jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Are there better benefits to becoming a citizen of Paraguay? Do you know how long that would take?
>Your "sustainable food system" is something we can't give to people.

No argument there. They need their own sustainable food system.

We all do, if humanity is to continue (which is all "sustainable" means — able to continue).

How could humanity possibly continue without a sustainable food system? Am I missing something? This seems pretty uncontroversial.
An interesting look into the world of public radio programming and time constraints. While the writeup on the linked page is nice, the podcast itself is filled with a lot more information.
I agree with everything except that "we as a society have chosen" this. A very very tiny portion of people (far smaller than "the 1%") have chosen this.
Lol! Imagine though working in some rural area with no coffee joint, etc.
What a completely unedifying spectacle:

- Overblown "geek rage" over a non-existent DMCA takedown notice and bizarre "legal" arguments

- A company mishandling a security flaw by asking a developer to remove code that exposes the problem rather than simply fixing the problem and leaving the code in wild to demonstrate that the flaw doesn't exist anymore

I use DropBox, although I wouldn't say I depend on it. What this episode did make me appreciate is the degree to which DropBox is a closed product - there may be good commercial reasons for this but as a consumer I'd rather use a service that has at least an open and documented interface (even if the implementations are still proprietary).
It's what www.yourpane.com does, but when I submitted it here I got little to no love...
There is also the possibility that extraterrestrials exist and communicate in ways we can't conceive of.
your investors took an absurd risk

If there's life out there, we'll probably find it eventually.

Considering life is a binary condition (there or not there) and we haven't found anything to strongly indicate the odds of life existing elsewhere are very small, I certainly wouldn't call the odds of finding life absurdly bad.
The Ballpark site has the CTA at the right bottom part of the page as well. So even they are following the principle/assumption rather than neglecting it.
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia", which, in English, means "for example". Maybe dealing with core dumps or understanding how the JVM works hasn't been relevant to you, but for any competent (let alone "strong") engineer/programmer I'd expect them to have familiarity with a rough equivalent to those kinds of things for their own systems.
Well, what's the alternative? Income is only illegal after trial and conviction, and that may not be black and white. If you are a gardener driving a truck that fails emission regulations, you may at some point be fined, but otherwise you just pay taxes on your earnings like everyone else?
> but you can stay in Congress/Senate/Parliament for life if re-elected.

It gets even worse when you look at the actual approval ratings and re-election numbers, this a system created to serve career politicians and nothing more. When you see the approval rating is in the lows 30s, abut approval rates are in the 90s, something is definitely wrong as in need of a massive correction.

Andrew Yang found this out the hard way and his lobbying efforts in Washington to help get the 2nd stimulus checks approved can be pretty much summed up as congress was oblivious that the People needed further financial assistance. That is how far detached they are from reality, I think this recent stunt pulled in the capital by blind ideologues served as a warning to how fast things can devolve.

The US experiment showed great promise and had amazing prospects for a desirable model that Human Civilization could aspire and achieve, but much like its predecessor (Rome) it too decayed into oblivion due to the inherit and predictable fact that power corrupts. Human's cannot to be trusted with such power and to believe otherwise is to fall back on to this absurd notion of a chiefton caste system, that really on serves the upper tier of Society and creates a poorly incentivized system that ensures by the time you're even a possible candidate you're already so marred by the corruption you're just as bad as you what you wanted to change.

I really do want things to get better, not just in the US, but on the entire Earth as we have such a limited window of opportunity to live up to our potential as Species; but so long as we abide by these whimsical make-believe popularity contests--with people we frankly couldn't or wouldn't leave our pets under even the most dire circumstance--who then in turn act as the arbiters of everything aspect in Life that matters and use the pubic purse for personal largess we will always succumb to the same result.

Software engineers at FAANG really should be working on a protocol of governance that automates all the decision making congress could and would do with it's priority on rolling out a proper beta in the next 5 years, that could actually be suitable challenge for them to redeem their squandering talents and skills instead building this horrible panopitcon.

Remember, those rabid Q-anon/conspiracy guys are just as much your fault as they are Trumps/Fox news when you look at what most of you people do everyday. And it isn't until they do something as stupid as they did this week that it becomes obvious to those who did it.

But, hey: it's just money, right?
> Yet governments insist newbuilds to be on electric heating

Which governments are those?
While I think the comparison is a bit unfair, it does raise an interesting dilemma. I really don't know what you do in that situation. I don't think their government would be considered the trusted authorities on the matter, but who would be? At the same time Twitter is not a Russian company and does not have a large Russian presence that I know of. Are they under any moral obligation to help maintain free and fair elections there? Where they may feel like they are for the US.
Same here. Emails are much more important to keep.
Greenwald is absolutely spot on here. Also, I didn't know about Rep. Barbara Lee before, what an incredibly smart lady.
Unless you are approaching a red light with a right turn, and intend to go straight. I wanted to turn, now you're in the way damnit!!
I mean your phone number. WhatsApp finds contacts by phone number, and messages them over SMS if they are not themselves on WhatsApp. (At least, I thought it did?)

