skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think Altman is afraid of hearing criticism of his ideas. I think he objects to orthodoxy: political positions that are so sacred that people react with slurs and rhetoric instead of rational rebuttal when they are called into question.

Especially pernicious is the idea that even entertaining rational discussion on these topics is harmful. When some things are too sacred to even discuss rationally, we are really lost in our ability to discern the truth about the world.
Top Gear did an episode where they made a bunch of PSAs just like that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK_Ru6tScBE
I still think it's an interesting approach. If you want to be more efficient and less wasteful than Bitcoin, at some point trust has to come into play. And reducing your trust to the manufacturers of secure enclaves (whose products can also be audited to a degree) is surely an improvement still, even if it doesn't have the radical threat model of conventional cryptocurrencies (which inevitably run into scaling problems because it mostly requires proof-of-work).

Also, the article mentions the de facto centralization of trust in the current cryptocurrency ecosystem - so pragmatically, it's not much better there. From centralized exchanges, to centralized mining cartels, what does something like Bitcoin have left to offer?
Please include all of his examples, not just the ones that most people would agree with.

> This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. [1] Of course we can and should say that ideas are mistaken, but we can’t just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the actual idea.

Not every idea is worth debating in every setting. Someone who just wants to go to work and program shouldn't have to spend their day debating people who think their lifestyles are a sin- they should be able to focus on their job. If you're building rockets for SpaceX what should it matter whether the dude two seats over knows how much you really dislike gay people?

And again, if you have a bunch of people bashing gay people in your company and you just allow it you are going to push those gay people out. All of their "novel physics ideas" are going to go out the door with them.

As to his entire point about China- it is patently false! It is literally not true. If a bunch of people in the bay area want to talk politics they can do so. If you do it in china and it goes against certain things you go to jail. His example and claim that china has more free speech is a slap in the face to all of the people murdered in china for that speech.
Freedom of speech is a principle that outdates and transcends the 1st amendment.
1) Restriction of speech, as he put it, is not equal to the ability to criticize ideas.

"When we move from strenuous debate about ideas to casting the people behind the ideas as heretics, we gradually stop debate on all controversial ideas."

It's the ability to even discuss them without being branded a heretic that he desires, rather than a lack of criticism.

2) He's saying that the people he knows in China were more willing to hear about his ideas than the people he knows in SF. He did not mention anything about privilege, nor do I think it is fair to assume that the Chinese are only more willing to accept his ideas based on his money. Many people do that, not just the Chinese. He's mentioning (anecdotally) that the people he spoke with in China were more open-minded than the people of SF. Perhaps we should take it as a wakeup call rather than an indication of Altman's privilege.

3) Hate speech != "driven out of companies, schools, education programs, and development communities by bigotry and sexism". How can you equate what is strictly speech with that of hateful action?

4) Would you like to pick a quote as an example for why you might feel that way? The common refrain in this essay to me seems to be "we can’t just call the person a heretic", which seems very focused on the individual rather than a theoretical corporation.
Or 'posters ?

BTW I've often noticed these 2D images (which work better than I'd've thought)... but for distant objects (in an open world game where the player can approach them from any direction), is a 3D model ever rendered once to a 2D poster when the player first sees them, then that is reused (until player gets too close; or approaches at too different an angle)?

I'm concerned at the uneven computation required as objects move in/out of range and need to be re-postered. (I prefer steady fps).
he's talking about speaking directly with Chinese individuals in China.

the original post is about discussing these topics in person-to-person situations... not about posting politically motivated speech online, not about challenging the government.
Even though I loathe Uber I read their lawyer saying the ex-employee was extorting them.

Then I read that Uber paid him 4.5 million ... umm Uber paid that much to an extortionist for claims that aren’t truthful? Ok yeah right .. whose pays that much to silence a lier?
If I had to come up with a reason (with no industry knowledge), I'd posit the following:

If MoviePass captures the ticket-buying market in a big way and becomes the gatekeeper for consumer movie-going money, they could feasibly develop direct relationships with distribution companies in the film industry and drastically diminish whatever power theater operators currently have.

As noted by others, there's a common belief theater profit comes largely from concessions. That defines their relationship with the consumer. MoviePass threatens their relationships on the other side, with the film industry, where we are the profitable product.

That's my guess.
This is often overstated. While there's certainly a lot of aspects of American government where both sides are to the right of Canada (or whatever social democracy you want to insert), it's by no means completely universal.

Take immigration - Canada has merit-based immigration with language requirements, and not a lot of tolerance for illegal immigration, which is considered firmly a right wing position in the states.
I agree that forgiveness is powerful. I also linked to that page because it shows a balanced view intentionally.

It is easier for one to be forgiving when the problem is abstract and one's life is not directly threatened by the intolerance (please forgive the unwieldy "one"'s, I don't want to make any assumptions about "you"). I have a lot of respect for people who are able to hold forgiveness in their hearts, I also understand the value of the self preservation in drawing a firm boundary in saying "I will not be attacked". It's complicated.
I recall a film I saw on TV as a kid called Testament which just killed me. It depicted a family slowly dying off after their town is bombed. I cried for a few nights after seeing it. I've never watched it since. I wonder if I could handle it now as an adult.
There is a depraved desire in all of us to use our momentary power to achieve final victory. The right tried with McCarthyism half a century ago when it had cultural dominance, and the left is currently trying now that it has achieved cultural dominance.

Our political order can do a lot to stymie such attempts, but it cannot replace the need for personal virtue. No constitution can save a people from itself.
On the other hand, people who normally don't go to the movies (such as myself, haven't been to a movie since I was a teen, with the exception of taking the stepkids a handful of times about 15 years ago) suddenly find that they really like the experience. And before MoviePass goes away, they will most likely gradually increase their prices, until former non-theatergoers get used to a monthly must-have entertainment expenditure.
For the rest, it's just an equivalent of "import yaml" before you use a one-liner as usual. Is it really a big problem?
Changes to Autodesk Stingray FAQ
In addition, AMC was rumored to be planning on rolling out a similar plan with a price roughly double that of MoviePass. The benefit of MP is that there is no chain lock-in.
For what it's worth, Sam Altman is gay. I think he picked that example precisely because it's one on which he is more vulnerable.
I live in the bay area and I have heard many people debate these issues without issue.

To be honest I'm wondering if Sam Altman just needs to expand his social and professional circle a bit and get out of his own bubble. There's 7.5 million people in the bay area, and it's a joke to think they are all alike.
I don't believe we'll actually see it on wireline internet service. And it's already legal on mobile in the US, but we don't see it because it becomes more uneconomical as connection speed gets faster.
> He wants people to be able to say controversial things without there being blowback

When the blowback is to smear your character, conflate it with other unrelated negativities, and avoid actual discussion on the topic at hand who can disagree?

Edit: several assertions therein, feel free to debate :)
I also use it to query transaction histories and to trace the currency flows. For that, full sync is necessary AFAIK.
I thought you need to legally disclose it in the article if you're paying for the exposure.
Here is one for $32MM

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-oreilly-settlement...
It literally doesn't matter. Every place and every person has their own opinion, and because of that, the worst thing you can do is cater to any one individual besides yourself.

I'm not joking. I haven't even read the comments here, but I'm willing to bet people find them useful/useless. I bet people found it helped them/hurt them. I bet people will talk about how they don't read them/read them, expect them/ignore them, etc.

Personally, I'd write a generic one and submit it myself, and then I'll just bring it with me (along with resume) to the interview to provide as necessary. But that's me.
Pseudonymity/anonymity, for one. You can freely transact across borders, for another.
That's why it was such a compromise. In order to get the massive decentralization and privacy boost of the malleability fix that segwit provided, the blocksize increase was included to give the increase that the classic hard-fork suggested. And it was done as a soft-fork too, which means none of the 160,000+ bitcoin nodes needed to upgrade their software.

And what happened? After they got exactly what they wanted with the doubling of capacity, they said "we want more" which demonstrated the entire exercise had nothing to do with blocksize, but about stealing the blockchain away from its users, and centralizing it in their data-centers. Which is why, months after the segwit implementation, the biggest and loudest people clamouring for a capacity increase for years, which includes bitpay, the subject of this thread, and coinbase, which has been an actively undermining the bitcoin developers for years, have not even implemented the blocksize increase. So much for blocksize being important.
It's not about criticism. It's about harassment and smear campaigns. The thing is, most people want criticism because they want to have conversations. Sama is saying that when you have a controversial opinion, you shouldn't feel so threatened and alienated from society that you must relocate. I'm sure he'd like to hear true arguments against his positions, but that's different than labeling him as evil and trying to enrage people so that he can no longer be respected at all.
Because we can't pick and choose.

Some ideas are obviously wrong.

Imagine people saying prison rape is part and parcel of the person sentence.

Imagine people saying Holocaust denial never happened.

Of course, we can't stop people from saying stupid things but to say that we can't criticize careless or even dangerous ideas is a violation of my free speech.
Arguments against? Or the social consequences of being on the "wrong" side of a controversial argument?

I'd assert the latter...
Bitcoin Cash is closer to original Bitcoin than Bitcoin Core. What makes one more worthy of the name than the other? Both are forks.
There's only one official source for specification: http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html

If the parsers do something different, that's an implementation issue, which inevitably affects all formats. This affects json as well: http://seriot.ch/parsing_json.php
So when are things too intolerant to tolerate? And what other behaviors would you call "tolerant" besides those that tolerate intolerance? Thats the only time you're really being tolerant of somerthing that requires an effort to tolerate.
Simplest way is to have information others don't. Much more difficult would be information they have but aren't using correctly.

One example I've heard before is this (maybe garbage...). Publicly traded ecommerce company is going into the peak holiday weeks, and analysts are bullish. You found informational leaks of KPIs by digging through html source code (incrementing order ids, cancellation ids, etc). These KPIs show a downward trend in the final few weeks. You posit these are real, and short the stock since they're likely to miss earnings.
Unfortunately, I am so afraid of the professional and social repercussions of sharing my opinions, that I've decided not to express an opinion about Sam's essay. I hope this reckless act on non-expression doesn't come back to haunt me.
Kinda like bitcoin thin clients?
So many who agree with you will stay silent.
> Any other strategy is a gigantic waste of time.

I got the job I'm out now (since 2011) and applied in a traditional sense. I was also in a foreign country at the time. It was painless and quick. Hardly a waste of time.
Google kills its Tango augmented reality platform, shifting focus to ARCore
Possibly, but PG's submarines do not directly pay the outlet. Instead, a contact at the hired PR agency contacts some newspapers reporter and gives them something that could be news. Of course, the reporter wants to publish interesting articles, and they trust the PR agency contact, so very likely they will publish some article about that.
The rebuttal is literally "long form tweets" ( https://twitter.com/anildash/status/941431220952584196 ). Sam's post is presumably something he edited and had people check over before he posted it. That's not to negate your essential argument, but the two pieces do have different origins.
IMHO branch prediction here is really irrelevant, it is practically trivial for Intel processors and this kind of loops (jumping back conditionally happens many times, there's nothing to confuse the predictor). The only thing that matters is what the CPU does with the "volatile variable" memory accesses in the loop, in which there is the load and the store which could also be conveniently optimized (or not become penalized) in the CPU between one and another event if there is "just enough" separation in some form. I haven't tested these examples myself and I don't have some exact model that would allow me to be sure, but that is my "approximate" conclusion from that former discussion. Interestingly, regarding the experiments with the loops in the previous discussion, I always believed that the NOPSs don't have to be translated to the uops, but if these tests are true, NOPs are somehow relevant even past the decoder, as I'd expect that the whole loop is in the uops cache (and I also admit I don't know the size or behavior of such cache on the recent Intel CPUs).
gpg/pass
While yet another cryptocurrency doesn't sound so good, I think Moxie has at least proven himself enough with Signal (in terms of being pragmatic about usability while trying to get the maximum amount of security and privacy for users) that this sounds promising.

