skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Watching the president of the American Enterprise Institute whine about how the partisan hacks he sponsors don’t get respect among intellectuals is pretty amusing.

To paraphrase Ben Kenobi, you will never find a more wretched hive of question begging and anti-empirical babble than the AEI.

* * *

More generally, I reject the claim of the paper he cites (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430) that changing partisan affiliation among social psychologists is proof that the field has been overrun with leftists, who are driving out all the conservatives via active discrimination, and who have an agenda of proving that conservatives are evil/stupid/lazy/intolerant/....

There are many possible alternative explanations:

* Perhaps the social psychologists’ views have remained consistent while the US Republican party has become more radicalized, causing former political moderates to now fall in naturally with the Democratic party.

* Perhaps academia as a whole or social psychology as a field has lost status or become less desirable as a career, and folks whose ideological outlook emphasizes money and status have decided to go into industry more than before.

* Perhaps the Republican party’s cuts to education funding in general or diversion of funding away from social sciences toward STEM fields (including cutting direct funding for public institutions, cuts to research funding, etc.), attempt to exert governmental bureaucratic control over universities, etc. has changed the minds of formerly conservative-leaning academics away from supporting the GOP.

* Perhaps social psychologists or other social scientists have the perception that Republican lawmakers are disregarding the direct lessons of social science and thus framing policies which are “bad” for some reason independent of ideological bias.

* Perhaps the easy availability of money at institutions such as the AEI, the Heritage Foundation, etc. has swayed conservative-leaning social scientists to give up on universities and peer-reviewed research, and follow the money to these so-called think tanks.

etc.
I don't know of something to refer to, but I don't think the statistics are too hard. The test statistic would be exactly min(sample1) and min(sample2).

Suppose the cutoff sample is distributed according to f(x)H(x-C). Then the probability of the minima of a sample exceeding C+e by random chance, assuming the null hypothesis, is p = (1-\int_C^{C+e}f(x) dx)^N.

So now you have a frequentist hypothesis test. If you make reasonable assumptions on f(x) (non-vanishing near C, quantified somehow), it's even nice and non-parametric.
What possible argument? Simple: This exchange works on a 5-second quanta. All orders arriving within a quanta are treated equally. How is that unfair at all?

Like I said, there are systems that do exactly this.
Already discussed a week ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10401344
Ebay is a great place right now for this stuff. Pennies on the dollar vs what you can get from Digikey.
Desire path
>Science mostly solved that problem decades ago

Medical practitioners strongly emphasize breastfeeding as the ideal form of nourishment for the baby. Formula should be used as little as possible. It's cool that we have a viable alternative solution in formula, but it's still worse than natural breastfeeding.
My keyword was "hardly," as in the capitalist class does not care about the climate. My intention was not to demonize individuals and generalize all people into two types (those who are rich and hate Earth and those who are poor and love Earth). My intention was to give a realistic analysis on the mechanism of capitalism, which is something this author failed to recognize altogether.

By the way, tell your roommate that "AMERICA DOESN'T IGNORE PROBLEMS" is not readable on whatever devices that the 600,000 US homeless people are using.
I think the only reason Groovy is still around today is Gradle. Once Gradle starts declining, Groovy will probably disappear along with it.
After they repurposed the "debug" kernel flag and made it literally unusable with systemd, Linus banned one of their core devs (Kay Sievers) from contributing to the Linux kernel, and I quote:

"I'm not willing to merge something where the maintainer is known
to not care about bugs and regressions and then forces people in other
projects to fix their project."

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420
"That you think the only threat to civilization comes from the right"

That's not what they said nor is it implied.
Since I'm lazy, I'll point out that most of the stuff is indirectly mentioned in this write-up: https://llogiq.github.io/2015/10/03/fast.html

This reminds me I haven't written up stuff for chameneos-redux, which is probably the most fun and over-engineered of them all.

The fasta/Haskell thing I was mentioning are the parts at "The Haskell code does a quite clever alternative" and "the Haskell code just caches them all in an array".

The pre-compacting I mention in k_nucleotide was already done in the Scala implementation.

How parallelism is added also varies. The Scala code does each of the test cases in parallel whilst the Rust parallelizes each internally. (My new Rust code parallelizes even better.)

Several implementation make their own specialized hash table, and there isn't one particular hash table to implement. This is very important since hash table lookups take a substantial fraction of the time.

Note that I pick on Haskell and Scala here only because they have the best hacks, not because they're the only ones doing hacks. (I'd imagine listing all of the differences would take much longer than I have time for.)

thread-ring has lots of different implementations. Some are just scheduled coroutines restricted to a single process, then you have stuff like [1] which uses mutexes, real threads and sets thread affinity. I'm not totally sure what [2] is but I think it's something else entirely. I'm not being too specific here because honestly this benchmark confuses me.

