skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unlike the left, of course, which would never even think of instituting speech codes, banning people they don't like from speaking, violently attacking them, suppressing dissenting opinions and using governmental prosecution to win scientific disputes. Let's be clear here - nobody likes the speech they disagree with. That's why we have 1st amendment - so that people won't be tempted too much to go there. They still try all the time - I think that's why it's the first one, because it was clear that's what will start happening immediately, it was the most obvious concern.
If i remember my history right it was Hillary Clinton that championed the attempts to ban Mortal Kombat during Bills presidency.
One must-have feature of all cryptocurrencies should be privacy. Only a few support full anonymity today.
> how many times in the past this approach would have helped a CDC situation

Has it been tried before? If it hasn't been tried, we can't have evidence whether it has helped until it is tried.
We are observing different effects. I suggest you apply the latest microcode update, seeing that you have LSD_UOPS being dispatched; the latest update disabled the LSD altogether, due to the SKL150 CPU errata. The LSD was also permanently disabled in the newer Skylake-X, probably for the same reason.

In any case, I have to admit being wrong; port 6 has nothing to do with it, though the general principle of stalling the frontend to prevent the backend being overloaded still holds. For example, here's how to get the speedup without any change in control flow:

mov rcx, 400000000-1
align 32
nop
up:
align 32
add rcx, [counter]
align 32
dec rcx
align 32
jnz up
ret

The align directives here must resolve to an appropriate series of multi-byte nops. What we are doing here is to purposefully waste the uops cache. Each useful instruction comes at the beginning of a new 32-byte uop cache line, and the CPU cannot load more than 1 cache line per cycle. Effectively, we're limiting the rate of decoding by adding nops, which will not result in actual uops after decoding. I suspect the CALL and JMP instructions in the other variants were doing the same thing, but in a more obscure way. It's possible that CALL disables the LSD, which would matter in Sandy Bridge, but not in (updated) Skylake.

As to why this actually makes things faster, I don't know. There are many more stalls owing to the reservation station being full in the tight loop:

1,348,491,506 resource_stalls_any
1,694,613,980 uops_issued_stall_cycles
759,763,767 uops_executed_stall_cycles
994,974,421 uops_retired_stall_cycles

vs

109,300,935 resource_stalls_any
120,303,318 uops_issued_stall_cycles
164,322,430 uops_executed_stall_cycles
15,834,456 uops_retired_stall_cycles

But how does this translate to the observed performance penalty? One clue lies in the port breakdown:

756,686,062 uops_dispatched_port_port_0
782,579,771 uops_dispatched_port_port_1
279,387,822 uops_dispatched_port_port_2
314,214,218 uops_dispatched_port_port_3
1,994,313,938 uops_dispatched_port_port_4
807,514,909 uops_dispatched_port_port_5
1,050,884,205 uops_dispatched_port_port_6
209,316,457 uops_dispatched_port_port_7

vs

640,957,968 uops_dispatched_port_port_0
637,621,266 uops_dispatched_port_port_1
399,224,647 uops_dispatched_port_port_2
400,205,411 uops_dispatched_port_port_3
1,610,294,604 uops_dispatched_port_port_4
643,780,748 uops_dispatched_port_port_5
848,142,785 uops_dispatched_port_port_6
470,700 uops_dispatched_port_port_7

Focus on port 4, the only port available for memory stores. It does nothing else, so ideally we would expect ~400000000 uops to be dispatched to port 4. Instead, we have ~4x that for the fast loop, and ~5x that for the slow loop. These, presumably, are speculative stores that had to be invalidated. By dispatching fewer instructions that we can handle per cycle, there is less speculation and thus less wasted work?
Do you work in an office or just remotely? If the former, do you carry a recorder with you or how do the logistics work? I'd be interested to know more about your implementation if you don't mind sharing
That's a flawed argument as the level of abstraction matters. We can route around FB and Google. Direct message each other through Signal, Telegram, or just setup our own email servers. We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them.

What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course)? What will you do when Signal or Telegram aren't on that list due to "security" concerns? What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad and decides to create whitelisted exceptions?

Where will you go then?
The comparison to Apple is funny. Are you suggesting Bitcoin is a centralised company with a trademark?

If suddenly someone spins up a million bitcoin cash nodes will you call it bitcoin? If total PoW exceeds core will you? If core finally hard forks to increase the blocksize will you stop calling it bitcoin?

But that you'd compare it to Apple, that's just weird.
> So either they raise the price so high for commercial users that it's outright punitive, or they just say it's prohibited and skip all the money mechanics.

This sort of assumes the utility of a supercharger is the same to any commercial user, but it might not be, and a money cost would help keep capacity available for those commercial users without impacting non-commercial use too much.

