abnry

These are the sort of controversial articles on Hacker News I come here for.

I'm practice, it seems my life is easier to live with others if I use spaces. But the tab is conceptually simple. It means indent, or something almost like "next-column". Spaces mean separation from words or tokens. So you are creating a new token as a compound of existing tokens when the original token already exists.

Replication is not the same thing as zero bugs in software.

But this is science we are talking about. A one-off lucky novel result should not be good enough. Why should our standards and our funding be so low?

Physics is generally better since they have good statistical models and can get six sigma (or whatever) results.

And replication can be done by the same party (although an independent party is better), and that may mean many trials.

And do we even set policy based on existence or non-existent of higgs bosons?

I am particularly unhappy with soft sciences in terms of replication.

If that's the case, then don't claim confidence in the work or make policy decisions based off of it. If there is no epistemological humility, then yes, it is still BS.

If scientists are going to complain that's its too hard or too expensive to replicate their studies, then that just shows their work is BS.

Does anybody know the bit rates, bandwidth, spreading, coding, and packet sizes of the messages they send? It must take several hours to send a message. I also wonder what the minimum number of bits they need to send to recover control is.

What are the flaws? Why is the lay public not allowed to be involved? That sounds like elitist gatekeeping. The truth will come out regardless. Why can't everyone share in the excitement?

> It's a direct side effect of reputation and funding being closely correlated

This sheds some light on it to me. I guess what partly surprises me is that people seem to care more about reputation than just a means for improving the signal to noise ratio in papers or as a estimate on what will give you your biggest bang for your buck.

The other issue I see come up is the idea that if there is no signal to noise filter, then a scientist might "waste their time," either reading the paper or trying to replicate. But to me, it sounds a little bit like trying to avoid actually doing science. And peer reviewed papers don't imply excellent quality either. You should evaluate papers on their merits. It is your job, as a scientist, to evaluate the most productive approaches based on the merits of the science being done, not based on reputation.

> the career implications for rushing something out that is later found lacking is not great.

On a tangent, this idea of reputation keeps on coming up in this whole discussion and I am burdened by it in a way I don't fully understand. The way people have talked, if this LK-99 doesn't work out, then it is almost as if those who published this did something _morally_ wrong. Well, morally wrong is not quite true, but the way people talk about it tanking their reputation it feels like such a strong statement. Is there some way we can focus on the science and not get bogged down in the very human reputational part of this whole thing? It's almost as if a good chunk of the scientific community don't care about the benefits the science brings but the reputational benefits.

Just wait for more comments in these threads. Someone knowledgeable is bound to explain more.

Yes, 30 minutes is a shockingly long time. I'd say 5 minutes makes a lot more sense.

It only adds to the channel. I find it amusing.

Can someone please do this and stream it so I can learn?

I don't know why anyone should be concerned about anything here, unless you want immediate confirmation.

It's a process. Scientists will try to replicate and try to simulate and try to reason theoretically. They are bound to make mistakes but all of this can be critiqued and iterated on.

Again, there's no problem unless you need immediate confirmation or you think chasing this idea is a waste of time.

Enjoy the ride :)

Title should be modified since "rise of hateful tweets" is what is in dispute in the lawsuit, if I understand correctly.

I found it so strange that to start a child process you had to fork your current process. Not an intuitive idea to me at all.

When I realized that the linux operating system had to have hardware support (traps for syscalls and interrupts), it was eye opening.

I guess your post highlights how operating systems and hardware developed together, and to innovate outside of what we currently have there is a need to somehow jump outside of this loop.

What are the hardware features are modern operating systems reliant on and the hardware features they aren't reliant on?

Nope.

But even if you are correct, lotteries and gambling have more of the essence of "take from the hopeful, give to the lucky" than any of the things you described.

I hate lotteries and gambling in general. Take from the hopeful, give to the lucky. And the house (almost) always wins. Yes, I have some respect for those who can game the system, because I like the house losing, but their winnings are still taken from the hopeful (or worse, the naive and stupid).

Google Hexagon Chess.

Just like the good writers, who hedge and qualify their every statement. It's the amateurs who make the bold claims!

This was quite lovely. Cryptography was something I missed in my mathematics education (well, I did cover RSA) and this gave me the gist of what all these elliptic curves are about!

If you mean that the event isn't significant in a societal sense, I totally agree. I don't really think there is any big moral conclusion to take from it. However, the story just has so many fascinating elements to it. The whole titanic story is fascinating, and it is incredible people found the wreck and can observe it. The technology is incredible. Then there is the thrill of exploration and the natural danger to it, but there is also the hubris of the OceanGate CEO, significant enough that he was blind to his own danger, which resulted in the deaths of more people than him. And what was the moment like? An implosion in an instant of a second... as opposed to being trapped and slowly suffocating. Those are two images hard to get out of one's head.

.

Does anyone have any self hosted YouTube __playlist__ recommendations? Downloading tends to be the focus and that isn't important to me. I like to save videos for later with my watch later playlist, but it is unmanageable. Not easy to delete or sort or search. YouTube could be so much better in terms of playlist management.

He didn't say they are negative, he said they are externalities. I've come to the same conclusion that minimalism is only supportable by other people not being minimalists. That's not necessarily a judgment on whether it is good or bad, but a statement of fact.

I love wearables. It is a pain in the neck to take a measurement. Anything that can be worn and sense automatically is awesome. I studious update an SQLite database of my Fitbit data. I just wish I had more measurements to track!

Take a look at Slide 4: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-02-introduction-to-eecs-ii-dig...

Funny story. When I was in grad school, the math department office I was in had Linux computers administrated by the department. One day I was goofing in my shared office with a fellow grad student by playing with what resources were available.

We were trying sudo and failed with enough silly passwords that we got the "this incident will be reported" message. I confidently told my officemate that these messages were never saved and recorded.

A few moments later, from our open office door (which I assume meant all our conversation was able to be overheard), our IT lady from down the hall came in and said to me "Download the internet, really?"

Because yes, I did type, while not saying I was doing so, "sudo DOWNLOAD THE INTERNET" into the terminal while goofing.

Funny story but I did feel a bit embarrassed at the time.