[1] http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

[2] http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test...
I'm not sure how well a pro-rated amount would work. Just because I'm willing to pay X for Y quantity of Z, doesn't mean my order makes sense if the quantity is scaled up or down, so forcing this on all market participants might have some interesting effects. Do you have other markets where this is the case, I would be interested in looking at this in a slightly less theoretical context before I felt comfortable with how the behavior would settle (not that I'm all that knowledgeable about financial markets in general).

> (There's also more complicated rules possibly, like trades only execute when there's a certain demand, or other liquidity based measures. Not sure they're good but it's an option.)

Well, I'm not sure any set of rules isn't able to be gamed in some manner. Larger players will have an advantage as long as rules don't specifically penalize them, as they have all the capabilities of smaller players plus extra capabilities provided by economies of scale and dedicated resources. Even when you specifically penalize specific participants to reduce "unfair" advantages, I think what generally happens is that some participants move into the niche just outside those penalty definitions, to eke some of the prior advantage in the new grey area. This seems to be the norm in almost all regulation, IMO. Not that the regulation is always useless, but you can't game a system without rules, and regulation by it's nature provides more rules to look for specific ways to exploit.
So in this particular case, assuming that First Round's sample size is significant, it may just be that the female founders who seek them out are just on average better than the male ones? I suppose that if women think that the selection process is biased against them, and most do (and it may be) perhaps the less than excellent ones just don't apply, whereas that isn't true for males?
Because competition requires capital investment to be better than the competition. Capital investment reduces what can be taken as profit. Profit should be above all else, so therefore huge corporations have an incentive to encourage regulations that prevent competition. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand thought would happen, despite the fact that it's a glaringly obvious conclusion.

Government regulations and business are both part of an ecosystem we call "the economy." In order for that ecosystem to be healthy, we must balance regulation and business, because when one is too powerful, the economy stagnates causing problems like we had in the Great Recession. We let banks get too big, and they fell on us. Water monopolies always fail. Always.
This actually makes a lot of sense. But I haven't seen a lot of high-impact Mario papers. I mean I've noticed work being done but I didn't realize it is quickly becoming a "thing".
I lived in Hawaii for 4 years (wife is born and raised there). It's a truly beautiful place and I miss it dearly, I miss the family, friends and culture that I came to know and love there.
There's all the normal food, milk, bread etc just as you'd expect anywhere on the mainland. Spam is a bit of an ongoing joke, although they eat a lot in Hawaii and you'll see many specials based around it, it's really not that hard to avoid. Guam eats way more (averaging 16 cans a year per person vs Hawaii's 5 cans) Though they do hold an annual spam jam... http://spamjamhawaii.com/ :D

There are a few reasons we moved, but largely it comes down to cost of living, poor schools and small job market.

My career options on island were pretty limited, and I'd have to be earning crazy money to afford a home & pay for decent schooling for my kids.

Places we could afford to do both would mean putting up with some of the worst traffic jams in the nation for my commute. I took a small pay cut moving to Seattle, which is hardly the cheapest part of the nation, and the money still goes a lot further!
From what I've seen, the US already has pretty aggressive public sector regulation in most areas, more than we seem to have over here in the UK these days. It's still not a complete solution because regulators don't have the resources to be everywhere at once.
I didn't say "just culture"; I said the confluence of social, cultural, and physical factors.

Why does "culture" develop? Because people are naturally evil and black-hearted? These things don't happen in a vacuum, they develop organically because they are the best way to support human and tribal propagation and prosperity. Perhaps some things can and should change, but things that are constant across nearly all successful human societies should be considered fairly well tested.

We should note that it takes a long time to see the full effects of changes to social structures and institutions, generally at least 3-4 generations. If a society is "testing" something and the society itself expires or its success is greatly diminished within 6-8 generations of implementation, the test should probably not be seen as successful.

The West will find that traditional principles that assign gender roles based on that gender's inherent advantages and disadvantages are much more useful than currently acknowledged. Forcing people to do things that they a) don't even want to do and b) aren't well-suited for is a losing proposition, no matter how much outrage you try to manufacture to justify it.
Do you have any guide on setting something like yours?
Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.
I had the great fortune to take a course with Gary Becker

Lucky you. He was great. I never had the chance to take a class from him but it would have been worth a Chicago winter to have the chance.
> Many class-action suits end up with a result of lawyers get $50 million, and everyone who bought a product gets a coupon for more of that product.

