skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Would I have consensual sex with an attractive celebrity if they took an interest in me? Sure.

Would I fall in love with an attractive celebrity if they took an interest in me? Well, no, not automatically anyway, I would have to get to know this person first and see how I feel about spending time and do things together. I'd definitely not dump a person I've known and loved for years over a fling with an attractive celebrity that I don't really know on a personal level.

You keep saying that sexual attraction and love are the same thing, but they are not.
What I saw in my own romantic relationships and those of others was a simple, blunt point: Do both of the people actually want to follow the first part of the standard marriage ceremony?

"We gather together to join this man and this woman with the bonds of holy matrimony."

Instead, one or the other didn't really want to "join" or "bond" and, instead, was just using, exploiting the
marriage and spouse for some selfish aims.

For women, the main use was money -- she wanted to be supported. That was as far as she thought. Later one had one child, retired to a back bedroom, lived on chocolates, gained 150 pounds, and vegetated. Another had one daughter and later one by accident, retired to a back bedroom and lived on cigarettes and beer. One decided to become really good BFFs with Jim Beam and Jack Daniels. One really wanted just to do social climbing at the most expensive country club in town. Another wife wanted the spouse's wealthy family to fund a retail startup. When the startup failed, she went to college, then art school, then became a leading horse woman, all with no interest in her husband, and finally just moved out. She was very pretty, moved to NYC, apparently to try to make a big splash in media. Never heard from her again!

One husband liked sex with men as much or more than with his wife (at least two cases of that, with both of the wives very desirable); the wives didn't like that situation.

Another wife just wanted her husband to put her through law school at which time she planned to leave the marriage. Another wife just wanted her husband to put her through graduate school, at which time she planned to leave. Another wife wanted to use the marriage as a home base for various projects, around the world, to save the world.

I saw a lot of such problems: It was simple: One or both of the spouses failed right at the first sentence of the marriage ceremony -- they just didn't want to join or bond. Just didn't. To them the marriage ceremony was just a costume party with nothing serious and no connection with reality, and they wanted the marriage not to join or bond with their spouse but just to exploit them.

So, from this theme and these examples, what is in the OP is too complicated and misses the point: The point is, both spouses have to be serious all the way through the marriage vows, and failing right at the first sentence is really simple, much simpler than the OP, way too common, and a guaranteed disaster.
The main differences I can see is a change from SHA1 -> SHA2 and also seems to have added official spec for webtorrent.
> Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

No, using cheap plastic plates, which will easily last a decade (my mom I think, still uses ones my family got free as promotional items with cereal purchases ~30 years ago when I was a kid) and making them last is minimalism.

Ceramic plates break a lot more easily then cheap but durable plastic ones.
The vast majority of people are biologically not fit to work at Google. All he said is because of slight differences in average ability and preferences we should expect the proportion of women in that incredibly small pool of people who are capable of working at Google to be lower than you would assume if you thought there was no sexual dimorphism in traits needed for engineering.

Another example, East Asian people and Ashkenazi Jewish people are much smarter than gentile whites, half a standard deviation to a full standard deviation on average: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606...

Because of this we should expect them to be over represented in cognitively demanding jobs such as engineering at Google. And this is indeed exactly what we see. Should we positively discriminate for white people? This does not mean all white people are unfit to work at Google, it just means that on average white people are less likely to have the requisite ability, though many individuals will.
Because then you have no way of identifying right angles. That leaves you with a claim you can make about right angles, and no angles you can ever apply the claim to. That is the same as not having the claim at all.

Consider this modified classic syllogism:

1. All men are mortal.
2. No one can ever know whether any particular object is or isn't a man.

3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

See the problem? It may still be possible to prove that Socrates is mortal, but you can't prove that or anything else with the postulate "all men are mortal", because that postulate, by hypothesis, doesn't apply to anything.
My 101% rule works better.
>> We're currently suffering through four years of self-imposed punishment as a result of being a bunch of judgmental assholes in pursuit of a goal that any reasonable human would accept as self-evident-- that people deserve to be treated fairly and without prejudice, no matter their race, sex, gender identity, et cetera.

If leftists/liberals wanted everyone to be treated fairly without prejudice of their race or sex then they would not continually push for the expansion and entrenchment of race and sex based affirmative action programs which deliberately exclude people from employment opportunities, scholarships, networking opportunities and many other essential resources.

The goals and the means are contradictory. If you abandon the goal of equality of opportunity as the left has for the more dubious goal of equality of outcomes then your create a system that treats people unequally based on there race and sex. And furthermore, a system that artificially transfers burdens and hardships onto select races while giving others races 'privileges' and opportunity.

No 'reasonable human' will ever accept exclusion from employment because of there race or sex. And that is exactly what is happening to many qualified and ambitious people at this point. The pool of disaffected people is only going to grow until these polices are changed to reflect a meritocratic model based on objective qualifications.
The media stripped out the citations.

I haven't checked that the citations are any good... but he certainly put them in.
High Performance Application in .NET
It's much closer to arguing that homosexuality is wrong because biological reproduction supports only heterosexual relationships.
Use a JS blocker, I'm blocking that site's JS and i don't have any popups.
Man, I wish that was the case in London. The central/victoria lines runs at 36tph (less than 2 mins wait between trains) but they are crush loaded full between 7am and 9am. Luckily we have crossrail coming to relieve the central line, which took less than 10 years to build in its entirety. Unlike the 2nd Av Subway which seems to be taking about 30 years (ignoring the failed start in the 70s).
Where is the experimental support?
Well, you probably wouldn't see women constantly exiting the field of tech because they encounter endless entrenched sexism, and endless skepticism of the existence or significance of sexism.
I guess u didn't buy in 2010
I find this to be well written:

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...

Notably:

1) The document makes a fundamentally flawed argument - that is, he's based his whole argument on a flawed premise that women just aren't interested in being engineers (and it's clearly wrong, because gender ratios were nearly identical until about the mid 80s; it's not a biological difference, it's a social and cultural difference, which means it has a social and cultural solution). Biological traits vary between genders, but the variance is TINY for most that aren't physical (strength, etc).

2) Even if he were right about men and women being biologically prone to certain traits, those he attributed to women tend to make them better engineers (and especially better engineering managers) anyway.

3) The document has (rightfully) alienated women inside and outside his organization, which makes it impossible for this person to be an effective member of the team. The next time a woman interviews for his team, and he votes against hiring, how does the hiring committee interpret that vote? The next time he's peer reviewed by a woman, how does that review get interpreted? The next time he peer reviews a woman, how does that review get interpreted? The next time a female candidate interviews with the author and is denied, how likely is it that the candidate will believe they had a fair interview, or is the organiation perpetually exposed to increased legal risk forever? Such a manifesto is toxic and shows a profound lack of awareness for any professional.
Biologically unfit?

The vast majority of people are _biologically unfit_ to work at Google?

Are you serious? What 100 meter sprint time do you need to get a job at Google?
> Let me present an argument:

Are you suggesting the author put forward a similar argument?
Did you have a commercial support contract for Qt at the time? What I've heard is that they do fix things, if you are a paid-up customer.

> you have to be ready to pay a contractor to do the necessary QT adaptations/fixes.

Admittedly a few years ago, the problem was that there were very few such specialists around.
When I first read the manifesto, It sounded like a regurgitation of Jordan Peterson's content. After being immersed in his lectures I found it very hard to contradict his points not just because of his eloquence but also because of his method for vetting ideas. I am very glad that his stuff has gained so much popularity because I may finally find counterpoints stick against his arguments.
This is honestly very cool and amazing. Why didn't you add it to a Show HN? Nevertheless, very nice work!
Well, pH refers to the concentration of protons in water solvent. Since pure sulfuric acid has no water (excluding that which is in equilibrium with sulfur trioxide), pH isn't really well defined for it. A better definition of acidity which does not have this problem is the Hammett acidity function. Sulfuric acid on this scale has an acidity of -12. (Note that this acidity score is not fully comparable to pH. However, with a difference so massive (a factor of one trillion times more acidic), this subtle difference ceases to be relevant.)

If you're asking about corrosivity, sulfuric acid gets its reputation because its also strongly dehydrating. Thus, it does wonderful things like rip the water out of your skin or char paper. I would hazard a guess that the water they've found in the paper does neither of those things.
I would very much like to see this draft extended to cover SRV lookup as well.

Right now, section 3 of this draft would prohibit all SRV queries for localhost, which may hinder development and deployment of a SRV based application. That's an immediate problem.

But not only are there existing applications to which it is immediately applicable - it is a design error in HTTP that plain address records are used for resolution. One day this will be corrected, in which case measures like this should continue to apply.
Really? I'm sure some would regard it as an example of professionalism, "going down with the ship", "when the going gets tough ...", etc.

Some people would jump at the change to learn a new technology on the company's dime, if they know that the project failure can't be attributed to them. Eg, a front-end engineer could say "we developed an Angular2 front-end which was on-time and tested well, but the back-end engineers failed to <insert failure here>."

Do project failures really look that bad?

Kent Beck and Ron Jeffries famously employed worked on the Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation System, which helped establish Extreme Programming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Comprehensive_Compens...

What does it mean then that after the first delivery, the project's customer representative was burned out and couldn't be replaced, the software was only ever used for 10,000 of the 87,000 people it was supposed to be used for, but even with the smaller number it still took 9 hours to run, and new developed stopped two years later, never reaching the original design goal?

If project failures look bad, how is it that XP ends up with such a good reputation?
I noticed that you edited your post to add a comment about my level of confidence and outrage, and I thank you for using your outrage to better clarify your concerns.
It shouldn't take decades though. Perhaps a decade max including planning. Other cities manage to do that. It seems to be a particularly US problem that any transport project of capital size >10bn becomes a complete disaster.
This repeats "Go is a general purpose language", but is it?

https://golang.org/doc/faq#What_is_the_purpose_of_the_projec...:

"By its design, Go proposes an approach for the construction of system software on multicore machines."

They also refer to https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article for "A much more expansive answer to this question". That article states:

"Go is a programming language designed by Google to help solve Google's problems
[...]
More than most general-purpose programming languages, Go was designed to address a set of software engineering issues that we had been exposed to in the construction of large server software. "
No, it's not what he wrote. But it's how he's going to be painted.

Which, ironically, confirms one of his main arguments...
Irony of ironies:

*
Error

Over Quota

This application is temporarily over its serving quota. Please try again later.
> but that it doesn't convincingly argue why these difference are relevant to what is being suggested.

This is the most honest critique I have seen, and that speaks to the audience far more than the author. I agree 100% with you on the unconvincing nature, and that TERRIFIES me.

I don't think the argument was convincing either, where I'd wager we differ is that I think that is because the audience just wasn't ready for the argument. That is clear in every strawmanning of a word like "empathy", of the emotional responses and the complete denial that there is any science supporting his claims - and I know this hyperbole is rhetoric, but consider this direct quote form the rebuttal "... and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades". ALL research for DECADES. All of it. DECADES. That a PhD in biology from Harvard is willfully ignorant of ALL the research FOR DECADES seems... unlikely?

When someone can make a calm, rational, thought out argument and be yelled out and mocked with no evidence he has the science wrong or even, heaven forbid, that his counter-proposals are less likely to help, what is left? When no attempt was made to meet the author even 10% of the way, and consider he has some supporting evidence, how CAN one make a convincing argument? Will every argument use confirmation bias pandering to pre-existing ideals? I fear this is the moment when we lose the ability to convince with reason, or facts, or evidence, and begin a scary world on in-group biases and walled off intellectual forts immune to new ideas or even being challenged.
Thanks, and thank you for the great comment!

These are really interesting ideas, and I can't wait to start figuring out implementations.

I wonder if I could make something like jQuery, but for AsciiDots...
It also appears to be using a merkle hash tree for piece hashing now along with a few new peer wire messages to support that.
Even when there are no obstructions, there are regular jogs in the PLSS (because a grid doesn't lie flat on a spheroid):

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5653133,-95.6495983,2380m/da...
This isn't Jeopardy.
When I was in grad school, this is how I traveled each summer with my brother and cousin. We'd pick a country and have our first night (maybe a couple of nights) accommodations picked out and then let the feel of the day guide us. Some of our best times were with random people we'd meet at the hostel and then travel around with for a couple of days before going our own way.
Great, so far I had only read about proof of Stake and proof of Activity
Lincoln bedroom @ https://whitehouse.gov1.info/visit/index.html 400$ / night. So 7 * 400 * 132 = 369,000 / week. Making that's a hefty bulk discount ;-)

PS: And yes this is a parody.
How Ice Cream Helped America at War
Everyone has a different set of things they care about. Some people won't be satisfied with say, the respectable $400 speakers at the music store, and desire the high-end (there's speakers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars).

But I don't think any of us are that way with everything. I don't, for instance, know the thread count of my pillow cover nor have I installed a custom computerized shower head in my bathroom. I also suppose, for example, there's superior version of the cutlery I have in my kitchens and the forks I've been using all these years are simply not the best.

I'll likely buy one of the more expensive options at target, but I don't go to a luxury store where the options are 20 times more expensive and have monograms of wealth on them, even if I could afford them just the same.

I've been to these stores, looked at the items, and then left thinking "how absurd and frivolous."

I really feel that worrying about such things is a form of voluntarily enslavement. I've been very close to people with drug addiction before and I've seen how the substance controls them like a puppet. I feel the same mechanics at play with consumption goods.

