skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree so much with this. Capitalism can work well or it can work poorly. The devil is very much in the detail. If people weren't naturally lazy and greedy any system would do just fine. But at the end of the day every system must harness individual greed to work for the greater good. Capitalism uses competition to do this. Socialism and communism rely on the government to do this. But the government contains people that are never able to be entirely focused on the needs of the people. All these systems start to fall apart when greed is not restrained properly.
Thirty. Old enough that by now I should probably know better, but old enough to know that if I haven't learned by now, I probably never will.
The cynical example:

- People live in countries

- countries levy taxes to be paid in "real money"

- banks deal with the "real money"

- BTC exchanges have to work with these banks + gov't
I'm more having a quiet giggle about what appears (from here in Australia) to be a rather noticeable wave of media coverage and memes from the US regarding "Smashed avo on toast"!

My girlfriend will violently disagree with me, but I think avocados are a bit ick really, and yet affording an actual _house_ anywhere near where work is is basically an impossible dream for nearly everyone I know... and my being able to afford one has nothing to do with my breakfast habits (or frankly, the fact I skip breakfast everyday)
I have zero dog in this fight from a professional standpoint, but you should reflect on why your behavior is frustrating so many people here. A bunch of smart, technical people are venting and saying "IBM says a bunch of shit and doesn't deliver." You then come in and say, "I'm from IBM, tell me your concerns and they will be put in front of the right eyes. Change needs feedback." It completely lacks concreteness, humanity, or even basic detail. It's the same sort of pseudo-sales-y cantrip that most of the people here are complaining about in the first place.

You know who got this right? Fucking Dominos, of all companies. They took a hard look at themselves and said, yeah, we've been making a shit product. We don't want to do that any more. So here's what we're doing.

If you want to get a community like this to respond, you need to put the onus on yourself first. Don't go "hey, explain to us what's wrong." You need to figure that out on your own! At least pitch some possibilities. Show some evidence that you've put in the work before crowdsourcing your five year plan. Otherwise you just look lazy and like you want the community to fix your business. And that isn't their job.
The only European region is in Germany which makes regulatory requirements a bit more difficult. I wonder why they went there rather than Ireland.
So what you're saying is that my healthcare plan will be more expensive and is guaranteed for a year at most, and maybe less if Republicans get their way?

Yeah, I'm not doing that.
Ask HN: Google Cloud limits you to 5 projects per billing account: why?
Recently started doing work with Google Cloud Platform, and as much as I like it I'm having difficulty understanding WHY certain decisions got made. I have approximately 40 projects in the developer console, and I've set up a billing account and I have 5 projects attached to the billing account. I tried to attach a 6th project and I get this odd error message "You have reached the limit of projects on which you can enable billing. You can request an increase in your billing quota if you need to enable billing on additional projects.". I wouldn't actually care, except that you can't use certain things without a billing account attached to the project (like Cloud Storage). Unfortunately without Cloud Storage you can't use Cloud Functions (which is actually what I want to use). I've applied for the quota increase using the always helpful form, but I'm quite confused as to WHY you'd need this limitation? Why only 5 projects before you need to request a quota increase? I'm assuming there is some deeper data point driving that limitation: wondering what that might be. Right now it is just frustrating that they have introduced an organizational structure with no direct cost impact (as far as I can see) and then restricted its use.

Also hoping if there is someone from the Cloud team lurking here on HN (looking at you @boulos) could I get an assist?
The air handler is a Bryant. The motors have been a General Electric X13 (the original patent-holder for the X13 electronically commutated constant-torque PWM motor controller), a Regal Beloit "Evergreen" X13 OEM replacement, and now a Nidec X13 motor.

These motors are microcontroller-based. Apparently there was a rash of bad GE X13 motors in the early 2000's traced to bad thermistors. Unfortunately the board is potted in an insulating compound that makes board-level repair rather impractical.

My first motor's controller failed after about 8 years. It was cheaper to just buy a new motor vs. replacing only the controller. The second motor's rotor started grinding against the stator after about 13 months. I pulled the controller from that motor and installed it on the first motor (since it was near-perfect duplicate of the original motor). That ran for 14 months before the second controller failed.

I've been running the third (Nidec) motor for about 2 months. I'll be interested to see how to holds up long-term.
A lot of people are replying to you talking about lifespan.

But I have read a ton of conflicting studies about this, and there are definitely some meta-studies which indicate it's rather difficult to drink enough to make your mortality worse than a non-drinker.

In other words for all cause mortality, moderate drinkers > heavy drinkers > teetotalers

Same with alcohol's affect on obesity. Counter intuitive.

I am skeptical of those studies, but in any event they exist and there's a lot of controversy here. I also agree one can very very easily be fooling themselves about a substance but the assumption that you are not self aware is ideology based.

