped at the altar of data and metrics for everything. That works great for some things, but not everything.

The Jira-focused performance metrics led to a lot of short term work and fixes since everyone was heavily incentivized to get the immediate task done as quickly as possible without much long term thinking. This created an increasingly large amount of tech debt and caused some real messes. But hey, we could loudly proclaim our love of iterative innovation and data driven decision making processes!

I suppose one benefit was that it became pretty easy to get a stellar performance review since it was completely based on a few metrics that could be managed.
Not several years' income, but I might pay you up to $50 for it if it's good.

> In general if there is only one implementation just use it.

This is good advice for people who don't understand what interfaces are for -- which seems to be most people. If you make the mistake of believing that interfaces are for describing the commonalities between similar implementations, then demanding an IFoo for every Foo is indeed a waste. Generally if I see literally the same word twice, but one has an "I" in front of it, it's a flag that the interface might not need to exist. I think this is the advice you're giving here. But you've missed the other important point: interfaces are not "about" their implementations, they're "about" their consumers. The point of an interface is for the consumer to define exactly what it needs to do its job. That's why interfaces can be useful even if there are 0 implementations: it's still a clear definition of what some service or function requires. Assuming that service isn't private/internal, it's a hook that a consumer of your module can implement if they choose.

I'd say the frequency of the following patterns is correlated with different levels of code quality -- sometimes causally, sometimes spuriously.

1. StringWarbler : IStringWarbler (worst)
2. StringWarbler (fine)
3. StringWarbler : IWarbler (maybe worse or better, but a bit smelly)
4. StringWarbler : ITextProcessor (good)

Yes, #2 is fine if all you need to do is warble strings and there's really only one thing that means. That's common and it's fine. #3 is suspect because it looks like it was abstracted along the wrong line. It looks like there were a lot of different "ThingWarblers" and someone tried to define what was similar about them, without really focusing on the consumers of these services. Whereas with #4, it looks like someone identified a need to process text in various ways, and one way to do that is to warble them. It sounds like the interface was created to describe a need, not an implementation. When you do it this way, you start to see classes that implement two or three interfaces as well.

When I see #2 everywhere, I don't think "these classes need to be implementing more interfaces!". Instead I think "the services relying on these classes are probably not doing a good job specifying exactly what they need to do their job, and are therefore brittle against changes in how those needs are fulfilled." Whether that's a problem depends on the exact situation. I feel like your advice is "prefer #2 over #3", which I generally agree with. But the better advice is "ask for what you need to do your job, in the most general form you can", which #2 (in excess) violates.
I think if he could go back and figure out what made the original Stanley so great, he would.
By hand or regl library (almost by hand). I tried THREE, but it feels it gives me more pain than benefits (and you still end up tweaking their shaders sometimes). AI is pretty good at small tasks like tweaking shaders. I needed to draw a spectroscope, like a line connecting all pixels on the image one by one on the colorspace projection. Ended up 100 times more efficient in webgl comparing to browser API. But it is pretty low level. On another hand once you dig deeper into shaders, they are actually more powerful. Let's just say, API is just painful too :). Also, there is some fun with how transparency works and order of elements displayed (because of parallel processing). Oh, ideally I want web canvas API, but which allows to pass a buffer of lines to draw instead of one ;)
I can’t 100% say you are wrong but I can 99% say you are wrong.
Securing non-human identities: Addressing the OWASP top threats
...guitar....and
It does look like that yes. It wasn't my error, the quote is copy pasted verbatim from the article.
I think it's fair to say someone invented a thing if they design and build the first one that actually works. The concept of an airplane had been around for a while by 1903, but nobody had one. Similarly today we have the concept of a warp drive. We even have that concept outside the realm of science fiction now, but we're far from having a working prototype and don't even know if a practical example can be built.

It's also fair to debate what qualifies as an airplane. If I were to list criteria, I would include two that the first Wright Flyer did not demonstrate: the ability to take off from level ground under its own power, and sufficient maneuverability to return to and land at the point of departure.
Tab notation doesn't provide full time signature information, if you're picking up a piece of music which you've never heard played before

In tablature, imagine one string's line shows ---10-----7--8------11----13. How long do you hold each note? Clearly 7 to 8 is quick, but how quick? Sheet music gives you this exact information.
A CSS-Based NoJS Anti-Bot Web Application Firewall (Proof of Concept)
Clarification: I was not one of Triplebyte's founders (I was in the leadership there later, but not to start). I founded my current company, which - while it deliberately uses a similar model in many respects - is its own distinct thing with none of the same IP, clients, etc.

> We all hate the culture on the social media network hosted by LinkedIn

Who is "we" here?

