bonchicbongenre

I'm with you at least 2/3 of the way. My preferred stack is PRQL + DuckDB + Dagster. I evaluated the space for work at my current company (was originally only DE, handling ingests from ~300 sources across various systems, on order of ~1k downstream tables in dbt + hundreds of dashboards + a handful of business-critical data+app features; now leading a small team).

I came away ranking dagster first, prefect second, everything else not close. IMO dagster wins fundamentally for data engineers bc it picks the right core abstraction (software defined assets) and builds everything else around that. Prefect for me is best for general non-data-specfic orchestration as a nearly transparent layer around existing scripts.

Ofc to each their own based on their usecase.

I can recommend this this FF extension to get fine-grained video speed control, without a 2x speed cap (which often isn't fast enough)

https://github.com/codebicycle/videospeed

It has served me well for years and works on YT ads as well as other sites with similar players

I very much agree with English being a hodgepodge of confusing rules, especially those tense-related.

Re rewtriting (3) though: does not the following suffice? "She must have been being watched".

I can imagine an argument that "She would have had to have" is not equivalent to "She must have" on grounds that the "have had" might suggest additionally that the past-ongoing-watching no longer occurs. I don't really think this flies, though, since the natural reading of "been being watched" already suggests to me that the watching was relegated to the past ("been" being interpreted as only connoting the past, not the "inclusive-or"-type interpretation "previously and perhaps presently"; much as "or" itself is - to my chagrin! - generally interpreted exclusively in standard parlance).

I couldn't think of how to simplify the "been being" though; that is a tough nut.

About this: I have a relation who works for a relatively large upstream auto part supplier. I asked him somewhat jokingly about this fight club scene, and he immediately and unabashedly told me he'd been involved in a number of such conversations. In retrospect, I can't understand why I was at all surprised: how else would the conversations go in a corporation (whose sole or primary incentive is by default monetary)?

(To be clear, I'm not saying that I find this morally correct — I'm not sure how I feel about that aspect, honestly, except icky at the surface level. I more means that it seems retrospectively to me that, well, of course that's how it would go, given the incentive structure)

I can't speak to "best", but I can say that I've been very happy with BazQux Reader. It has good keyboard shortcuts, is very fast, lets you make filters within your subscriptions, has a good in-reader article view, a good mobile site (no app, which I like), and also allows to subscribe to see social media sites if that's your thing. I had previously used Feedly and much prefer BQR

I apologize if this is too unsubstantive of a comment.

I primarily want to say how much I like the parent comment's writing. It is very evocative — "the tea sat tangibly in my stomach", eg, is the sort of description I'd expect in a well-written novel. Kudos nimbius.

Separately, I fully agree w/ the above point about a 2:100 ratio being well too much. The tea shop from which I buy generally recommends ~2g loose for a 175ml cup, but I still find this to be too strong at anything except a minimal brewing time. I tend to use about 1g/cup, ie a bit over 0.5% by weight.

Logic is my thing (although regrettably not what my supervisor has me doing; that's another can of worms).

For me personally, the above is exactly correct. Logic is wonderful for me in large part because it's so far removed from tactile reality, though so ingrained in everything.

PDEs/analysis are way too applied for my taste; they as such don't give me the same escape into a world of pure thought (although of course they do provide this moreso than applied ML, or -- god forbid, for me -- web development would). Logic is seductive to me this way.

I recently was gifted -- very, very generously! -- a Moonlander Mark I split, ortholinear keyboard [0] (made by the same company that previously made the Ergodox). It's genuinely fantastic, and I can't ever see myself going back to either a non-split or a non-ortholinear board as my desktop's input. It's a huge improvement ergonomically -- (0) no hunched shoulders, with the halves at shoulder width (1) the ortholinear layout results in much more natural-feeling finger motions and (2) the ability to "tent" the individual halves is also wonderful, for not having to twist your wrist out of its natural somewhat-diagonal position. Beyond that, the ability to easily modify up to 32 layers of functionality [1], with macros, really is astonishingly useful once set up to your personal workflow. If I were to lose it, I'd order a replacement immediately. Highly recommend, for anyone who can justify the board's price -- I'm normally fairly frugal, so the fact that I consider a $400 keyboard anything except an egregious waste of money really speaks to how much I like this device.

[0]: https://www.zsa.io/moonlander/ [1]: https://www.zsa.io/oryx/

My understanding is that TempleOS was/is regarded as a tremendous one-person achievement (although of course its author had some quite nonstandard beliefs). Whereas Urbit seems to be generally decried as fakery

+++ for Noice, I use it too and really like it. High quality sounds, and as parent commenter said, it's Free

Thanks very much!

What's the name of the podcast? I'm learning Spanish, and would listen to it if it's either in Spanish or English

As the other commenter replied: thank you for facing this head-on! Your statement now is commendable.

Also — for anyone wanting to get accurate science reporting in the US (about COVID specifically, but I'd also say more generally), definitely check out NPR's large collection of recurring podcasts. I knew those numbers the grandparent commenter posted back in Feb, thanks to NPR's great reporting, and watching this pandemic play out has felt like dramatic irony. NPR has been on the ball with accurate science reporting for years, and it's a crying shame that their audience is dwarfed by those of cable networks.

Here's a fun one — my (foreign) girlfriend graduated from a US undergrad, and stayed in the country over the summer to begin her US PhD. She was legally covered as being able to stay in the country in both directions by the grace period after/before her undergrad/grad school respectively. When going to the embassy to renew her Visa, she was told she was staying in the country illegally, and the idiots there wouldn't renew the Visa on those grounds. They are literally legally incorrect, but there's nothing you can do with these absolute buffoons, these insipid recipients of a national work plan who are too unpleasant and immovably stupid to contribute to a real workforce.