So I'm saying I assume the situation after deleting WhatsApp is the same as if you'd never had it, SMS.

It wouldn't make sense for User B deleting WhatsApp to cause B's phone number to disappear from User A's contacts.
I live in a tropical climate so I'm completely clueless on heating systems but has municipal steam heating been completely abandoned? It seems more efficient than both individual gas or electric heaters once you take conversion loses into account
Interesting point. You could argue that a (good) counterfeit Louis Vuitton bag or Rolex provides the same functionality as the original, without the 90% tax to the rights holder.

So, maybe the situation is quite analog: The paper you download is actually more or less the same as the original, but you haven't paid the rights holder, so it's counterfeit.
This is certainly the best advice. Personally I find Twitter to be the worst of the worst forum formats, and it bugles my mind that anyone actually enjoys using it.
You can do functional programming in Lisp, but even the wiki page for GOAL says "GOAL encourages an imperative programming style". Not to mention most Lisp data structures being mutable if we're talking purely functional.
Yeah, but it doesn't the Trackpoint buttons.. which makes it infinitely worse.
Except in some cases you may have a way of securely communicating the key at an earlier point in time.

For example, you generating a 1TB key before leaving on a trip you could imagine a VPN set up that encrypted 1TB of traffic in a way that was theoretically unbreakable by someone sniffing the traffic only.
No, think of the following scenario: you and your friend know that you want to communicate in the future about something, maybe the outcome of some future event. You generate a long random key, and somewhere later in the future, you send the information using the pre-shared key.

It's a real encryption, much-much better than basically anything before because it's really unbreakable.
I think it might be important to note that while the terms map and reduce do come from Lisp, they're not one-to-one with what these functions do in Lisp. The original MapReduce paper mentions the borrowing, but doesn't really go into specifics. There's a good paper by Ralf Lämmel that describes the relation that MapReduce has to "map" and "reduce" at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.104.... . I liked this paper much better and found it the most informative functional explanation to MapReduce (note, it's in Haskell).

I think MapReduce is really part of a more general pattern where you have an (in more Haskell-y terms) unfold (anamorphism) to a foldr (catamorphism). If your operations on the items in your intermediate set of data in the MapReduce are associative/commutative, you can work out parallelization more or less for free. It's pretty cool stuff, and really not that complicated when you sit down and think about it.
Like the conventional wisdom that house prices can only go up? Or there's no more boom and bust? There is no conventional wisdom, it's all speculation, especially as it tends to play out over generations and not political terms.

We've got a strong communist partially planned economy in a capitalist market, which has a currency that's got a weird valuation from a centrally planned bank fighting a currency war.

And that bank is deliberately manipulating the price of the dollar.

When has it happened before? So what wisdom can there be?

To say that it's FUD and that the Fed isn't going to at least consider what to do about that and they are going to always stick to a particular course regardless of the actions of the Chinese seems premature.

How the hell can anyone know what's going to happen? Or how the Chinese are going to act in the next 5-10 years?
I agree about scikits.learn. Olivier Grisel did a great job introducing it at Pycon and I find that the documentation makes it more inviting for those new to machine learning.
C# 4.0 didn't exist when the article was written in 2006.
Haha, you're right. I was actually mis-remembering. I did spend $13.37.
I was actually just making fun of camel case convention in Java. Your title was fine.

I should have wrapped it all in <snark> tags. :)
This is disappointing. New Zealand seems to be a pretty sensible country and I'd hoped for better.
I think the author's point is reasonable, that Medium attempts to act as a 'YouTube' for articles. However, I believe there are key differences at this point in Medium's evolution (I do believe they will change their model over time).

For me, thinking writing an article, Medium offers the following: a possible readership/distribution (assuming I get picked up by editors), no long term commitments, no investment in set up (as opposed to a hosted personal blog), and little friction in posting.

As an idea, having a streamlined essay posting & sharing process seems good, however I think that Medium will need to address the following issues going forward:

* Serious authors will eventually want to build their own identity/brand. I think much of posts in HN that criticise Medium comes down to this issue. When you write for Medium, you almost seem to detach yourself from the work. YouTube addresses this problem by offering channels with revenue sharing. This means that the amount of time required to publish a piece of quality output for free can be justified to some degree. For Medium though, I see this limitation as restricting its content to be published by those that do not intent to write regularly and do not already have an outlet for their writing.

* Dealing with signal vs noise. Assuming the above is not addressed, and Medium continues to be a place where semi-serious, or novice, authors essentially practice their craft, then there will be a lot of crap for people to sift through in order to read some content that appeals to them. If Medium editors are tasked with this job, that in itself would be a manual process that would be difficult to scale.

* Curating content when authors have no commitments. When people write a blog, it needs a title, which will usually indicate what the general topic of the blog is about. Although authors can deviate from time to time, I find most successful blogs are generally on-topic as the author develops expertise both in the area of interest and in his/her ability to communicate their ideas surround the topic. However, on Medium, this commitment is no longer required. You can sign in, write, and your output is only loosely linked to you as an author. This means that there is no simple predictor of content category and quality.

Personally, I would very much like to see a platform where people can post, be read, and ideally get some compensation for their writing if they can find an audience; basically YouTube for writers as the article states. However, I think Medium is still a fair way away from that model at this point.
I was just thinking the other day how much I like sourceforge. Their site has continued to improve. It's much more usable now than it used to be. I'm ok with sf monetizing their site the best they can. They've long been an advocate of open source and I appreciate an alternative to github. It's too bad the shakeup with Dice and split off of ThinkGeek, but it makes sense. Keep in mind, sf was the alternative to sites like Cnet and download.com which were/are far worse. I'm thankful for what they've done for driving FOSS adoption over the years, especially for authors on $0 budgets before the era of abundant cloud computing on the cheap, which we realize now had significant hidden costs, including human rights.
Good god!
It was launched several months ago - on April 1st.
> You just can't have a place where anyone with enough money (a few k EUR/USD) can perform murders without any reasonable risk of being exposed.

I strongly suspect that we will see a whitelist-endorsed-by-some-reputation-broker approach sometime in the future. The suggestion of this kind of thing usually creates a big backlash among many Bitcoin supporters (for good reasons IMO). But eventually there will be many folks using Bitcoin without any ideological attachment to it, and they'll be lured by the appeal of interacting with agents endorsed by some other party.
See https://github.com/orthecreedence/wookie, a fast app server that uses libuv (very much in the same vein as Woo).
Fox should not be present in this list. In no way is what Fox & Friends doing journalism. It's not even worthy of being described as an impersonation of journalism a la Wolf Blitzer and co. on CNN or the cavalcade of idiots on CNBC. Giving fox & friends an award for bad journalism, even the worst journalism, is actually giving it credibility that it has earned the right not to have. It is literally beneath this sort of contempt. If it were written in a satirical novel the critics would call the reality of fox and friends an unrealistically drawn hyperbole.
You may also be interested in IMDB history http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?history
It's interesting that the tone of the blog post suggests a desperation about getting into YC, rather than the old adage of wanting to build something that people actually want to use.

It's also interesting that HN is full of people who talk about a higher education bubble, but a YC bubble mysteriously seems to be off-topic here.

(Note that I love and use a lot of YC companies)
Its really fascinating to watch amazon re-learn/re-implement the lessons IBM baked into mainframes decades ago. Once you get out of shared-nothing/web-scripting land you realize that I/O is much more important and difficult than cpu. What amazon calls EBS IBM has been calling "DASD" forever. I wonder if there are any crossover lessons that they haven't taken advantage of because there just aren't any old ibm'ers working at amazon.
I essentially know zero Haskell, so consider me below a n00b for reader-level. I may not be your target. And I may be making massive, not-even-beginner-level mistakes in my understanding. Feel free to tell me so, or resort to "it's complicated, read book X", I'll do so if I have time :)

The first two articles in the series (which I read after posting the comment - I never knew Haskell worked that lazily, so that was a bit enlightening) seem aimed at a pretty introductory crowd. Text and images flowed together well, and they were easy to understand. Though I don't follow the "gift card" vs "thunk" differentiation - you have this in the first article:

>... the Haskell heap is a heap of presents (thunks).

>... Presents tend to have names, and sometimes when you open a present, you get a gift card (data constructor) telling you where the rest of your presents are.

And in the second, you have this for "indirection":

>Unlike gift-cards, you have to open the next present (Haskell doesn’t let you evaluate a thunk, and then decide not to follow the indirection...)

"gift-cards" are never explained as having any properties, and it seems to be saying they are the contents of (some) thunks. Which you can't see without evaluating, which would force you to follow the indirection, which means gift-cards do what? Describe indirection without forcing you to follow them? If the heap is thunks, this seems contradictory.

---

I think the part that lost me the most was the end of the 3rd article, with this:

>If you’re unsure when a thunk is being evaluated, add a trace statement to it, and add some extra print statements in your IO code to separate various stages of your program. If ghosts are being lazy behind your back, the trace statement won’t show up in the right place.

