jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
There is bacteria everywhere in your house, on your skin, inside of you, on every single surface on planet Earth.

The idea was to keep Covid out, any other contaminant you think you're getting rid of has already breached your security. In fact, bactericide usage will select for stronger and more resistant bacteria.

What you need is a clean room, otherwise it's a futile exercise.
I work remote with people in Europe, South America, North America, and East Asia. The zoom meetings are amazingly good.

It really depends on if everyone has a proper remote working setup or not. If your team is remote, that should be a top prority in your company.
I ordered from a local bagel shop and also got missing items multiple times.

I finally went in and spoke to a manager who said: "Yeah, you order via Seamless/Grubhub, it shows up on a screen and then someone hand writes down your order."

This conversation happened a few weeks ago. It blew my mind that they didn't have a printer etc for this kind of thing.

Goes to show that the "future is here, just not evenly distributed" is 100% true.
No, he is not. Children have the same rate of infection which makes them vectors for further contagion.
In my experience, the handshake-as-greeting between men in social situations is common in the Midwest US, at least.
In the Ardour world, the "bridge specific plugins" approach is accomplished by using JACK. There are several clients that can be used to run a single plugin (for at least a couple of plugin APIs). The level of integration drops noticeably, and it does mean that you have to use JACK which for some people seems to be a burden. But it also leverages the generality of JACK's inter-application audio/MIDI to avoid complexity in the host itself.

As I said in the article, we are averse to complex engineering solutions to the problem of plugins that crash.
Yeah but for how long?
> A car isn't a "want" for most people outside of major US cities. It's a need.

It doesn't have to stay this way. Smaller cities and towns can invest in public transportation. Activities which must be in person could be decentralized to more local sites.
what about rent? medical supplies? hygiene items?
they were purchased. the government does not just take property. in the end it may be the GSA price, which may not be the same as target was expecting to retail it at.
Ha, I don’t know about all that, but I was very honored to see someone call it the “Utah Teapot” [0] of Machine Learning… Hopefully it’s an approachable (if dumb) example of A.I. and its limitations today :p

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_teapot
Wait are finance companies actually using real APL? Like not J or some derivative, but actual, mathematical symbols APL?
We live in a much more cynical time with much lower public faith in government

It also just so happens that one of the main parties in the US has been working tirelessly for the last 40 years to make sure that faith in government is lowered. I believe it's their overarching strategy to get people to disconnect from politics, so they can rule the roost. What other reason for their party's popularity, when the party policies are not in the best interest of those voting for it?
There will always be some jobs even if everything is automated - to maintain the robots, fix them, make new ones etc. But the number of jobs would be much less than it is now. For example, once self driving cars become common, imagine how many people would be out of jobs - millions of cab drivers, truck drivers, people working in parking lots, insurance companies etc. Sure some of these jobs would be replaced by engineers, specialized mechanics, urban planners etc but the number would be far smaller and would require specialized knowledge and skillset. It wouldn't be easy for today's cabbie to get any of those jobs. What happens then?
The article is right. In a perfect market the producer surplus is zero. Prices will equal production costs.
Could this be construed as anti-competitive behavior? (Effectively colluding with Orbitz?)
Firstly, placebo studies don't require deception - patients are generally told that they might be getting the placebo, or they might be getting the real thing; they don't know which one, but uncertainty is different to deception. In a double blind study) the people interacting with the patient don't know who gets which either - so they aren't deceiving the patient, they genuinely don't know.

Secondly, in this case, what if the placebo is not genuinely inert? The 'placebo' was cellulose (dietary fibre) in a gelatine capsule, and apparently fibre is the standard treatment for irritable bowel syndrome.

Thirdly, showing that open label placebos might be better than controls is not enough to justify using an open label placebo in a clinical; instead, they would need to have compared an open to a closed label placebo. If a closed label placebo works better than an open label one, then a drug which is not efficacious could be accepted by a clinical trial because it was an unintentional closed label placebo and did better than the intentional open label placebo. In addition, closed label placebos are not just for the patient - they also play a role in double blind clinical trials of keeping the doctors dealing with the patient / assessing results from knowing.
ISO approval doesn't mean jack because even if you follow the standard, you won't be able to load supposedly standardized documents that were generated by Microsoft's software 99/100 times.
I wonder what happens in this case:

1. You think up a new poem, and speak it at open mic night at a club. No one is recording, so there is no fixation.

2. Someone else hears your poem, goes home, and writes it down from memory. That's not fixation, since 17 USC 101 defines one of the elements of fixation as being by or under the authority of the author. So, the work is still not fixed, so copyright has not yet attached.