That said, it seems like commercial fees could be turned around and reinvested in more superchargers pretty quickly. For now, they're significantly damaging the commercial value of their vehicles, new and used. Maybe they don't consider that a problem (and I would be surprised if any Tesla made an economical taxi, even before losing supercharger access).
Isn't this approach pretty ridiculous for any commercial customer?
$8.5 million. Note that he isn't contesting the sale.
California Warns People to Limit Exposure to Cellphones
Thank you for replying, I appreciate it.

The way I read the response is the following: the tug of war between users who want to see / comment on this and those who are flagging the article is being won by those flagging it - and thus the article has fallen below the front page.

The irony is strong here. An article talking about what you can't say, being flagged to oblivion, further confirming that, indeed, some things can't be said.

Strange world these days..
I'm older. I get frustrated. But I do know why.
You're right, though - many don't. I find the whole thing a neat example how not every change is undilutedly for the better, and how we tend unwittingly to accept those creeping degradations.
Being old and crotchety, I could name examples...
Probably because of "But it is a concept that is entirely the invention of left-leaning academics, cross citing each other repeatedly in echo chamber journals."

While I agree that some scientists are in a kind of echo-chamber, casually accusing everyone who does research involving gender (the social aspect) as politically motivated is uncalled for.
Maybe I'm just antisocial but I don't envy the person on either side of that situation.

Also, if this is such an established pattern for professional jobs, why even bother having proper channels for applications? Are online applications just a honeypot to blacklist me from actually getting hired?
Posted here a few days ago about how Mozilla being for-profit joined at the hip with a non-profit seems kind of shady, and got dogpiled for it. Then they do this as a tie-in for Mr. Robot.

Vindication!
> If you research the etymology of the word gender you discover that the word gender, up until the 1970's in academia, and up until the 2010's in the general populace, had an identical meaning to sex.

Actually, “gender” historically referred to a feature of grammar, gender for an ascribed social role in the modern sense (sometimes disambiguated as “ascribed gender”) dates from 1955 by John Money. “Gender identity”, which refers to self-perceived association with a gender role dates from the 1960s; both took off in the 1970s. (And I know from personal experience were in wide use when I was a teenager in the 1980s; they certainly didn't enter the popular lexicon in the 2010s.)

“Gender” being applied to humans or other animals in a way equivalent to “sex” actually became popular in modern use later (though it originated earlier), in the 1980s (driven largely by various organizations becoming squeamish about using the word “sex” and seeking an alternative.)

> But there is not great variety in "sex and I don't mean fucking"

Yes, there is; there are lots of biological sex traits, and while there are two modal clusters, there's considerable variation lying outside of them.

Yes, there's a fairly small number of possible configurations of sex chromosomes, but there are sex-related genetic differences at lower levels than whether a chromosome is an X or Y and how many of each are present, and moreover genetics in any case are causal or contributory factors to traits (sex or otherwise), but not themselves the only biological traits of interest (or even usually traits of particular interest except insofar as their contribution to phenotype.)

(And there appears to be a link between the complexity of biological sex and gender identity, because there's research showing that there are particular ways where transgender individuals tend to be more likely to fall outside the two main clusters of how biological sex traits align.)
I had an account before this one that was shadowbanned one day with no notification at all.

I hadn't broken any stated rules. I had posted some points about IQ, which would be considered offensive or "harmful" from the leftist viewpoints that dominate the San Francisco tech overculture.

Probably this rule was the excuse: "We ban accounts that use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle, regardless of which politics they favor."

However, it seems very unlikely that this rule is enforced in an even-handed manner.

Thankfully, I haven't had this account banned yet, which is nice at least. But it does happen.
If you're going to throw in links, I would do them as footnotes.

... I even wrote an open source library to access CAN bus data [1]...

Thank you,
Name

[1] http://whatever
If you don't understand that barring a conclusion from receiving federal funding is effectively barring the research itself, then you don't understand academic research. Even if you legitimately don't find gun control to be a solution from your research, that you would lose your funding if you did means there is necessarily a financial incentive with no basis in fact to have or not have certain results - invalidating the research. The actual effect is that it bars research into gun violence, even if that is not the letter of the law.
one of the manny reasons i love states rights.
They're currently free for most S and X owners. If you buy a new S or X, any current owner can give you a referral code for free charging.

They will never be free for any 3 owners.
As an Aussie, thats what you call a "european in a tropical environment" pose.

The other variant of it usually involves flaking skin on newly formed tans and sunburn so bad its started to go almost purple.

But the root cause is essentially the same.

Plus, they're researchers guys, what do you think scientists in the field actually look like :P
I suspect Tesla learned that lesson when they imposed idle fees for cars that had finished supercharging and didn't move to free up the stall.

The first thought I had was of that Freakanomics article.
More than 50%. When the legislative branch breaks, the executive branch has 2 options: assume the power that should be in the executive branch; or let the government slowly atrophy due to lack of management.

Neither of these are good options, but if I were president, I would view my primary job as keeping the government well functioning. Without congress doing there job, this means increasing the scope of the executive branch.
If you are looking for Uber drivers, your Tesla car could probably list cellphones that took a ride in itself by detecting wireless signals?

If X cellphones detected in Y amount of time, it might be suspect...
CPython source. Once you understand the implementation the syntax will come naturally. I’ve been reading CPython for a few years now and it’s very readable C code.
How is that a 'step in the right direction' for privacy?

The whole proposition is preposterous. Russia, India and China all are known to monitor their citizens comms as a matter of course. It's not even hidden or prefaced.

If anything, this makes it easier for those countries to intercept their own citizens' comms --which is probably their whole intent.
> You don't need to say something is evidence-based, just show the evidence.

That would make some sense for documents reporting research results, but this is for budget proposal documents.
Sorry, where's the proof that there's any damage to vehicle value? If anything I see positive value in this announcement, and am hoping it gets rid of the limo drivers I always see at the Hillsdale supercharger.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I experienced it and put together the puzzle

Assuming I understand you, that's wrong. PG always had two different versions of HN. The open-source one was a working subset of the production one, but only a subset, and there were always aspects that weren't public—necessarily so, to avoid abuse and gaming of the system. Moreover there were always downvotes and flags, or at least from very early on.
I’m not sure that matters? Or rather, the specifics of the controversial argument matter a lot.

If someone is unable to find people who agree that helping people live longer then perhaps there is something else going on, because that doesn’t seem a hard argument to make.

OTOH, if they are making the argument that Hitler was correct, then yes I would unashamedly hope there are social consequences.
Are you being disingenuous? The word has been used to denote "male-or-female sex" since the 15th century. The quote you say supports your timeline is with reference to "the use of gender in academia" and states "to signal sympathy with feminist goals" and "to avoid the connotation of copulation". What evidence do you have that "Before then (1955) it was barely used outside of linguistics."?
If your startup idea is actually offensive to people, maybe take a step back and think about that, or just do it anyway, who cares? Since when are entrepreneurs afraid of "speaking heresies" or "toxic reactions"... from whom? Investors? Friends at dinner parties? Are the reactions of San Franciscans really so unique? Somehow blaming a city for your idea's reception sounds suspect. Also, playing the victim. Getting called out on political incorrectness is not akin to being bludgeoned with a "club."

If you tend towards "constantly thinking about how everything you say might be misinterpreted," congratulations, you're neurotic, like me. It's just something you have to overcome enough to be comfortable expressing your own unique opinions. When you do this, you may find your controversial opinions are merely out of touch. Like you have an IQ of 180 and you've been reading scientific papers and you can prove there are only two genders... and now if you can't express this view over a beer in SOMA without getting some looks, you can't invent the self-driving car or something...?
"Expecting people to follow the rules."

This works better than you'd think.
This debate is exactly why I think some individual or small group is just going to do it without asking permission.
What if it turns out that research suggests gun control is effective in reducing gun violence? Note, I'm not saying that it is effective; I have no dog in this fight and don't know enough. But the law effectively says to the CDC "You're allowed to research this health issue, but if you come to a conclusion that's politically unacceptable, you can't share it."

The result is that the CDC now believes any gun violence research to be likely to result in political reprisal against them come budget time.[1]

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
This is a hard comment to respond to because there appear to be several misapprehensions in it, and at the same time I find it hard to understand what you're saying. Let me try to address a few though.

You say "clearly" and then switch to "hard to dismiss the suspicion". There's no "clearly" there, just suspicion. I'm sure it's a natural suspicion or you wouldn't be posting it, but it lands with me as strange somehow. How could an article that doesn't mention Sam embarrass Sam? It was written weeks before his essay anyhow.

What you're missing, perhaps, is that the reaction here, by both the users who flagged and the moderators, probably isn't about the subject matter per se, but about the fact that this topic was thoroughly covered yesterday and in follow-up threads like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15936614. Doing the same thing every day is boring, and the current article doesn't clear the bar of substantiveness enough to justify overriding that.

There's another point that sits a bit uncomfortably with me. You say HN is influential in tech culture, but if that's true, it's because of qualities HN has that are the product of the very system (community plus moderators plus software) that you seem to object to. That comes up all the time and to me it seems incongruent.

You overrate the power of moderation to control this community. Even if we wanted to control it, which we don't, we couldn't, not even close. We serve it and we never forget that.
Good to hear to revoke H4 EAD. Make it ASAP. At least prioritize for Talented one's. Not for these douchebag H4 EADs. Thank you Trump.
You don't think being able to describe diversity in bacteria cultures is something the CDC might want to do?
> Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. are blocking controversial content all the time.

That's a concern, too, for many people, but edge provider censorship is a different problem (and much easier to work around) than censorship on the pipe connecting you to every edge provider.
pg_hexedit now supports GiST, GIN, and hash indexes
If they require a cover letter then that is because they want you to think of them in the former category...

That said I've found cover letters to be pretty much a waste of my time so far.
We have a tenth of the US population and are slightly larger in size. My province alone is twice the size of California with a population of one million people. Infrastructure is a gong show when it comes to profitability.

In my province many areas are served by one provider, simply because it is not profitable to run infrastructure out to these areas. Near more populated areas there is more competition and major providers however. Hell, the only reason they have connections in the first place is because the provider was run and funded by the provincial government.
I think you are missing the point.

The current US president has regularly made speeches which indicate his support for NATO is less than whole hearted.

This discussion is about what would make sure the US did live up to their treaty obligations.
Um, that may be true in you local experience, but statistically it is really, really false.

There are lots of places where illegal immigrants can receive drivers' licenses and other forms of government assistance. And they do. For example, just in California, there are now a million illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. [1]

"Through June 2017, the Department of Motor Vehicles has issued approximately 905,000 driver’s licenses under Assembly Bill 60, the law requiring applicants to prove only their identity and California residency, rather than their legal presence in the state."

In California, a driver's license is enough to vote. In fact, it automatically registers someone to vote.

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...
Which authors? Who is trying to censor them?
China’s mobile payment giants forcing incumbents to innovate
They're rather expensive to stock. 2x to 4x the price of a regular bike.
Some Tesla features are written into contracts and some are not. For example, Tesla is not charging anyone for cellphone service for the car. That's not written into the contract, but they kinda have to provide it for free: they need access to vehicle logs for roadside service, and the car needs software updates for safety reasons.

As an owner, I have absolutely no idea what the contract ever said about supercharging. I also know that this change doesn't affect me, other than making it more likely that I can supercharge without waiting.
In this climate of hyper sensitivity, I doubt there is anyone who is not quietly reflecting on their past behavior and wondering whether they're going to end up in an HR meeting.
Budget documents are about setting and justifying priorities. It may very well be worth mentioning when a finding is backed by experiments in mice fetuses but further trials might be necessary.
> Are there a lot of people like this? Or worse?

This guy is something else... I have honestly never seen anything like this before.

Most of his journal papers [1] are not even close to standard journal paper quality. His latest one, titled "A Simple Encryption Method for FTP Passwords", is a two-page document showing how to use a substitution cipher to encrypt FTP passwords... That wouldn't even pass off as a project for an undergrad CS course!

The second journal paper seems acceptable, but I am also not familiar with chess algorithms, so I cannot provide a definite opinion.

Some amazing quotes from [2]:

"Let me begin by saying that the aesthetics model in chess that I developed for my Ph.D. is considered a seminal piece of work in then uncharted waters."

"While I have written many papers, to the extent memory serves, I do not self-publish at all even though admittedly, some of my publications are certainly better or more prestigious than others (like any academic)." (note: you should never self-publish, so there really is no need to "consult" your memory)

"In fact, I am quite confident I could last at least 20 moves even against Magnus Carlsen under tournament conditions."

"[...] I simply do not need to be a chess master as there are many official chess masters only too happy to assist and work with me on projects. I am frankly quite amazed at how open-minded and forward-thinking some of them are."

[1] http://metalab.uniten.edu.my/%7Eazlan/

[2]: https://en.chessbase.com/post/women-and-beautiful-chess-a-re...
It's not only the title of a post. There are lots of things you can't say in academic environment (as dozens of people proved), in work environment (as Damore example proved), in conference environment (as Tim Hunt example proved) and in many other places. We see people persecuted for speech all around, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but it's not like it's some foreign idea that some evil Trumper just invented.

Yes, of course, it's not a government agency policy. It is a university policy, corporate policy, industry policy, media policy, and so on, and so forth. But it's in no way unprecedented to have those, and I'm not sure what's the big difference here - the policy in question applies to the workers of the agency, just as university policy would apply to the workers of the university.

Obama administration chose not to use words like "radical Islam", "war on terror", "jihadi" and others that were not aligned with their political goals. He also banned words like "Eskimo" and "Aleut" from appearing in federal laws[1], since they are not considered acceptable anymore. Trump administration, of course, has its own policies, but the practice of telling government workers which words they can and can't use is certainly not new.

[1] https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2016/05/23/obama-signs-measu...
Oth. If I don't include a cover letter and you want to find out more about me you have to interview me...
yep, more like a puerile attempt to win the culture wars.