Followed by the images showing no trace output. Given the opening, and the "ghost" retrieving the result, and that Mr. Trace is "lazy"... it, too, seems contradictory. I want to think it has already been evaluated, so the trace won't be triggered, but the ghost and "lazy" is implying otherwise given the earlier examples. And "won't show up in the right place" doesn't seem to be supported in a useful way by zero trace statements. Though it also sounds like evaluating the package somehow retrieved the value of X without triggering the trace around it, which seems like it would make Haskell horrifyingly difficult to debug.

That may all be resolved by my better understanding the system, or a different image, or more text following it - "won't show up in the right place" is a bit of a comprehension-cliffhanger to end on. I'm not entirely sure. Overall though, the third seems more fractured than the first two, especially around using terms and behavior that aren't really explained.
If we ask instead how many nonzero digits there are in 2^n, there's actually a known lower bound on this, due to Cam Stewart, though it is unfortunately quite tiny - on the order of (log log n)/(log log log n), much smaller than what empirically appears to be the case.

In fact, the statement is much more general: Say you have two bases A and B (such that no power of A is a power of B, to prevent triviality), a base-A digit a, and a base-B digit b. For any n let L_A,a(n) denote the number of non-a digits in the base-A expansion of n, and L_B,b(n) similarly with B and b. Then for any n, L_A,a(n)+L_B,b(n)>(log log n / (log log log n + C)) - 1, where C is a constant depending only on A and B. So while it's certainly impossible to say "large numbers have complicated base-A expansions", it is in some sense possible to say that they can't simultaneously have simple base-A and base-B representations!

In particular you get a lower bound on number of nonzero digits (or more generally non-b digits) of powers of A written to base B by just taking n to be powers of A and taking a=0.

Paper: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/PM_Dept/Homepages/Stewart/Jour_...

Unfortunately, not only is the lower bound tiny even asympotically, but the constant involved is absolutely huge. (The paper doesn't explicitly state how to compute this constant, but once I was trying to bound below the number of nonzero digits in powers of 2 written to base 3, so I traced through all the computations and references, and it's ridiculously large, much too large for what I was trying to do... I forget just how large, except that it was the sort of number most conveniently described as being "about 10^[something]" rather than in words.) So again, not close to what appears to be true empirically.
Yes, super powers!

I went to a high school where the drama department did at least one play a year in ASL. Brought in instructors from the local deaf community, and all the drama kids learned it.

This was also business genius, because it basically guaranteed ticket sales. A huge number of deaf people in the area would show up for every such play, year after year. Even parents with kids at the school generally stop coming to plays after their kids graduate, but this audience was loyal on the scale of decades.

It also meant that a significant chunk of the student body was now able to communicate in/across a noisy room. During assemblies and stuff, you'd see a dozen conversations in progress, not making a sound.

Or, communicate near-silently. Clothes rustle and certain signs involve patting, but neither of those sticks out the way voices do. Coordinating a prank behind the teacher's back....
I don't think that's abusing their monopoly, it's acknowledging that they are a monopoly and so they should be held accountable as a wholistic entity.

I don't have a legislative outcome in mind, but I would like to point out that "Do Not Track" program was an attempt to do exactly what your second paragraph suggests, it just had no teeth and was entirely voluntary. I really don't think it's too big of an ask to not track someone flagging they don't want to be tracked, and if it takes regulation to do that then so be it. Ad-tech needs a wake up call to start behaving more ethically.
The problem with Bitcoin is that there is literally no competition between currency and store of value except the block size. If anything, Bitcoin being used as a currency adds legitimacy and thus would strengthen Bitcoin over the long term. People who dismiss usage of a cryptocurrency as a means of payment really don't have the long term picture of the currency in mind. They're just in it to make a quick buck.
Only visible on mouse over is not good for accessibility or usability. "less visible" is a usability anti-pattern.
This is a philosophical question regarding "value".

Even a pathetic stock like GME has some "value" due to a manifestation of assets, income and growth/earnings potential. An yes, irrational beliefs and expectations can play a role in determining this "value" as well.

Bitcoin is nothing but electrons. It has no real world manifestation at all --- no assets, income or growth. It provides no real world function. It's value is derived purely from recursive speculation --- the idea that ever more people will come to speculate in the speculation thus perpetuating it and driving the speculated "value" ever higher.

As they used to say in school, it should be "intuitively obvious" that this game of musical chairs can't and won't continue forever. At some point, reality will intrude and all that will be left is a pathetic, non-functional excuse of a currency that almost no one uses to buy anything in the real world.
I wonder though, could they and still get approved by Apple? Apps have to have some level of minimum functionality to pass review. You can require a sign in but I wonder if you could require tracking.
How do you find books that others aren't reading (and are interesting to read)?
I read it as "Now you can browse privately, and [therefore] other people who use this device won't see your activity."