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

Toms root boot (TOMSRTBT) is what you need! Used to fit on a floppy disk.

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


It's not really the exposed skin that's the issue. At higher latitudes the ultraviolet (UVB) gets scattered by the longer path through the atmosphere and so even if you were naked you still wouldn't be getting enough.

See my comment above re a CCC.de video from 38C3.

There was a good CCC talk on pulling images from weather sats (and data from other satellites) - https://youtu.be/fM5w7bFNvWI?si=Dq6S6nYOE_frAd7b

It's been done before, but this was a great talk imo.


We have an amazing gov.uk web team, they could have expanded that and built it in house with civil servants costing £60k ea per annum at the very most.

£120k, double it for stupid amounts of testing, double it again for managers to tell the people doing the work "do the work". We're still only at £500k.

Gov.uk web team are supposed to be award winning. Why are we picking shitty slop-corps to do this work?


Unfortunately because the top end of the salary is limited, to get people to work on stuff they need to bring in contractors to fill out the teams for many projects.

Sounds like an innovative approach, any IP protection on your tech?

Have your early versions made any sort of profit?

Absolutely amazing stuff to me. A teenager I very briefly showed it to was nonplussed - 'it's a talking head, isn't that really easy to do' ...


Haha, I kind of get that reaction. Convincing the world "this was hard to do" is generally not easy. Re: user uploads, we're operating in good faith at the moment (no built-in IP moderation). This hasn't been an issue so far. Current pricing reflects our operating costs. Each end-user gets a dedicated GPU for the duration of a call, which is expensive. Advancements on the model-side should eventually allow us to parallelize this.

There's plenty of blame to go around!

Obviously rushing to the aid of a fellow human who was assaulted by a masked person for no reason other than to act out that person's longing for violence might be "disorderly" to you. To the rest of us it's called compassionate, human, democratic. It isn't against any written law in USA, any law passed by a democratic legislative body.

You have no care for the law nor for humanity. You're supporting summary execution by a stasi; you seriously need to step back and reconsider your belief system.


The people "making disorder" are operating democratically within the former USA constitution.

Those you consider to be bringing order are arbitrarily enacting violence against citizens and other people in ways that break the law and Constitution; and which are outlawed in all moral societies. Sure, strict conformance to a dictators whims is a form of order, but if you seek that sort of order in your life you should look for a dom and not attempt to impose it on others.

The clashes do not have to happen. Trump's Regime can be removed, habeas corpus resurrected, and the Constitution re-implemented.

Your mind appears to wear jackboots.


Isn't at least part of the problem with replication that journals are businesses. They're selling in part based on limited human focus, and on desire to see something novel, to see progress in one's chosen field. Replications don't fit a commercial publications goals.

Institutions could do something, surely. Require one-in-n papers be a replication. Only give prizes to replicated studies. Award prize monies split between the first two or three independent groups demonstrating a result.

The 6k citations though ... I suspect most of those instances would just assert the result if a citation wasn't available.


Journals aren't really businesses in the conventional sense. They're extensions of the universities: their primary customers and often only customers are university libraries, their primary service is creating a reputation economy for academics to decide promotions.

If the flow of tax, student debt and philanthropic money were cut off, the journals would all be wiped out because there's no organic demand for what they're doing.


Not in academia myself, but I suspect the basic issue is simply that academics are judged by the number of papers they publish.

They are pushed to publish a lot, which means journals have to review a lot of stuff (and they cannot replicate findings on their own). Once a paper is published on a decent journal, other researchers may not "waste time" replicating all findings, because they also want to publish a lot. The result is papers getting popular even if no one has actually bothered to replicate the results, especially if those papers are quoted by a lot of people and/or are written by otherwise reputable people or universities.


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

Search: