Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | OceanSunfish's commentslogin

These briefs don't mention it by name, but this technology seems like "DNA Vaccination" that has been in research for some years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_vaccination


This isn't vaccination, it's coding and expression of the antibody(s) your body would take weeks/months to make from a vaccination that neutralize the pathogenic target from dosing. It's a stop-gap to prevent infection, but does not offer memory response from resident B-cells/plasma cells.


A webkit blogpost from 2018 claims SPIR-V may not be possible to fully secure in a web context. I'm uncertain of the progress or if the original claim was legitimate, but I believe the current experimental implementations of WebGPU do not protect against raw gpu memory access.

https://webkit.org/blog/8482/web-high-level-shading-language...


Imho a CNN is like a generalization of what SIFT does, so a CNN can be trained to be equivalent to SIFT, but it can also be trained with more specific features for your use case.


Sure, in terms of expressivity, you can obtain much better results with a CNN. But very often, it is done at the cost of computational efficiency: SIFT descriptors are "easy" to compute.


Sure, all of those things created large economic gains for their respective economies. It's a question of how much of that economic gain can we capture with taxation.


Soil / fertilizer is possibly a limiting factor.


This is tangential, but I wonder if the problem with "bot commenting" isn't inherent to forum-style discussion. When our only channel for analysis/criticism is ephemeral comment sections, we lose the ability to compare related discussions of a topic over time, or to rectify disagreements that occur across several threads, or even across different sub-trees of discussion.

Compared to a wiki-style website, where all angles of the argument can be collected into one place to make a cohesive comparative overview; as forum-users, we are left stranded in noisy content, and we rely on making heuristic judgements based on popularity of certain opinions and stubbornness of certain commenters. Bots make easy work of exploiting these flawed heuristics.


I agree. Sites like Reddit, with visible comment voting, can quickly turn certain communities into echo chambers. Disagreement with the "hive mind" can be punishing, discouraging debate and encouraging the melding of opinions. Secondly, seeing how others voted influences others to vote the same, causing a snowball effect. I prefer hidden vote count and the inability to downvote someone. I believe this makes an important difference when a reader is determining their opinion about comments, even if the comments are still organized by highest vote.

All media has its flaws, and I still prefer to check forums for the greatest diversity of opinions. Strangely, I have noticed an unintuitive aspect of forums: smaller forums appear to have a greater diversity in opinion than larger ones.


I agree with the vote counting and I am curious, is there a forum which only shows comments after you have made a comment on the article itself? As long as empty comments and "this" aren't allowed, it can be a good filter for on topic, more organic discussion.


> you wanna learn react and you never used an arrow function, wtf

At least in the early days, using React was the first time most people would be exposed to webpack/babel, so it was also their first exposure to the newer JS features.


But you didn't need arrow functions at the time because createClass autobind this and you used methods. Now with extends and hooks, it would be a pain.

Besides, it's alright to learn es6 and 7 with react if you have time, but if your company pays a $10k react training in a 3 days session, you better have the pre-requisites right.

And at the very least, don't pretend to be "an expert" in 2019 if you don't know es6. Every tutorials for beginers include them now. Every docs of every libs use them.

You don't have to be an expert. It's legitimate. I don't advertise myself as a JS expert despite being pretty good at it.

But it looks better on the resume, and once you are hired on that assumption, you can't go back. Next time the company asks, you say expert again.


But they've been part of the ES standard for nearly 5 years now.


Sheep are rational agents when they are surrounded by wolves.


Having driven in country roads with lots of sheep around, their behaviour doesn't seem rational. Run in front of the car right as you are about to pass them.


Read about hares the other day on HN: they are trying to make the fast moving heavy predator loose momentum by crossing its path.



This should be taught at driving school


Best way to predict the future, is to make it happen.

One can drop the metaphors and meet the human beings instead.


Being a wolf is preferable nonetheless.


Depends if there are unguarded sheeps nearby, wolves are in extinction in some places, sheeps are not.


what does that have to do with the topic (or this thread)?


wolves are actively hunted by far more dangerous predators though, especially if they are killing sheep.


not in corporate america. i think you missed the metaphor. you arent alone.


Absolutely in corporate america. M&A's, regulators, other employees looking to slide into your role, etc. etc.


Absolutely not, as per your demonstrative examples. You are confused and, I predict, will now want to quibble about what "genuine" means since youve lost context in the digression. SMH


The sheep metaphor broke down about 10 comments ago.


The term "cartel" is interesting here, if the power structure is indeed the voting population of San Francisco being predominantly homeowners, then as those homeowners are the suppliers of the housing market, it is a cartel in form.


San Francisco has its own unique issues but local government in pretty much any upscale suburb in America is effectively a homeowner cartel.


Perhaps the idea is that updates provided by OpenBSD or another OS for example could be compromised or simply directed to an unpopular path, but in this way a "senate" of code reviewers with known biases provides a more democratic way of reviewing updates before publish.


This is incorrect. Urbit has two paths for changes, a vote by the senate or a decision by the developers on the git repo. It only adds more ways of making updates, it doesn't fix the the devs can do anything "problem"

https://urbit.org/community/governance/


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: