jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
>I hold no opinion on Trump

Utterly baffling and genuinely inconceivable. My imagination is running wild trying to imagine what sort of person you might be, assuming you are being honest here.
> We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.

Who gets to pick what is harmful, though? Why can we not choose our own gatekeepers, rather than having them foisted upon us by corporate oligarchs?

The big problem here is that it is completely unreasonable and unprecedented to assume that this will be done in a transparent, consistent, open way. There will be no clear appeals process, and there's no reason to believe that the censorship won't be ideologically biased in favour of whatever is marketing best at the moment.

> it's controls on what can be said to large amounts of people

It's controls on what the working class can say to large amounts of people. The elite can still just go buy a newspaper or a broadcast media network, or start their own website, etc. and issue forth opinions on a grand scale. Regular folks will have to go through censors, which will end up being some combination of AI and outsourced farms of moderators in other countries or some other such Kafkaesque nightmare of business process.

> there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.

"harmful" is a social construct, and what is "harmful" to one group might not be to another. Which groups will be prioritized for this? How will you pick sides fairly without imposing a new dimension on whatever underlying group conflicts already exist?

The problem is that what you want to do cannot be done fairly. It can only be done in a draconian way, and the result will be an even wider fracturing of dialogue in a way that doesn't result in what you want, at all.
It appears to me that there is a huge electorate that is disgruntled and has felt that the people in power have ignored it for too long. If such a large number of people have actually vandalized Congress (didn't they do something like this to the Michigan Statehouse) to make their displeasure known, then they must genuinely feel that the normal method of registering protest, i.e., voting, has ceased to function for them. The overall smug and condescending tone of the mainstream and social media barons and the professional class only exacerbates this feeling.

How many of us here has had to face years of despair because of job loss, and loss of social standing due to globalization and corporate greed? Do we have any genuine hope (and more importantly, need) of understanding this 74 million?
There is a lot of evidence that voter fraud has happened. While i doubt that it would have made a considerable dent, the election was far from "free, fair and legal". The protestors intent obviously was not to slaughter politicians. That would have happened as a start. Showing the people that control you that you are displeased with their actions will do considerably more than "voting harder". Especially if their ballot just gets burnt.
All the rally goers are not terrorists anymore than everyone who was at a BLM protest is Antifa.

We’ve got to be very careful here not to paint all of MAGA with that brush because that ends in a dark, dark place.
They were literally just given the right to exercise their voices in a democratic election. That’s the opposite of silence.
Ok, we switched to that from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-look-w.... Thanks!
yes - try sava.lisandro@iiron.us (this is a temporary email)
Buying a car after not having one the year I lived in San Francisco was one of the most liberating things I've ever done.
PIA also very strangely bought freenode and has since engaged in a number of suspect activities.
A similar tutorial like this but for audio?
What's the point of the constant learning if it's going to be obsolete in 5 years?

That's what I can't stand about the cult of "you get to learn so much at FAANG or a startup" -- at some point in life, you need to spend less time learning new things and start applying the things you have learned. I've been drinking from the proverbial water hose for 20 years. It's tiring now. At some point you need to be able to find the permanent things and reject the noise.
Yeah, if physics taught me anything, it's that road to discovery is straight and obvious.

It's just turtles and four elements. /s
I too keep telling people to watch it.

We are close to accidentally creating an attention-democracy where whoever is able to keep the attention of the masses has the most influence over politics. It could be argued that whoever is able to get the most attention is also the most in tune with what people want. Since centralized filtering of news is an important part of the political meta-game of building opinion, perhaps it is not wrong to formalize this process. Enter Max Headroom.
I'm a child of the 90s and the Cybertruck makes me hard as diamonds. Not even kidding, I think it's wicked cool.
Yes. I suspect that production line will be designed to be built on Mars. Design of the car also looks like it is built for high dust environments (non-flat rooftop). Solar charging, shell with same material with Starship also supports this thesis.
You're right. Thanks for pointing it out. Will fix it tonight, although the title can't really be changed (and will look like some fishy click bait).

In my defense, the first paragraph states that I never get things right the first time. :)
If you read the section on exemptions, you'll see that there's one for exactly this case: decrypting a dvd for the purpose of criticism.
Readability is far from subjective, if 50% of your devs can’t read parts of the codebase then it’s not readable.

Simple generic code is fine, but generics can be abused to over engineer things.
But where's your evidence? For any economic school of thought to be a good approximation of truth, it needs to be able to make models that both describe what has happened, and predict what will happen. Any economist that can't do that is ultimately a quack.

Where are the Austrian models that describe and predict accurately?
I have one for a long time now: microservices.fail
That's a great observation about for-comprehensions. It's an other one of these cute niceties that in the most basic cases can come in handy but again nudges users away from consciously thinking through what they're doing (good luck handling the error path in a for-comprehension over Futures).
This is one of the worst takes I've read in awhile.

First off, there is no general consensus about the exact cause of the Great Depression and the cause of the recovery. If you're going to make an attempt at a history lesson, at least get it right. We know that the stock market crash and banking panics played a large role in the contraction of economic activity, but there is absolutely no general consensus for the exact causes. Your theory, that was portrayed as a fact, is solely an opinion that is disputed by many economists and historians. Academics are split as to the exact cause of the great depression and stopping deflation made possible by the gold standard is not an accepted fact in any economics or history debate. [1]

Secondly, the Fed providing liquidity is not "stabilizing the price of the USD", as you say. Printing money out of thin air at extreme rates (22% of all dollars were printed in 2020) is massively devaluing the USD and is borrowing against the future of the country, thus ultimately destabilizing the USD. Just like how many things that feel good in the short term are unhealthy for us, providing artificial short term liquidity that ends up destabilizing society long-term is not healthy or intelligent. As we add trillions of dollars of debt to the US balance sheet, we will soon get to a point where the vast majority of federal expenditure will be on interest payments (it is currently less than 10% but increasing exponentially). At that point, the US will either be forced to hike taxes to ridiculous levels to pay down the debt, or will essentially be bankrupted, and the country's assets will be taken over and dissolved to pay back its lenders by some supranational organization.

The only thing you said with a hint of truth was that the Fed is like an engine that serves to move a train. However, the train is off the tracks, not moving the economy forward. The fed is actively destroying the economy by devaluing the USD and destroying the future of this country. Look around you - companies have already started hedging against the dollar and moving into anything that won't surely be devalued at dangerous levels like the USD in the next decade (i.e. Bitcoin). The Fed is being disrupted, similarly to how Amazon disrupted Barnes and Noble, Netflix disrupted BlockBuster, Uber disrupted Taxis, AirBnB disrupted hotels, and so on. The Fed is NOT a not a net positive on society and people are waking up to it. Hence crypto (deflationary in nature) being the highest returning asset in the last decade, appreciating at 200% each year against the dollar, which people are flocking to. The economy will surely be destructured, but it will be away from centralization and the Fed, because it only serves to enrich the monied interests, while putting on a facade that it exists to 'lower unemployment' and 'stabilize the USD'.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/causes-of-the-great-depress...
I'm fine with people editing Wikipedia and contributing to OSM as much as they'd like, but I think each activity is more focused on the 'contributor' than the audience, and I'd rather not subsidize it. I believe that Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, and many other crowdsourcing projects have succeeded precisely because they harness vanity, for laudable objectives. That said, most of the 'contributors' are contributing precious little.

Work-for-pay tends to be more beneficial to others than 'creative expression'-type activities such as writing, painting, or composing music. The vast majority of what people create is worthless to others, whereas much of what people do 'for work' is actually useful to others.
It really does depend upon the consequences of failure. Naturally, I want my children to learn to laugh at themselves when they fall off a bike.

In my case, I taught them this by laughing at myself when I fall off my bike, so I am modelling the outcome I want--them learning to try things, fail, and laugh--rather than some kind of "do as i say" style of parenting.

But even falling off bikes can have an unacceptable worst case. So we insist on helmets. It is bad parenting to allow undeveloped brains to suffer avoidable and entirely foreseeable concussions when reasonable precautions like proper protective gear exists.

I think that sums up our parenting approach: Model the risk tolerance we want to encourage, including both taking risks and managing the consequences intelligently.

After that, it's up to them.
This means I will have to live the rest of my life on the 20% budget, doesn't it?
I don't need any "protections", I need to be left alone. That's how I actually can speak free, feel free and don't worry about my privacy too much (well, as long as I don't use skype, gmail, mobile phone… well, everything is relative, ok?). And honestly I thing that only fools believe in stuff like "free speech protections", although I usually don't try to persuade anybody about all these abstract matters. So, yeah, I'm just fine in Europe without all these "free speech protections" and stuff. I guess it could be better, but I don't feel like leaving to Siberia or some desert island yet.
First of all, thanks for voicing your concerns as it helps hearing from other pet owners. It makes sense that most people are not aware of what happens behind the curtain with the medicine their doctors practice.

I am sure your home vet is a great veterinarian and cannot speak to the quality of medicine they practice as I do not work with them that I am aware of. However, I can let you know that you don't need to look at me as an individual to assess the medicine VetPronto practices as almost no medical decisions are not made by me individually. We actually have a board of veterinarians meeting weekly to ensure our standards of care are the very best as peered review practices are generally the gold standard. I do not know the exact number of years experience combined we have, but it is greater than any individual veterinarian.

As for the technology. This is a huge discussion but let me see if I can address this briefly ass to what makes us different than another home vet. There is a lot of issues regarding the management of pet health care that has not been worked out. Luckily we don't have the same amount of regulation that makes it difficult to create software readily, but it is also not a lucrative business to just make veterinary software. There are also currently no veterinary practices built around technology that I am aware of either which means most record systems actually decrease a veterinarians efficiency rather than improving it and are primarily designed to track billing and inventory. Our software is being built from the ground up ensuring that it allows vets to focus on what they do best, practice medicine.

Finally, we only received funds a less than a month ago and haven't even got our funds from YC yet, so yes...we have very much been bootstrapped although it is debatable if we still are today.

If I didn't answer your question well enough please let me know or you have additional questions, please let me know.
I think it's a pretty unusual situation in an unlawful termination negotiation, yes. That is: having a piece of paper in hand, from the Federal government, undeniably saying government intervention will happen if a settlement isn't reached.

I believe this particular settlement, especially the one for Costa (based on Principal title and 15 years tenure), is going to be a very big number. It's also terrible timing for Amazon with all the anti-trust sentiment and gaffes in the warehouse union situation. I imagine they really want this to go away.
You shouldn't use HN, then. There are mods here.

(Which is good, just like having a bouncer at a bar - punching someone in the face may be someone's genuine behavior, but it's not very welcome.)
Thanks! I wonder why spatial organizations haven't caught on in programming. Maybe the extra degrees of control have more costs than benefits? With rigid tiling, it's easier to switch between panes, layout, etc..

Here's an image of one of my darklang projects https://twitter.com/_paulshen/status/1321872376234082305/pho... My conclusion was that it's an interesting experience but needs refinement for "power usage".

What I want to explore is creating multiple views for the connections you care about. I imagine that would benefit from richer visualization than a list of text. like the ones you mention!
> What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked it didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress.

Not the point I was making. I do not know which option will lead to less death, neither do you, neither do really the scientists (although they have a better idea). However, a full lockdown will lead to more economic loss at least in the short term than a voluntary lockdown. Long-term, as I said, I don't think any of us can say.

> you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people.

Like is currently happening? Yes, my solution wouldn't stop all bad effects. There will be much death regardless, the hope is that the people who are left to die as they chose no protection will "help out" with the number of ICU beds needed in general.

> how would you even check ?

You are in lockdown until you fill in some sort of form with the government, waiving your rights to hospital care in the case of catching Corona. This list is used to make decisions. This part at least is implementable.
I disagree. The word open is superfluous if that's the case. What's the meaning of the word open if not unoccupied or available?

Of course that begs the question, why did they use open instead of unoccupied?

If open is meant to mean bed that can be utilized, then we don't have a true number of beds or a reason why a bed would be closed.

Either way it's confusing but generally the term open as the opposite of occupied for filled. For example, open positions in a company aren't employees, they're vacancies.
"The Elements of Power" by David Abraham
I think making these claims against Jetbrains without firm proof, proof that is disclosed, is poor behavior. I expect that this will turn out to be a false story and if it is, I hope the NYT pays for it financially.
Interestingly, Christianity started out this way too. I was thinking the other day, perhaps accepting the role of a victim allows one to submit to the collective thus allowing a victim society to win against an individualist society.

I also note that military is an interesting mixture of the individualist bravery and the honor of service (non-victimized way of relinquishing control).
I managed to get most of my family to use telegram. I just stopped using whatsapp and convinced a few of them to do so also, the rest came because they couldn't speak to us otherwise.

The key was being stubborn and banking on them eventually wanting to talk to me.
Nobody cares about censorship as long as its about a viewpoint they don't like.
https://odysee.com/ is an example of a YouTube like page built in LBRY. I don't know much about it, but it seems to play videos.
At this point it's obvious: CO2, which traps heat by a clearly understandable and straightforward physical mechanism, is altering the Earth's climate with unknown but likely mostly negative consequences.

That means we can add this fact to an already very long list of reasons that we must go beyond fossil fuels.

I personally don't think the CO2 problem is at the top of that list. The top slot by far belongs to the depletion problem. There is a finite amount of the stuff that is economically recoverable. We don't know exactly where the limit is, but when we hit it -- assuming we have no alternatives -- we will begin a downward spiral toward the collapse of modern civilization. This might also involve global warfare, possibly nuclear, and a "mass die off" of the human species. At the very least all economic growth would cease and with it all opportunity for anyone to advance their condition in life. The pie would begin shrinking, and this would bring a return to a scarcity mentality in all things. An "orderly die-back and return to bare subsistence" is probably the best case scenario.

The fact that our entire modern technological society is absolutely dependent upon a finite source of energy is probably the greatest existential threat that we face. That this isn't talked about more is likely a result of denial in the face of a very terrifying problem. A good way to think about it is to compare it to a planet-killer asteroid that we know is headed our way.

Next up is probably the geopolitical nightmare of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels transfer massive quantities of wealth from (relatively) liberal open societies to brutal totalitarian states where people are beheaded for questioning the dominant religion or dictator. It finances both terrorism and the ideologies behind it. The only alternative way to still get these fuels would be to embark upon a blood-soaked imperial crusade to simply seize these fossil fuel reserves, an alternative that's arguably worse than the existing state of affairs for many reasons.

I'd put the CO2 problem in the third slot below these. The fourth slot would probably belong to the other environmental damages inflicted by fossil fuel mining and use including air and water pollution and the destruction of otherwise valuable land.

Anyone who argues for the fossil fuel status quo at this point is delusional or insane. I personally think this is the greatest problem facing our civilization.
Blaming its problem strictly on speculation is ridiculous. I don't know how to address this. You're saying there needs to be some gentlemen's like code for bitcoin users to never invest it or it doesn't work? Yeah, your currency is broken then. Bitcoin is designed for profitability and investment, that's why people mine it!

This is like saying the ghetto is great, its just the criminals and poor ruining it. Uh, yeah, that's a problem with the ghetto. The criminals and poor aren't going away, as the ghetto favors them. The ghetto is not fine.
Is this the new Apple Death Knell?

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/death_knell
I've been seriously annoyed about that since I started working in one of those open offices. I've read a few articles about it and cannot understand why would someone like to be in such an environment. Stack Exchange's organization/culture seems to be a quite balanced approach, providing both the common areas where people can be together working/relaxing AND a proper space for them to stay focused while working alone on something. Really good to know there are companies trying to get it right instead of cool.
I suspect this is happening to some oil producers as well.

Ex: if a large portion of an operation is a sunk cost, a producer may respond to lower prices by producing even more oil, in an attempt to maintain revenue (particularly if the producer is leveraged and has debt to maintain).

Edit: oops, busted for not RTFA
Only 10 years later we had cell phones and browsers.

> Let’s stop checklisting and complaining and start opening things up and bolting them together again.

Good luck with that. Electronics made in the 80's were a lot more friendly to open up and repurpose (to the individual part level) than what you buy today.
>If Bitcoin were a currency, it'd be the worst-performing one in the world, worse even than the Russian ruble. ...

>But that's not much of a consolation to anyone who bought anywhere near Bitcoin's $1,100 top. Or near $1,000, or $900, or $800, or, well even yesterday's prices.

Looks like the usual Bitcoin trilemma:

- Price goes up? Everyone knows that appreciating currencies can't work.

- Price goes down? Obviously it was a bubble all along and my criticisms are vindicated.

- Price stays flat? Obviously its market cap is too low to support broader usage.

Was this same author praising Bitcoin as the best performing currency of 2011, 2012, and 2013? [1]

I don't want to sound like this all wine and roses; obviously, Bitcoin has its issues. I just hope that when the mob's "head is done spinning, its face is to the front".

(Disclosure: I'm behind understandingbitcoin.us, which is supportive.)

[1] Before anyone says it, I know: a good currency is one that's stable, and the author is criticizing the change in price, not the loss in value. Then why not criticize (or at least mention) the Swiss Franc's recent 30% appreciation?
From the article:
Congress passed the original CFAA in 1984 in direct response to the seminal hacker flick Wargames.
I've never noticed our clothes smelling from the dryer. No one dries on the line here because of all the silt in the air. I am reconsidering my position on the headaches based on another comment. I might be in the wrong there.
The check-summing in PnG is poorly designed. It uses 2 different checksum on top of each other. The format itself checksum each chunk, but then the pixel data is using zlibs compression header that have a second checksum on top of that, using a different algorithm.
You're partially correct.

Mesos was originally an academic project out of UC Berkeley. I'm not aware of what industry connections there were, but the story is not at all similar to Kubernetes and Borg.

Aurora was Twitter's contribution -- a bit missing piece of Mesos at the time. It definitely steered Mesos towards solving for Spark, but I'm really not sure what Mesos was actively solving before then.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171