Who pays that $50M to the lawyers? It's a zero-sum game, where should the plaintiffs win, the defendant loses big with very little effort on individual plaintiffs' parts.

What other remedy do consumers have against abusive corporations who act in bad faith, knowing full well that individuals won't take 40 or 400 hours out of their life to fight over $300?

I can absolutely see it going the other way as well, where an activist (or sock puppet for a competitor) can rally together a mob of people against whatever company they don't like this week. My response to that is that, in general, companies are in a position to defend themselves and should regard defending these cases as a cost of doing business.

The alternative is to ask consumers (especially those in poverty) to enjoy death by a thousand cuts as dozens of companies each take their pound of flesh from each and every one of them. In this case, the "cost of doing business" takes food off the table.
Because in this context it's a bit dishonest. In most markets, cable companies don't face any direct competition to their higher tiers of service. The only pressures they're subject to are the threats of customers leaving them geographically or an upstart like Google Fiber moving in. Cable companies aren't completely insulated, but they still operate in a highly dysfunctional market where most of what you'd be tempted to call the competition shouldn't properly be regarded as such. And they like it that way.
Ask HN: Any advice for an early startup employee who feels screwed and lonely?
Hi,

2.5 years ago I joined a startup in SF as one of the very first employees. The offer was quite ridiculous, but after doing tons of work and becoming a key element I was able to negotiate again my compensation, and now I have north of 1% ISOs and 165k salary. My role is heavily technical, I built most of the core at the beginning and now I spend my day leading a few teams in the company (the company size is 35 people).

The main problem is that I feel this inner conflict that is deepening every day: I can witness that my productivity and my contribution to the company is huge, but I don't get any satisfaction out of it because I feel like my slice of the pie is way smaller than what I think I deserve.

Also, I feel very lonely in this matter, because all my coworkers are either more junior, less talented or less ambitious than me, and so for them the simple joy of working on interesting problems and getting an equity of 0.0x % is more than enough.

Some solutions I can think of might be:

1) Get a better title (VP of engineering): this is going to be absolutely hard. The founders are extremely stingy and so are the investors, and I've been repeatedly told that in order to aspire to a VP role for a company with our traction you need to have a previous curriculum, which obviously I don't have since this is my first startup experience (I'm 28).

2) Leave: this one would make sense if it wasn't for the ISOs. If I had to leave and exercise my vested share of options, I would have to pay an incredible amount of taxes (because our valuation increased) for a liquidation event that might happen years from now, or never.

3) Ask more money/equity: knowing myself, this would make me genuinely happy for about a year or so, and so might be reasonable. The problem is convincing the founders (and the investors) would be very draining, since I'm already the highest paid technical person.

Have you ever gone through something like this?

Thanks for reading.
Correct

Also, most of systems using busybox shouldn't be running Systemd (or any other 'new' init system to be honest)
I think the conflict concerns Idonesia, not PNG.
> A couple months ago, one VC firm (almost certainly unintentionally) published a study showing bias of this type. First Round Capital found that among its portfolio companies, startups with female founders outperformed those without by 63%.

Well, they also said in their study:

> And we are not claiming that our data is representative of the industry...or even statistically significant.

Also, the wording is "startups with a female founder", not exclusively female founders... I think this is a detail that shouldn't be ignored.

And, the study doesn't show how many companies out of the 300 had female founders! Maybe it was just 1! They also say "Solo Founders do Much Worse Than Teams", so this is an important detail if there are no solo female teams ever backed in their firm! etc etc, the list goes on. Not exactly strong evidence to support the point PG is making, that bias would be easy to detect.

Measuring performance purely in terms of "how much money I make" is one way of doing it, but not the only way. And it wont cover the majority of jobs on the planet (how do you measure performance of someone who stacks shelves in a supermarket?)
You're missing the social value of class action lawsuits.

There are basically three ways to have reasonably well run open markets: individual action, state action, and collective action.

Individual action often makes no sense. If a company shafts me for $10, I'm not going to spent the thousands or millions necessary to prove the error. I'll just write it off and be less trusting next time. But if a company can screw each American out of $10, they've made $3.2 billion, which is a great incentive, and also provides for fantastic legal defense. Net result: a lot of people have bad experiences, reducing consumer trust and making innovation harder.

State action is also often problematic. It's not bad at some things. But especially at HN, we don't want to encourage this as the primary means of market regulation. Governments are slow to move and risk averse. It's easier and safer for them to over-regulate, favoring incumbents and limiting innovation to what they can be persuaded to permit. (See, e.g., the car market.)