I don't have an answer for you, just wanted to pile on with my own experience and questions in the same vein.

I find that a background noise app really helps me stay calm/lowers stress and anxiety, and I get a huge productivity boost out of it. Something about being at peace hearing natural sounds really does feel like it's deeply engrained in me, and I assume other people also. I wonder: (1) if there's a difference between the effects people generally get from various noise types (lofi, natural sounds, white noise etc), (2) whether something relevant about the individual correlates with preference among these, and (3) what is universal among these that makes background noise so commonly helpful.

(I use Noice for free nature/background sounds, off f-droid. I highly recommend it)

Very well said. Thank you

No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.

Before anyone flags this for being "political": don't. This is about human rights, not politics. Don't conflate the two.

For what it's worth, phyphox also has an android app. It's pretty good; my favorite app to play with on a flight

Agree with your first sentence.

Unless you're being sarcastic (apologies if so, and no mean to offend if not), I take the opposite conclusion though, which seems borne out by reality. Public messaging and for social cohesion in service of the greater good is the hardest problem affecting any large-scale coordinated response, especially with propaganda, doublethink, and flat-out unwillingness to learn being so common. I gather that the article the previous commenter mentioned was removed so that such propagandists couldn't willingly misinterpret it to pass on to their sycophants.

Perhaps you meant "wouldn't"?

The answer: yes, they could've. I had a professor who previously had been part of a US gov group that had been tasked with preparing for an attack on the electrical grid, all the way back in the tail end of the cold war. His impression of the security of the US grid was that it was completely unsecured. He told me that they had no chance of solving the problem then, and that he expects the same is still the case. His worst fear is a large EMP attack, not locally cutting powerlines, but the danger still stands

I very much agree with your general hope, and I also worry about bringing children into this world, though I haven't yet.

I'm not as hopeful for technological solutions to societal ills, though -- it seems to me that most problems are matters of historic and current national/global philosophies (as instantiated by norms of personal action), ie the problem really just has to do with how we are as a species, and technology in and of itself can't breed the empathy and unity of purpose (for the progress of human knowledge and standard of life, the stewardship of our planet, the continual growth of our species' sphere of concern to hopefully come to recognize all of our universe for the real wonder and treasure that it is) as would be necessary for the real flourishing of our world. Of course, technology could be useful for this, provided it did in fact disseminate such ideas. But these ideas run counter to those most easily spread (hate, fear, etc) and so (as it stands) the infrastructure of the internet allows the latter to spread more easily than the former. I guess (after all this ramble) that I hope that technology in the future can be built with these goals of universal progress in mind, and that such ideas can spread to their users. But such a thing must be done intentionally, as otherwise technology often has the opposite effect.

Re your QAnon comment at the end -- I'm not sure if you saw, but it seems that (as of today) people are defending Q on HN as well :( Is disinformation against HN policies @dang, and if not, shouldn't it be?

:(

"reading the drops" isn't the sum total of the "research" one would do to see Q for what it is, and anyways, their content is not something I'm unaware of. I don't even know why I'm dignifying this with a response, since it so clearly misinterprets my previous comment. What a morass, what a mess. I hope that the future is better for you.

Exactly. I'm am very sad to read the grandparent comment. It's not pleasant that anyone could be so misguided, and especially to see such lunacy on HN. It's not incumbent on anyone to continually engage with and point-by-point knock down Q: bullshit can be generated much faster than it can be fact checked (putting truth at a structural disadvantage), and engaging in this stupidity confers it legitimacy it doesn't deserve. I am despondent for humanity, that so many of us are so (1) easily confused (2) incapable of actually doing their own research (instead castigating people to "do their own research", which if they did in any reasonable way would show the absurdity of belief in Q) (3) related to 2, so commonly projecting their own flaws and insisting they are those of others. I hate being a misanthrope, but there's no way to be informed nowadays and not be deeply disappointed in our species.

Let's assume that final digits are uniformly distributed in such measurements (Benford's law says this isn't the case for first digits, but that's beside the point). Then P(last_digit in size 5 set) =1/2 for a single measure. So the probability they all are is 1/(2^30), which is on the order of one in a billion as the other reply says (good heuristics: 2^10 ≈ 1000, 2^20 ≈ 1,000,000, 2^30 ≈ 1,000,000,000)

This. It is an intended feature, not a bug, and it's either willfully ignorant, stunningly uninformed, or intentionally malicious to obfuscate this. To whoever reflexively downvoted the parent comment just because it tells an uncomfortable truth about America: your actions are part of the problem.

Copying a previous comment of mine, because this is an important issue and also not a surprise to anyone who's been paying a modicum of attention (the comment was originally in response to someone who characterized those who have their water turned off in the US as "choosing to live a lifestyle" beyond their means):

They really don't choose to "live a different lifestyle". It is simply the case that water, one of the basic necessities for life, is not readily available to many low-income Americans. Water access is routinely turned off or simply not available [0, 1, 2, 3] for those who can't pay or who are unlucky enough to live in certain areas. It is another example of the rampant wealth inequality [4] and degradation of social support [5] that been worsening in the US for decades [6, 7, 8]

[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/....

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622

[2] https://time.com/longform/clean-water-access-united-states/

[3] https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/17/21223565/coronaviru....

[4] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-soc-0....

[5] https://people.umass.edu/crotty/Austerity_War.pdf

[6] https://www.nber.org/chapters/c7443.pdf

[7] http://www.macrohistory.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HSCF_....

[8] https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/708815

Seems to me that that the end of your comment supports the parent commenter's point, rather than showing the irrelevance of deepfakes for the soundness of public opinion — that people are so easily and constantly deluded now gives little reason to hope for a discerning public in the face of stronger fakery