> ... This site works primarily by analyzing for each user the frequencies of the most common words and phrases in the English language. Accordingly, the easiest way to avoid being identified is to simply use different words than you ordinarily would when writing. More sophisticated models than the one I made can use punctuation, comma usage, and capitalization to identify you so try alternating those as well. Services like Quillbot can help with you this but depending on your circmstances you may not want to send your writings to a third party service.
HN offers many other threads which could be tied together, including:
- most common topics (keyword analysis of post being replied to)
- ratio of new posting to post replies
- first-to-comment on a post
- lone comment on a post
- etc...
It seems very likely that sooner or later every pseudonym for posting content will get discovered and linked. The lesson here is don't post anything that would cause you undue shame or harm if linked directly to your legal name.
The subjects of this policy are not miners, but "electric generating facilities":
> FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND
ENDING TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE, THE DEPARTMENT, AFTER CONSULTATION
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, SHALL NOT APPROVE A NEW APPLICA-
TION FOR OR ISSUE A NEW PERMIT PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, OR ARTICLE
SEVENTY OF THIS CHAPTER, FOR AN ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY THAT
UTILIZES A CARBON-BASED FUEL AND THAT PROVIDES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
BEHIND-THE-METER ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMED OR UTILIZED BY CRYPTOCURRENCY
MINING OPERATIONS THAT USE PROOF-OF-WORK AUTHENTICATION METHODS TO VALI-
DATE BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS
> The team were also surprised to detect sulfur dioxide, which had appeared as a mysterious bump in early observation data. Its presence suggests a photochemical reaction is taking place in the atmosphere as light from the star hits it, similar to how our Sun produces ozone in Earth’s atmosphere. In WASP-39b’s case, light from its star, slightly smaller than the Sun, splits water in its atmosphere into hydrogen and hydroxide, which reacts with hydrogen sulfide to produce sulfur dioxide.
Wikipedia has this to say about sulfur dioxide in our solar system:
> On other planets, sulfur dioxide can be found in various concentrations, the most significant being the atmosphere of Venus, where it is the third-most abundant atmospheric gas at 150 ppm. There, it reacts with water to form clouds of sulfuric acid, and is a key component of the planet's global atmospheric sulfur cycle and contributes to global warming.[11] It has been implicated as a key agent in the warming of early Mars, with estimates of concentrations in the lower atmosphere as high as 100 ppm,[12] though it only exists in trace amounts. On both Venus and Mars, as on Earth, its primary source is thought to be volcanic. The atmosphere of Io, a natural satellite of Jupiter, is 90% sulfur dioxide[13] and trace amounts are thought to also exist in the atmosphere of Jupiter.
> The largest elephant in the room to address is probably Rust. ...
Breaking this down, I can only find two practical problems the author has with Rust:
- long compile times
- the ownership model ("the borrow checker")
The rest of this paragraph appears to be much more general in nature.
Given that the project is only 58,000 lines of D/C++, it's hard to believe that compile time alone is so bad as to drive a decision toward an experimental language like Jai.
So it appears that the main problem the author has is the ownership model ("the borrow checker"). It would be interesting to know more, but the author does not elaborate.
AFAICT, the Rust compiler can be viewed as enforcing the good practices that C++ developers already recognize. So how can this be an issue at all, especially given the ability break out of the ownership model into unsafe Rust (or use other tricks) if the situation calls for it?
The code makes it clear that the --release flag is being used, but not the text. Sometimes optimization posts written by authors trying to up their skills end with a "...and then I turned on the release flag and tada - 80% improvement." It might be useful to point out that release mode is being used to compile.
> With Rust, though, one needs to learn entirely new ideas — things like lifetimes, ownership, and the borrow checker.
Those three things are actually just different facets of the same thing: ownership. The bad news is that you must learn Rust's ownership model to use Rust idiomatically. The good news is that you can do a lot without learning Rust ownership model at all. Just clone all your values. Not advisable for production code, but great for getting over the ownership model hump.