I'm open to buying nice things and taking care of them, but I try really hard not to value them in a way that the object controls me.
And they all were all pretty mad. Which naturally nobody here seems to care about while everyone is busy writing up ten paragraphs of apologia about this stupid mess of an essay.
14 years. We would have been married but it would create certain extra costs and difficulties that we can avoid by not being married.
The point of this book like many other books "get rich quick and work less", is to make the author richer. If you're successful, people will most likely listen to you. So, you need to be successful in some way in real life and if you do, Tim showed you how to leverage a success into a great business model. This helped him generating more income by documenting his journey to a larger audience. So, the content of his book is not the point I think. It's the existence of that book in itself. So, to me it's still about luck and about taking risks in life. It doesn't answer the question: "how to become rich?". More like "how to create a business model based on your success".

Like any other book... There is no recipe for success. But there are a lot of techniques on how to maximize your income.
Show them how wrong they are by becoming like them? That's... not very wise. Also cowardly.
Upgrading the Power Grid in Remote Tibet
It's the same category of argument. It also has 'indisputable' statistics supporting it. It does not attack particular persons, just the policy of hiring them. It disparages their co-workers for being born wrong. Much like the manifesto, it's a slam-your-head-into-the-textbook example of racism.

People have also made that exact same argument for decades. Racism was not a moustache-twirling Klanner setting crosses afire (Although it was that, too.) It was the reasoned, fact-supported argument for why people of colour are not as good as Real Americans. Ever since the civil rights movement, it has somewhat fallen out of fashion in the workplace - possibly because most of us accepted the radical notion that the color of your skin has no influence on the quality of your work.
Just as he has a right to say it, I have a right to argue, complain, ridicule, etc. Why should his view be given a platform while mine is denounced. Seems people want to silence his critics. Controversial views are not safe from criticism just as any other views.
Yeah, just reading the abstract tells a different story than the graph she uses.

Google or a college level computer science course is specifically pulling from adults who are in the very top percentiles in logical/quantitative skills.

The abstract of the paper notes that while the math difference is small among the total population: "differences favoring men emerged in high school and college" and "grew larger with increasingly selective samples, and were largest for highly selected samples and samples of highly precocious persons."

So the slide deck obscures the fact that in the relevant sample, men have better skills, by including the general population (women, average folks) where there is no difference.
> At work I often get overtalked and still deliver over-average results because I emphasise being polite, use proper argument and I look 10 years younger than I am.

That surely sucks and should not happen to you, or anybody. However, it happens - and it happens to many people that tend to be introverted, shy or just tend to be conflict-avoidant. You'd be surprised how many such people are among males. Not every male is a stereotypical hyper-aggressive alpha.

> if you are female, you are basically screwed if you want to do something engineering like because even Engineers don't act analytically but emotionally based on prejudices.

I find it somewhat disappointing that you just made judgement about millions of people working in certain area because you've had some bad experiences in one place with a handful of people -
most of which probably didn't even realize their behavior is counter-productive and would be ready to accommodate given proper tools - such as meeting setup with explicit way of ensuring everybody has an opportunity to participate and somebody who is more extroverted and verbal does not hog the scene. There are many known methods to do this and many people who are trained in doing it, one only needs to be willing to look it up and use it. I would think it's much more productive approach then rendering a wholesale judgement on the whole field and declaring it hopeless.

I would say approach of "if you're female and want to Engineering, you should be ready to overcome some challenges, and here are the tools for doing so and for those wanting to help in this" is a much more productive approach.
I think the idea is you get the research, plus all the citations for or against, versus pages of articles on The Guardian, or Techcrunch, or Breitbart. That tool sounds pretty cool to me to be honest!
How important that is, may depend on how important it is to you that your partner is of the same faith.

If you will only consider those of your faith, or demand suitors convert to your faith, it might be worth considering a move.
The article suggests a considerable degree of physical danger in walking around to collect hot pool water samples. This would be a good use case for drone-based collection, at least for surface samples.
Hmm, cloudflare should have taken care of that with a feature they have. Il check whats going on
Sure, but people are building really nice homes deeper and deeper into the woods. The area that we would consider safe to 'let burn' keeps shrinking as people move in to those areas.
This is exactly the point where many people get hung up. They cannot proceed to reading the next line until they understand how the recursive call works.

...which is why you should always teach recursion by starting with the base case and build on it with a recursive call, not the other way around. Step through an example execution of the algorithm with no recursive calls --- only the base case. Then step through with one or two levels of recursive calls, and they'll usually start seeing the pattern of how it works (and be able to generalise to n levels.)