skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Of course that is what you are suggesting: That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.

You've made it clear that you don't feel safe walking away from a conflict unless your opponent is completely disabled, even if temporarily (but then how do you know they won't come after you later?). I think this is bunk and am quite willing to tolerate the risk that they'll attack again, because I feel confident about my ability to repel such attacks. I have in fact knocked someone down repeatedly, let him get back up, let him attack me again, and and a third time, until he got the message and stayed down.

Yes, this is dangerous, but so are a lot of things. It's dangerous in that it perpetuates a low-level danger in time, but I prefer an ongoing low-level risk to a sudden significant increase in risk. My judgments about risk in real-world situations have so far served me very well. It's true that any given street fight could kill, but it's also true that it probably won't unless you're quite unlucky, so I see no point in altering that probability if I don't need to. This is the same reason I avoid fights in the first place and am indifferent to mere verbal abuse or bluster - it is virtually never in my interest to initiate or escalate a conflict.

Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.

I don't assume they're nice, in fact I make a habit of avoiding value judgments about people because they can so easily be misleading. My experience is that many assailants are cowardly (not nice) and can in fact be scared away with minimal retaliation. It's both risky and wasteful to inflict more harm than is required; I do not, for example, want to become the subject of a police investigation. How you got the idea that I think those who would attack someone else on the street might be nice people underneath their criminal exterior is beyond me.
Whatever happened to the idea that the best way to combat speech is with speech? Yet the "bastion of free speech" Reddit feels it must shut down various communities, probably just sending them elsewhere. Society could benefit from the conversation between those who say unapproved things and those who disapprove of them.
> As an overall system, academic science produces new knowledge at an astounding rate

Maybe. But I can't really imagine how you'd measure that, or what you'd compare it to.

Even if the current system is pretty great, it can only get better with competition from alternative systems, like what's being announced here.
Try lookin gat startup companies, it's much easier. Good luck!
How to find them or do you have links?
Sounds like PR talk to me.
Parent poster wrote, "if I, a Nigerian, want to avoid the bigots and racists online, I can't talk about a lot of stuff."

You replied with an anecdote that illustrates how you got someone else's race wrong, but telling the parent poster that you disagree with his personal experience and coping mechanisms? That doesn't sit right with me.

I don't think you meant it to sound like "you're wrong about how you've learned to deal with bigots"--which would be a pretty awful thing to tell him!--but it did sound that way.

I wonder if there's a way to rephrase your rebuttal with more empathy and understanding.
Are there plans for peer review and highly rigorous verification of results prior to publication?

Hopefully YCR busts some of the myths perpetuated by industry.
It's a terrible, unworkable law.
Ted Nelson believes that Mochizuki is the real Satoshi behind Bitcoin, because of the way both projects were dumped into the world's lap. I just saw his video last night: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDJTGTrEm0
There is also a button dedicated for nothing else but making horse noises in the chat.
But Perl 5 was (and still is) backwards compatible with Perl 4.

This is a whole new language, and should probably be called Larry, or something.
40x sounds pretty conservative to me. I did graduate school in math (did not get a Ph.D.) and my advisor indicated that he assigns problems assuming a 200x multiplier between his capability and the students'. That is, he'd assume that something he could see how to do and could execute inside of a week would be a good thesis problem to keep a Ph.D. student busy for two years.

As far as the 10x programmer stuff... Obviously there are 10x and probably even 100x programmers. They're the experts, and there are not many of them.
Ziggeo Invents API Customer Acquisition Tool – And Freaks Out Customers
Ha well you got the name right, yes. Sadly there's a bit more to it to sell to an enterprise software consumer - here just fill out this 30 page rfp...

Anyway serious answer in parent.
They referenced this concept before introducing the product.
Well at least they didn't worry about the report on leap days.
Predicting the end of the world
Interesting read!
Thanks. I didn't know about this. I'll look into it.

Linking to a tag or several tags is already possible though. It's just not obvious since you don't see those URLs in normal use.

https://bort.io/about.html#faq-url-tags
As a researcher, I've run the numbers on what it would take to start a new nonprofit research institute. Assuming some other sources of revenue (e.g. grants), 10M was actually the sweet spot to get a minimum sustainable group off the ground (about 5 PIs, with postdocs and grad students). This is for math/cs/physics theory, where there are no experimental costs. The IP stance is surprising -- for an independent group, it is tough to give up on a potential source of revenue. Seems like YC itself provides a way to monetize the ideas, though, since some of them will likely feed into the VC side and help the companies.
Well, they mostly support research designed to prevent harmful AI, which is important but hardly the only or best approach to AI research.
You think that defining "most used" by "usage" is shady?
Learn Go and GraphQL and Relay