I work mostly with Bay Area companies and engineers looking for early-stage startups, about as HN-y a crowd as you could possibly hope for. A plurality of our candidates - about 30% - have come in from HN engagement.

But many people on both sides of that set still buy into the things people theoretically hate about linkedin. Status-jockeying is everywhere, and insecurity shows up on both sides all the time. Founders are alert for any signal that you don't consider them The Most Special Company To Ever Exist (because they see that as a sign you'll leave). Engineers are often eager to withdraw at the first sign a company might not be a rocketship (because they want a stable job). It's not everyone, but it still happens plenty.

I'm not blaming them. This is the correct self-interested strategy (within reason) for both sides. In a game of imperfect information, you try not to show when you have a bad hand, and you look to see if your opponent has one. Sometimes you bluff, and sometimes you call others' bluffs - and as long as everyone wants everyone else to stop lying first, this doesn't change. You can choose not to bluff (and I do) but you will be playing suboptimally if you do. And good bluffs don't look like bluffs - the stuff that you see as "banal and insincere" is just the people who suck at it.

As a personal example: a friend of mine came to me yesterday and asked me about a job offer he was considering from a founder I'd met before. I hadn't been impressed with this founder. Bluster is pretty much all they seem to do, frankly (I'd blocked them on linkedin not long ago because I got annoyed with it). But my friend's impression was "wow, they seem so confident and energetic!". The bluster (or what I think is bluster, anyway) nearly became a self-fulfilling prophecy, and still might if my friend accepts their offer despite my opinions.

This call, unfortunately, is coming from inside the house. We do signaling differently, but we still do it.
And the computer mouse was not invented by Douglas Engelbart at Xerox PARC, but by Rainer Mallebrein at Telefunken:

> https://www.heise.de/news/Auf-den-Spuren-der-deutschen-Compu...

> https://www.zeit.de/news/2019-05/14/deutscher-erfinder-gibt-...

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainer_Mallebrein

Quote from the first link:

"Vor einem knappen halben Jahr feierte die Technikwelt den 40. Jahrestag der "Mother of all Demos", die am 9. Dezember 1968 die Computermaus an die Öffentlichkeit brachte. Demo-Leiter Douglas Engelbart gilt seitdem als Erfinder des immer noch genialsten und griffigsten Eingabegeräts der Informatik.

Diese Ansicht muss jedoch korrigiert werden, denn schon einige Wochen vorher erschien eine Publikation der Firma Telefunken, die ein Input-Instrument vorstellte, das an Monitoren hing und funktionell der Engelbart-Maus gleichkam: die so genannte Rollkugel. Seit den frühen 70er-Jahren wurde sie zusammen mit Telefunken-Rechnern verkauft und in der Praxis eingesetzt, und mindestens ein Exemplar hat in einem Museum überlebt."

Google Translate:

"Almost half a year ago, the technology world celebrated the 40th anniversary of the "Mother of All Demos," which introduced the computer mouse to the public on December 9, 1968. Since then, the demo's leader, Douglas Engelbart, has been considered the inventor of what is still the most ingenious and handy input device in computer science.

This view, however, must be corrected, because a few weeks earlier, a publication by the Telefunken company appeared, introducing an input device that hung from monitors and was functionally equivalent to the Engelbart mouse: the so-called trackball. Since the early 1970s, it was sold alongside Telefunken computers and used in practice, and at least one example has survived in a museum."
I don't have you pecked as a Trump supporter.

Also, the US only has two parties - so a lot of people are voting because of a lack of better alternatives. This is wildly different than the EU where most countries have a much more nuanced political landscape. Eg. Germany that has 7 parties.

As such I also know that politics in US is more akin to a sports match than what I consider politics in - and this is congruent to what I hear from my US friends with the sentiment: Either you are with us or against us.

What I do have you pecked on is a complete ignorance of the US's political position globally. You seem completely oblivious to the fact that more than half listed stock globally is US - and that this is a marketplace. Ie. not only US capital.

I appreciate you don't want to be in that position. That you want to be a part of an underdog country. But you are not.

When I write "Cry me a river" that is a way to say: Deal with it. Go and understand where the US stands on the global scene.

Hopefully you can get to appreciate the benefits (English is not my first language) and manage the down sides of such an arrangement.

And hopefully you can develop some humility to the fact.
>> While I strongly disagree with them, I feel an affinity and familiarity with their thinking. I have read the same books, seen the same news, and lived in the same era. I understand how they arrived where they are now.

Similar , however I see them more as extreme greed (for power/control) and technological hubris.

Interesting how people interpret things differently based on their life experiences. I feel this is what strong advocates of objective facts and EMH tend to miss. People have the same input data, however the interpretations are different based on the (hidden) internal state.

I keep wondering, what does the richest man in the world want more ? Why this ? I find it a very revolting way to live.