Before we demonized substances there were countless examples of people who indulged heavily and seemed no more or less happy than their peers. I think our social standards are skewing the conversation and that's too bad.

Some people have a problem with alchohol. Some people really don't. And for all of them it's their determination to make for themselves and something I should have no opinion about. Like all life choices.

I humbly suggest others try taking the same attitude.
I eat avocado toast and I've never even seen that shit on a menu. I discovered it on my own. Somehow this 'phenomenon' is still news. Not everything has to be a 'thing'.
>Plus, it misses the point: in the event of something able to take out something crucial to the entire US library system for any appreciable length of time, the librarians themselves would most likely have far more pressing concerns in their hands. And that would be our new single point of failure.

I'm not exactly sure if I'm following you, but the general idea of this kind of "resilience" is to introduce enough safety / backup measures at all points in the society so that there is less things that hinge on "single point of failure".

The scenario I had in mind was a national grid of a much smaller country going down. (Apparently bringing up all the power plants back online is not as straightforward operation as flipping some switches 'on'.) For example, in conjunction with other crisis (say, conventional war with cyberattack component) that would turn out to taking much longer than anticipated (because aren't they all "over by Christmas"), so there might be an adversary interested in keeping it down.

And the libraries are not the only institutions handling critical data that used to be stored on paper but now exist on computers. The particular solution of retaining backup paper card system might be silly or otherwise prove infeasible at closer inspection, but what kind of backup systems the current institutions have?

edit. Looking at the rest of the comments, smkellat might have provided a splendidly simple answer upthread. At least, concerning libraries.
"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"
Thanks for sharing.

> but it wasn't the alcohol that made him difficult to be around. It was just his personality.

I've heard of that and that people often use alcohol to self-medicate or to ease social anxiety for example. They soon enough learn that they can function better if they drink.

My grandfather was a bit that way, I only have fond memories of him being warm, and kind when he was drunk. When sober he was mean, cold and not very approachable. He fought in the WW2 and drove the Germans all the way to Berlin, got wounded twice, saw pretty horrible things I imagine, but never talked about it. But probably had some effect on his drinking as well.
This would certainly be possible but would require a major change in gov't research funding, including many extra billions for drug R&D, "productionizing" research, and large scale clinical trials; since a "no benefits allowed" industry wouldn't be investing to create drugs like this one.
Perhaps because they charged $60 million for it?
I loved your dissection of classic corporate-speak!
PyQt5 tutorial
I think the concern is that if you have two disks die it is not a big deal, unless those two disk happen to be of the same pair[1], then most likely all data is lost.

[1] if you're not careful, this is actually very likely to happen. If you purchase 2 disks at the same time, and they are under the same usage patterns (which they will be when working in a pair), under the same temperature then they are very likely to die at the same time.
Dyrii – iCloud Based Journal/Diary App for iOS and Mac
This is pretty neat, $30/year. I find it admirable from them to do this (mimicking AWS).
And yet, you can see people buying expensive avacado toast. What does your anecdotal evidence add to the conversation?
There commands above are suggesting two tunnels, appropriate for when both parties have private IP addresses behind NATing routers. This requires a rendezvous server with a publicly visible IP address, The first (with -R) forwards the listening port of the local private server to the rendezvous server:

ssh -nNT -R 8080:localhost:80 rendezvous.example.com

This allows connections to the private local server from processes on rendezvous.example.com which connect to their localhost:8080. This requires configuring "GatewayPorts yes" on the rendezvous server, which is disabled by default. The person you are sharing with then sets up their tunnel to using the forwarded port:

ssh -L 8081:localhost:80 rendezvous.example.com

(port number changed to distinguish between the endpoints) This creates a tunnel from their localhost:8081 to rendezvous.example.com:8080, which is then forwarded to port 80 on your server that you wanted to share.

Both tunnels are encrypted. While traffic analysis is still possible, the tunnels also obscure the details of each request; eavesdroppers only see the tunnels as a stream of encrypted data regardless of how many GET/POST requests actually happen.

If one side has a public address that can be directly accessed, the rendezvous server is not needed; just use one tunnel. The fact that we ever need a rendezvous server is part of the incredible damage IP Masquerading (private IPv4 addresses behind NAT) has done to the internet. Working around "party lines" is incredibly frustrating.

If you're setting up many forwarded ports, it may be easier to use a SOCKS proxy server (ssh option -D <local_proxy_port) instead of many "ssh -L" tunnels. The other side (-R) will be the same.
I've been programming for a billion seconds since the timestamp was in 500 M. Good ol days with Turbo Pascal and Clipper Summer 85, now it's all about Swift and Kotlin.

Time flies.
>>I think avocados are a bit ick really

Don't smash the avocado. Cut it up in slices and put it in a toasted baguette. Add sliced cherry tomatoes (yellow ones are best), salt, olive oil, and onions. Maybe some cheese of your choice (provolone or feta) too if you would like, though not necessary. Delicious.
Who said I only drank four beers a day? I said I exceeded that mark, I didn't say I aimed for it.

That said, the definition of a "standard drink" is, in the United States, any drink containing 14g of alcohol. And while neither you nor I nor anyone else who doesn't actually have a problem is picking drinks to drink based on how many grams of alcohol they contain, it's still a measure that's probably useful to know. At the very least so you can silently judge while frowning at yourself in a mirror late at night in a seedy bar.
They already died once, in 2009.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reor...
> That is, unless you need to target some specific library version that's higher or lower than the usually available, incompatible with the usual version, and you don't want to have a statically-linked release variant. E.g. something that would work only with Qt5.2 but not with Qt5.6. Don't see why not to just throw it all in a tarball and call it a release. Saw this done many times, I just unpacked it, ran it - and it worked.

In this hypothetical (I hope) example, you've just subjected your users to unpatched vulnerabilities like this one: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2014-0190
Maybe. My intuition is that k8s is going to lose its luster once people actually have to do a little math related to its costs; while I think there are real reasons for something like it in on-prem environments, I think the cloud-in-your-cloud-so-you-can-cloud-while-you-cloud approach currently being rolled out is profoundly unwise. (Which is to say: k8s is functionally something to weld together to make an OpenStack alternative--such as it is--rather than a layer to plop on top of one.)

Docker...yeah. We're stuck with it there. And their historical security posture doesn't make me super excited, but...yeah.

I hate when you're right. But you usually are.
Finally someone publishes what everybody in the industry has long since known, especially in healthcare.
Try it with an egg on top, cooked over easy to over medium. Trust me. It's gonna be amazing.

And maybe a dusting of red pepper flakes and a little lemon juice.
I'm sort of in the same camp. I don't drink every day, but when the mood hits it just makes everything more fun. My dad drank every day. The first thing he did when he got home from work was make a Manhattan and he had a glass with him until he went to bed. He was never aggressive, cruel, or unpleasant when he drank, just relaxed and happy. It definitely affected his health as he got older, and there was a period where he stopped. He ended up dying of liver cancer in his seventies, which was metastatic from lung cancer (he was a smoker until his fifties) but I'm sure the drinking didn't help matters.

Interestingly I've never used any other intoxicants. I've never smoked tobacco or weed, never used hallucinogenics or anything else. Booze is enough and I enjoy it. These days it's mostly whiskies in the 100+ proof range. Nice to have neat and just sip. I don't drink beer much anymore.

I think everyone makes decisions about what they like and don't like in life. Some people like to drink. So what. We all end up in the ground eventually.
I had a relative that was a high functioning alcoholic, until he wasn't. He could show up to family functions, be completely charming and entertaining, and still was a degenerate alcoholic drinker in private to the suffering of his family.

After many attempts at sobriety, he finally died in a hot tub. He was found much later than one would want if cleaning up was a concern. Think "soup". My relative, his wife, was questioned and presumed a murderer until a full investigation was concluded.

“I’ll sleep when I’m dead"... indeed.

This author's fetishization of the father's drinking habit creeps me out a bit.
That's blatantly not the issue, as supported by the actual facts of the global economy.

The French have seen their wages grow at 1/4 to 1/2 the typical rate of American wage growth for the last decade. They do not lack for collective bargaining.

The American median wage is higher than the German median wage. The Germans do not lack for collective bargaining.

The American economy and median wage has outperformed: France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, Britain, among many other developed nations.

The American median wage is also higher than: Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Germany, France.

The American median wage is so high, nations such as Britain barely qualify as matching up with our poorest states.

So much for your theory.
Can someone shed light the significance of his extra terrestrial life equation:

N = R × N(Earth) × F(Life) × F(Intelligence) × F(Communication) × L

The individual components are quite straightforward. What I don't get is that it seems like breaking one problem down into several more unknown problems none of which really help. In fact, it seems a harder to know the individual frequencies than it would be to actually find any single ET life. Even if we found life, we still wouldn't have a much of a clue of the frequencies (unless, I suppose, the ET life had mapped or sampled the universe and shared that knowledge with us or gave us FTL tech -- one can dream!).

Other discussions have focused around approximation of the # of habitable planets, which makes total sense.

I guess my question is what knowledge or insight would enable us to estimate the frequency of life occurring?
Horseshit.

Christian mythology covers (by definition) the entire mythos. That means all the crazy just-post-Christ cults all the way up to the theosophists in the 19th century (and the modern faith healers, snake handlers, etc. . .)

Pretending like there is some canonical "pure" period is to ignore history in general as if you aren't living in it.
A concern is that if ever your product on this platform gets big, friction with the (often unpredictable) Chinese gov and policies will become a liability.

example : your product displays news. Some of these might considered not acceptable by the Chinese govt and cause you to get shut down or blocked
Yea, but that neatly skates past the point that a billionaire is critiquing tens of millions of americans (more than a hundred million? Certainly close.) spending habits based on a menu item. This is a clear case of lazy criticism without much substance.

Kids, don't buy $8 avacado and toast if you want to use that money later. There, I said something just as useful without writing off a substantial portion of the population as being bad with money.
> nonetheless you could easily buy a $180,000 property with just that change alone after 4 years.

Sure. Now consider this, avo toast for $8 is more of a brunch thing than an everyday thing. 2 servings per week tops. $832 savings per year, takes 216 years to save up for a $180,000 home.

Also 1-bedroom apartments in the places where avotoast is $8 cost more around $800k.
>To a first approximation, cutting a habit of $8/day for 200 days/year would immediately raise your net worth by ~$20,000 in my eyes. You can't pay your down payment in net worth, but nonetheless you could easily buy a $180,000 property with just that change alone after 4 years.

What? What does that even mean? $8 a day for 200 days/year would be $1,600 a year. That's basically nothing. $6,400 is not a down payment on $180,000.
As soon as I saw "now with Watson" on H&R block's windows, I knew it was over.
It's stuff like this that makes me wonder how big the gap is between disaster planning in large scale computer infrastructure (like AWS), and what will happen when there is an actual major disaster like a large earthquake.

The amount of confidence people have in their ability to plan for contingencies seems to go down in proportion to their exposure to hardware. Complex systems are endlessly inventive when it comes to finding ways to fail.
I don't even bother with the toast, just eat it with the spoon from the shell. Is that weird? I am sure I am not the only one.

The reason I like them so much, is they remind me when I used to climb walnut trees to get green walnuts. The avocado somehow tastes like that white unripened walnut meat.
>> This applies to all ML work, why is Watson exempt from it?

>I'm not following, Watson was most assuredly not exempt from it.

Apologies, I meant it as not having clean data with badly tuned models should be obvious root cause of failure to the analysts who are familiar with this industry. As in it may take more work over time to improve the situation, and that this problem occurs commonly in other areas of AI/ML as well.

>> Conversely if this the canonical failure case, why's everyone so harsh on Watson?

>Because they were attempting to use Watson to help make potentially life-and-death decisions?

Touche. I have no arguments here.
The original comment was made by an Australian, who was essentially saying "young Australians are not frugal enough to buy property", despite real house prices growing much faster than inflation or wages and spending by young people on dining out/entertainment being lower than past generations. It's actually a reference to this [1] tongue-in-cheek article which, while obviously a joke, touched a nerve amongst young people in a city where the median house price is 1.1M AUD/850USD. Also, other issues with your maths aside, $180,000 properties don't exist in Australia in places with employment opportunities.

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-maga...
We're already at this stage - we have many life-extending (there's no life saving, only extending it for smaller or larger amounts) treatments and procedures, and the amount is growing. For pretty much every patient who dies currently we could extend their life a bit more (not they'd always want that, mind you) if we put in more resources in that patient.

It's tautologically clear that it's not possible to do everything for everyone, i.e. a community 100% composed of doctors and nurses wouldn't be able to provide all the possible life-extending things (especially late in life/close to death) to everyone of themselves. So one way or another we need a process to decide where we stop, i.e. what life-extending things will not be provided to which people.

Of course, there's a major practical difference between in a process that takes/costs one day of labor and extends life expectancy by a year, and a process that takes/costs a year of labor and extends life expectancy by a day - but there's no conceptual difference, and we have options all along that scale to find where the tradeoff starts/stops making sense.
The incremental waste of an additional passenger on a commercial (or full charter) flight is very different from a flight that exists to serve the needs of exactly one individual.

That said, I could envision compromising my values if somebody wants to get me a Cirrus Vision[0] for Xmas.

[0] https://cirrusaircraft.com/aircraft/vision-jet/
> I can't afford to not be in the stock market as all other financial investments pay peanuts on the dollar

If the market crashes then cash outperformed. There is also a lot in terms of bonds, structured products and fund products between cash and equities.
Whereas you are only worth around $250 or less to Facebook! [1].

[1] Dividing their market capitalization, as an estimate of their discounted future cash flows, by their number of users. A better estimate might be smaller, if their user base is expected to grow or they are expected to make lots of money in some other business
To be fair, buying coffees and lunch really does start to add up if the alternative is that it's sitting in an index fund. $20 every day for a year for ten years is around 114k at 8% interest. That is a down payment on a house in most areas.
One of them is having a lot of comments in relation to the score, but I don't know when exactly that kicks in.
Please, let this quote be ironic.