3. That person starts making and selling copies of your poem.

4. You finally write down your poem. It's now fixed, and copyright attaches.

I would presume that you can now stop that other person, via copyright law, from making any more copies. Is there any case, though, for damages from the copies that were made and sold before #4? Can you prevent the distribution of the copies #3 has already made by not sold? Can you prevent the people who have bought copies already from reselling them, or does first sale apply? (First sale only applies to copies that were lawfully made and so usually does not apply to works that were not authorized, but in this case the work was not under copyright when the copies were made so I would think they would count as being lawfully made).
Meanwhile consumers can access everything they want on torrent sites - should you not know about them, Google will helpfully auto-complete your searches for you - with no limitations and no stupid "this content is not available in your country" (not shown until after the preshow ad).

Netflix will have to get its stuff in order _now_ to remain relevant. If it is not already too late.
No. They took on the risk of the investment, thats why they got the price they got.
On the other hand, to make things really interesting, one could do

typedef signed char int8_t;

to 'solve' the problem that char and int8_t are the same type. That also fixes a portability problem: AFAIK, there is no guarantee that 'char' is signed.
Golang - because I get shit done with it.
Does anyone know how the display works? You can see in the footage from the unveiling event, where the camera apparently has one of the units strapped to the front of it's lens, that virtual objects do not seem to blend in with the background. This suggests that it is able to block the transmission of light from the environment as well as add its own light to the scene. The blocking of light could be done with an LCD element but I'm not sure about illumination. I'm really curious about this.
I'd love Tesla to license https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdWswvLPdE0
At city speeds, tire noise exceeds engine noise in many internal-combustion vehicles as well.
Wow, this just ruined my day and a lot of my childhood memories.
The stock they offer you is to compensate you for the risk you take by working for an 'unproven' company, that may or may not be successful, with a below-market salary.

In post series A startups, there is already some 'proof' of success (generally in the terms of growth), so salary offerings gets high and stock options get low than a pre-series A startup.

Stock options/grants are tricky because of dilution and preferences. The 2% can mean many things. How much the company plans to raise in the future? Even if it's not planned, circumstances can change overnight, and company may need to raise.

It seems you have a connection with founders, so it probably won't hurt to talk to them about this issues.

In the end, it all comes to how much risk you are taking, and the compensation you are getting for it.
Don't ebikes bring in a lot of the enviromental concerns as an electric car? Less for sure, but it probably starts to close that 10x number.
The bigger the company, the easiest it is to get away by doing nothing. Find a Big Corp, be nice to your boss and your colleagues, don't make waves and you can basically have an above-average-pay while being able to slack most of the time. Just look busy and work when your boss tells you so.

How do I know? Well, I've been in such a spot. I've deeply considered whether to stay until retirement being paid a lot to be bored or be less paid in a more fun job. I chose the latter but I do not judge you.
Those numbers rarely were used as access control then, though.
Any reasonable person would read "Companies we monitor" as "Companies that pay for and rely on our services", if that's not your relationship with the companies, then it's just using deception, and probably also violating trademark
This is great, there has been a demand for this since forever. Enterprise-y people generally didn't care much but the homelab/SMB users end up dealing with it a lot more than might be naively imagined.

Always reminds me of when NetApp used to do their arrays in RAID-4 because it made expansion super-fast, just add a new zeroed disk and only had to update the new disk blocks + parity drive on writes. Used to blow our Netware admin's mind as almost nobody else ever used RAID-4 -- I had it as an interview question along with "what is virtual memory" because you'd get interesting answers :)
If 10,000 votes is easy to reach by bots or organised trolls, why is 50,000 not?
99.9% right isn't great: that means 1 in 1000 is bad. If this were a medical condition, that'd be a pretty high rate.

I work with large-scale testing, and we use a measure called "DPPM", or Defective Part Per Million (manufactured). For my team, a DPPM in 10s is noise/acceptable loss, ~100 we keep an eye on, and 100s-1000 is cause for investigation. Going back to percentage, that translates to 0.001% fail-rate is noise, 0.01% we keep an eye on, and 0.01-0.1% is cause for investigation (and 1% is "Stop The Line").

My point is that the "percentage" scale of failure/risk is one tuned to human perception: "1 in 100 is nothing!", but at the scale of events that we deal with in many areas of our modern life, it's actually huge.

Or: don't use humans for dealing with large numbers. Alternatively, exercise them with the occasional positive result to keep them on their toes.
You're free to do it, but is it good idea?

I previously used Skype for Remote work and I must say that Teams are pretty decent.

All those integrations - Outlook invitation + accept button + instantly it being in Calendar on Teams + reminder about meetings.

I like it.
The M1 Mac Mini can drive two monitors.
This is great, but an important and little known caveat is that raidz is limited to the iops of one disk. So growing a raidz will at some point have lots of throughput but suffer in small and random reads and writes. At that point, it will be better to grow the pool with additional, separate raidz.
I wouldn't say I was clever, but there were, indeed, pressures that have led to the way it is, and the way it works. Instead of snarky, implied criticism like this, you could simply ask. Maybe I could then learn from you and it would get better, or maybe you could come to understand why it is as it is.

But I expect you don't actually care, and just wanted to couch your criticism in what you think is a clever dig.
> I don't have any data to back this up but my overall feeling/ideology is that we can't have groups larger than some number.

That goes contrary to my personal experience with a www that wasn't mainstream yet, but most certainly already had larger groups of people.

As tired and lame as it might sound, imho the biggest culprit is social media and what kind incentives it has set.

Social media does not thrive on facts and information, it thrives on emotions, but dry boring non-sensational headlines and information don't make people emotional.

What makes people emotional, and interact with your platform, are the crass headlines and claims, the dramatic stuff. So that's what gets pushed to people, and they react accordingly by liking it, and at that point it's already a self-reinforcing loop with increasingly more sensationalist and crass claims that constantly need to top each other to stay relevant.

It also directly affects what kind of content people contribute and most importantly how they do it; All the big "influencers" spend quite some time and effort in optimizing their content for that extra reach, along with that come certain behavior routines to sell the content, which then get normalized.

And because traditional media struggles to keep up with that, and stay relevant, they also get colored by this, not only by having made social media their new source of reporting, but also by making their own reporting more in line with these trends.

Too many just chasing the dopamine kicks from the "likes" and "karma", it feels like mass-hysteria that's steadily increasing in intensity.
That is highly controversial. The most popular theories of consciousness are that they are related to certain thoughts about thoughts, i.e. higher order awareness rather than first-order access.

The qualia realist views that you are describing are likely more popular in philosophy classrooms than in CogSci or neuroscience programs.
Indeed, FEXPRs are Kernel’s entire thing. However, vau is a language primitive, not a notion of evaluation, such as eager or lazy.
Comparing an original painting to a photograph of the painting is the exact issue the OP is making. They are asking why people would pay for a photo, when anyone could have the same photo. There is no original, scarce painting to own. Just all identical copies.
Ok fine, but the PC had better demos. Future Crew 4 ever!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFv7mHTf0nA

(hehe I am a bit delighted in a retro way to see that arguing about PC vs. Amiga is still a thing)
Are you a college student? Or an independent contractor? I don’t know how anyone who has worked in the real world can have these misconceptions.

1) Every password policy allows for dumb passwords in certain places. Because password policies are only enforced on systems that integrate with the password policy enforcement mechanism. Which never covers everything. Even with a password policy, it’s easy to make dumb passwords.

2) It doesn’t say that the intern chose this policy or that it belonged to something critical. There has been no link established between that password and the breach. A random researcher said they found the password a year ago and reported it. It could have been used, but there’s no reason to believe it’s relevant.

3) Nothing suggests that they did.

Conclusion: It’s better to not be an armchair quarterback after a breach, especially when it’s still under active investigation by actual professionals with access to actual data, and they aren’t even making the claims that folks here are making.
> don't forget that there are so many large companies out there that are run in an extremely inefficient way by incompetent management, with business divisions generating hundreds of millions/billions that are in turn run by and staffed with mediocre people.

100% on board. Running a large organization is hard.

> You don't necessary need to be an industry expert to identify process improvements and many industry experts are really useless outside of their domain.

I guess this is their value to firms, I just find it extremely surprising that this is even possible. Is it possible to be specific about what value a 22 year old Yale econ grad (or 30 year old Northwestern MBA) w/ no industry-specific experience brings to, e.g., Boeing? Microsoft? Motorola?

> they had no experts in-house for the specific issue they were looking into and implemented our recommendations successfully after properly scrutinising it.

This seems like a great use-case for consulting, but by experts in the field, which McK et al are almost always not.

> companies often hire a consulting company that has previously advised their competitors to indirectly benefit from a knowledge transfer.

Very believable. If they are paying for information about what McK last told their competitors, that's understandable. Seems like that would not be in McK's interests though!

> I've worked with some extremely smart MBAs who absolutely blew most mediocre engineers out of the water in terms of intelligence, problem solving, people skills, etc.