Class action, on the other hand, fills an important gap. Companies know that they can't just screw everybody without risking a big lawsuit and a big payout. But plenty of problems get solved without government having to intervene. Class action basically allows for a "forgiveness, not permission" model for regulation. As long as your customers are happy and you treat them fairly, your risk is low.

If class action stops working as a way of redressing grievances, we'll see a lot of people agitating for increased government regulation. As an entrepreneur, I'd hate to see that happen.
Ask HN: How do we get our first sale?
Hello HN,
I'm writing here as I'm running our of options. Me and my wife have decided to invest a good chunk of money to bootstrap our own business. I'm a software engineer (currently employed in London), she has been working with high fashion handcrafted clothing brands for years (we are originally from Italy).

The natural choice we made was to start selling online the same kind of products my wife has been selling for years. The store is: http://polghi.co.uk/

Long story short: we spent months going around Italy to get the best suppliers we could find (italian artisans mostly, which have 0 presence online and that were still interested in selling abroad), we set up the online store and started some heavy campaigns with Facebook and Adwords. I knew form experience that selling online was difficult BUT so far the result is beyond worst: 0 orders.

We have cut all the prices, started promotional campaigns. Nothing seems to work. Any suggestion? Am I missing anything?

This "bootstrap your company" thing is really becoming an emotional roller coaster.
HTMLhouse is more useful if you want to create a small or single-page static site, e.g. [1] -- I'd equate it more to an HTML-enabled pastebin, as far as form and functionality go.

I'd also like to add an option for self-destructing pages and some kind of discovery mechanism; tailor it towards more creative uses of web technologies.

[1] https://html.house/tah2t9kp.html
But class-action suits are ideal when a large number of people suffered a minor monetary loss. How are you going to deal with these cases if only arbitration is left? If these cases are handled on an individual basis nobody will seek redemption. Whether and how much the lawyers or the plaintiffs receive in compensation is not so important in my eyes, what matters is the exemplary effect on businesses.
So uh, what's everyone wearing for Halloween tonight? Here's what the data says
Isn't trivializing their ideology a good thing?
Well. In my vast experience 1 square meter of evaporator produces about 1 liter per day. On the other hand 1 square meter of solar panel makes 200 watts and you need 20 watts/liter/hour on the osmosis machine. So the panel is 10*200/20 = 100 times more "efficient", if the use of land area is the issue here (and if the sun shines 10 hours)
This is something I've been thinking about for a while. However, I approach it from the perspective of "Can we come up with a way that we can combine coding with meditation?"

I'd like something similar to soroban where coding can act as an entirely mental activity. My fascination with terse languages like J and K arise from this same ideal, being able to code only in your head.

I'd be curious to hear other people's thoughts on the desirability or feasibility of some form of algorithms or coding done entirely mentally, as I haven't discussed this with anyone to date.
cooperation by itself is politics ;)
uhhhh procd?
Also tackles above the waist are forbidden. In American Football you can pretty much just throw your entire body anywhere, with unsurprising results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_recharge

> Groundwater is recharged naturally by rain and snow melt and to a smaller extent by surface water (rivers and lakes).
Minority groups will generally underperform when tested by majority groups (i.e. hispanic student white proctor) according to studies though I'm citing from memory so I may be incorrect. Also minority groups have access/insight/credibility with certain consumer groups and cultures majority groups do not and there's no reason to believe this advantage would be measured appropriately by examiners not fluent in that culture. If real-life performance means 'business success' and 'measurement performance' means 'being funded when pitching a startup to a white VCs' then I think that criterion is at its face satisfied.
While I agree with the general sentiment, the article makes a pretty poor argument. One one hand, they cite research saying that gender and racial diversity can improve performance and creativity, and then they go on to talk about the lack of political diversity. If want you want is a diversity of ideas (and political views are only ideas, gender and race are not), then academia is full of competing thoughts about nearly every topic. I surely wouldn't want to force a biology department to hire people who deny that evolution occurs...
For what it's worth, last time I was doing independent contractor work, I used a billing firm, MBO Partners. They took 4% of my gross and treated me as a W2 employee. My taxes would come out of the gross, as would any benefits I elected. The rest would get direct deposited like a normal paycheck. I would have spent more than 4% of my time screwing around with paperwork, so I thought it a pretty good deal. I suspect there are other firms like this, but I liked 'em enough that I used them for 8 years or so without ever looking for alternatives.
Does that assume both samples are identically distributed and the only difference is the cutoff? If it does, then couldn't we just continue to do a difference of means test and still be consistent? If it doesn't, how do you handle identifying the cutoff minima and the two different distributions in a frequentist way?