And once you've learnt those things and got some experience writing real world software in Rust, you may well find yourself more productive in Rust than, say Ruby on Rails.
Context matters a lot, and you shouldn't be making tech choices based on the way the wind is blowing ("tech radars", what's hot in the blogosphere, etc.). If hiring teams to work on your mostly-CRUD app easily is a high priority, then Rust probably isn't a good choice. If you have a team that already knows Rust, and you need to add some web app / service, then Rust is a perfectly fine choice, on the grounds that support for web stuff is "good enough" now, and the best tool for the job is often the one you already know well and are already supporting.
If I'm building stuff for _myself_ and it's getting too fiddly for a bash script, then I'll always default to Rust just because _personally_ I'm way more productive in it than anything else.
I think you meant “borrow checker” because sure it does. It’s called a const reference. Want a mut borrow? That’s a pointer.
That Rust can check these somewhat more explicitly (rather than via good coding style) and that C++ also allows you to do arbitrary permutations (a la non-const references) is what you’re talking about. But ownership is very very real in C++! Just look at the craziness that is move semantics!
> I think you meant “borrow checker” because sure it does. It’s called a const reference. Want a mut borrow? That’s a pointer.
These have very different semantics. Lexically you can only have either 1 mutable reference or N immutable references at a time to a given object. This is the foundation for a lot of the safety and aliasing [2] guarantees. Just because they both use an '&' doesn't make them equivalent! :)
Don't get my started on `std::move` which doesn't really move, and continues to allow you to use the source object - in whatever condition it may be in. These are also not the same. C++ move semantics are sort of the 'ruined fresco' [1] of Rust move semantics.
I didn't see anything about the hiring process needed to get high-documentation culture to work. Many developers don't write well. Some don't empathize with the reader and so can't communicate complex ideas effectively. Others lack the ability to abstract their ideas. Many will be coming from the exact opposite of a high-documentation culture and so simply will not value good documentation.
Asking people with poor writing skills to work in the way described here seems like it could lead to problems without a selection process favoring good writers, or at least a training system to get new hires up to speed.
Here's a simple question: what is NATO's goal in this conflict?
If it is, as some officials have suggested, to throw the Russian army back across the pre-2014 borders, how exactly could that happen?
If militarily, that almost certainly means NATO-equipped and possibly trained Ukrainian forces attacking Russian forces located inside Russia on a regular basis.
How many ways are there to do this without triggering a nuclear escalation?
> Even after this news emerged, Podolyak maintained that NATO should enact a no-fly zone in Ukraine, which would likely require Western pilots to fight their Russian counterparts directly, putting four nuclear-armed nations at war. Kyiv continues to deny that it fired the missiles.
Then there's the question of what might drive Ukraine to exaggerate or plant evidence implicating Russia in attacks on NATO territory, or to hide evidence contracting that position. Hopefully, The Tonkin Gulf Incident, and the disgraceful way it justified an unjust war after whipping the American public into a bloodthirsty frenzy, is still on the radar.
> Holmes in January was found guilty of four charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Wikipedia has this short lay description of wire fraud:
> In layman's terms, anyone trying to scam other people or groups through any form of communication (paradoxically, even wireless) e.g., phones, instant messaging, email, or through writing, signs, pictures or sounds can be punished with a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. If the scam involves a financial institution, the maximum fine is raised to 1 million US dollars and prison sentence not more than 30 years, or both.
HN offers many other threads which could be tied together, including:
- time of posting
- ratio of replies to top-level comments
- comments being mainly upvoted or downvoted
- sentiment (mostly angry, dismissive, questioning, etc.)
- most common topics (keyword analysis of post being replied to)
- ratio of new posting to post replies
- first-to-comment on a post
- lone comment on a post
- etc...
It seems very likely that sooner or later every pseudonym for posting content will get discovered and linked. The lesson here is don't post anything that would cause you undue shame or harm if linked directly to your legal name.