Definitely agree. On the other hand, the MBA/PhD consultants I know don't have industry-specific experience in the areas they work in! This is the essence of the puzzle to me.
i know... and so do probably most major and direct response marketers.

there are a lot of ways to measure outside of FBs analytics tools.

including the very simple simply using a refcode or even a specific product/url. How many purchases did you get / how much did you spend?

this is what i'm referencing. like that's so incredibly basic and it bugs me HN just either doesn't understand or lets their opinion on it go first

In my experience FBs inaccurate reporting is just a tiny amount of impressions delivered and they refund the $1 or whatever it is a couple times a year. Have they ever had a reporting anomaly on their analytics tools for tracking off FB conversions? they very well could have but I haven't heard of one.
While this happened to me in 2004, I can still see it working even today: http://boston.conman.org/2004/09/19.1
lol, or potato chip bags... it is always a delight to see the bad guy step on a rake. Powerwords: CIA Italy Kidnap Potato
If you like Megastructures and video games, you should check out “Dyson Sphere Project”. It’s an early access game, but very playable.
Haven't checked out CoffeeScript before, but it's very terse. Me like.
Uhhh, this is a thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqUkX4QBjfA
First, these need to be reviewed by the SEC. Second to raise this money on the Internet you are going to have to go to a platform with a large base of investor (Most of those will have broker dealer licenses ame will do their own DD). Next You are assuming that just because something is online that tens of thousands of people are automatically willing to plop $10-$1000 to invest. Well I'm sorry, but that's not how it is going to work. Companies in Europe with lots or press are only raising a few hundred thousand. To move the needle you need much larger checks. At some point, something will slip through but it will be an anomaly and the overall risks are outweighed by the benefits.
Hi Funkhauser, thank you for your question!

In order to ensure about copyright, we believe that it is important to have accurate data from our contributors, who will be entitled to part of the Wireshape Stock revenue.
It also supports all kinds of HTTP requests and should be quite efficient and solid, being based on libcurl.
You would absolutely use them more, provided that the mechanism for working with them (pattern matching) is also in place. In F# coding you not only model your domain with sum types, but you operate on instances of them with pattern matching that gives you completeness checking. This does two things:

1. Allows you to make failure scenarios intrinsic to your domain, and the compiler then is a tool for domain correctness.

2. It provides a beautiful symmetry between how you define your domain and how you operate on it. The syntax is even almost identical. The features "fit" incredibly well because of that.

Beyond that, with optionals and results defined as sum types you find that any time you're in a "It may explicitly give me nothing" or "It may explicitly give me an error" scenario these types are the first your reach for in your toolbag.

Sum types don't completely obviate classes, but they are a better tool than classes for several scenarios.
Maybe from a certain perspective. But it worked by conforming the bundle to a particular subset of JS that the authors knew to be optimized, instead of expressing information to the interpreter outright. That seems like a comparatively limited channel for communication.
The US Surgeon General is a political appointee, with a largely ceremonial role and little policy influence.

Some have been better than others, but they mostly serve as a mouthpiece for the administration's agenda as it relates to health-adjacent matters.

As such, when the President does not take a health matter seriously (historically: AIDS, opioids, obesity, guns, tobacco, mental health, drunk driving; newly: COVID-19), the Surgeon General is not to be taken seriously.
You said cases were high. Case counts are going to depend on how quickly the age groups with the most cases get vaccinated, which is generally the younger population. So it is going to take a while for case counts to fall.

Since a COVID death generally happens 5-8 weeks after exposure, what you'd expect is that once the high risk populations have been fully vaccinated, you'd start to see the death counts dropping 5-8 weeks later, and you'd start to see the hospitalization rates dropping 2-3 weeks later. Case counts are going to drop last because the high risk populations are not driving the majority of cases.

Also I don't understand what point you are trying to prove? We have detailed clinical trials about the efficacy of the vaccines. We have strong evidence to believe they work. If you are trying to interpret the data to show this isn't the case, you are probably misinterpreting it because it would be going against what we think we know with a high degree of confidence. It doesn't mean we couldn't be wrong, but it is much more likely you are just misinterpreting the data.
My strategy for finding interesting conversations is to follow people I meet that I find interesting. The algorithm seems to be pretty good at showing me conversations involving people I follow, which tend to be interesting.
Depends on your country; I'm quite happy with the UK's restriction on adverts, including a ban on advertising prescription meds at all, and restrictions on product placement.
Thanks for linking that post. I meant to include it in my comment but wasn't able to find it again.
Vectors are not a panacea.

http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/11/04/about-those-vector-...

(Among other articles about this topic).

Having said that, I still wish they were better supported in modern OSes as a hybrid solution because while they start to fall apart at small sizes they do handle the scaling in the other direction (which is what this topic is mostly about here anyway) well, certainly better than just upsampling a bitmap icon.
I realize that trump is odious, but, what is next? Be inspired by China and filter wrongthink from the internet itself? What’s after that? Search for the wrong thing and the police kick down your door and disappear you? WTF is wrong with these tech clowns? Read a few history books.