I'm also happy to see a currency with Byzantine agreement without proof-of-work being explored. While this may not satisfy the extreme threat model of Bitcoin etc., I'm not really convinced that this is even needed at all. (Not to mention that Bitcoin has failed as a currency anyway.)
I played through this last night and it was interesting, surprising, weird, and very artistically and technically competent. I think it's the most interesting game I've seen this year, and I play a lot of games. The only thing that was slightly disappointing was that it's short, which I mitigated by playing it through twice.
Hey, thanks for the information! May be that I am misinformed, let me find out.
The header of this blog turned me off to anything this person has to say.
Slightly off topic, but hopefully a fun anecdote:

Sometime in the second half of 1988 — I was 11 or 12 years old at the time — I was determined to beat the original Metal Gear (North American NES version[+]). I got up one Saturday morning, played straight through to the early afternoon; I had the NES hooked to a little 10-inch color CRT in my bedroom. I don't remember writing down any save-point passcodes (if there even were any, memory is hazy; or maybe I was down to my last re-spawn despite save point), and I don't recall having gotten too far in previous attempts... challenging game! It was apparent to me that I was reaching the final stage of the game, big boss ahead. My kid brother had been hovering around for hours, and I declared my bedroom off-limits until victory or defeat was certain. All of a sudden, my brother comes bouncing in and says, "Here, have a jolly rancher!" — which was appreciated momentarily, it was even watermelon flavor, which (God knows why) I savored for some reason — and then granny passed the hard candy in my direction. It ricocheted off the back of my chair and then....... struck the reset button on the NES!!! All was lost, and I was too devastated to pursue him downstairs in anger. About 6 weeks later, I finally beat the game.

[+] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJPVTylzt80
> Not every idea is worth debating in every setting. Someone who just wants to go to work and program shouldn't have to spend their day debating people who think their lifestyles are a sin- they should be able to focus on their job.

I fully agree, but I didn't read it as Sam advocating that people should feel free to discuss highly sensitive subjects in every setting, but rather that he feels that said ideas can't be discussed in any setting. (For this post, I specifically don't take any position on this.)

>As to his entire point about China- it is patently false! It is literally not true. If a bunch of people in the bay area want to talk politics they can do so. If you do it in china and it goes against certain things you go to jail. His example and claim that china has more free speech is a slap in the face to all of the people murdered in china for that speech.

I think he's implying that even though in China the government will jail you for speech they deem subversive, people don't feel like they can't approach taboo subjects in normal social situations. On the other hand, in a politically free environment like California, you can be excluded by your friends or colleagues for speech they don't like.
I signed up 2 days after the price drop (Aug 17) and it took about 2 months to receive the card. Since then. Have used it about 6-7 times, never had a problem.
This is what the behavior of a wannabe megacorp looks like:

> Uber “used undercover agents to collect intelligence against the taxi groups and local political figures. The agents took rides in local taxis, loitered around locations where taxi drivers congregated, and leveraged a local network of contacts with connections to police and regulatory authorities.”

> the things Uber was doing overseas “needlessly exposed Uber and its employees to severe risk — including the likely termination of Uber's operations and possible imprisonment of its employees — should capable security services in many overseas locations discover Uber's espionage.”

> Uber hired at least one CIA-trained contractor to collect "mobile-phone metadata either directly through signal-intercept equipment, hacked mobile devices, or through the mobile network itself.

Or, perhaps, a nation-state.
Sorry to be pedantic, this reply hadn't appeared when I posted my response yet.
A sidenote on one thing brought up in the article, it's worth noting that the implicit association test (IAT) is of highly dubious utility, despite common use. While it measures something (as does any test), there are very serious questions about what it actually measures, how reliably it measures it, whether what it measures actually correlates with real world bias, etc. There are very good reasons to think that, however clever the test may sound, and however real implicit bias is (its existence is almost indisputable), the test doesn't accurately measure it.
Oh passively reading facebook is not good for you but posting and adding more data to your ecosystem and furthering your algorithms is? You dont say? Oh and buying things from targeted ads is good for you too? Wow i didnt even know...thank you facebook, you clearly have my back.

Seriously how gullible do they think we are?
Litecoin is maybe 2-4x better, but still far from Visa’s transaction capacity unless the lightning network does fantastically well.
I find them tedious but I really enjoy it. I know some employers also take the effort to read every word, especially when the recruiter is also the founder. But companies like Google and Facebook don't even let you send them. Maybe there's some correlation that the smaller the company, the more important the cover letter is?

The purpose of a cover letter is to just bring up things that aren't in your resume. If you have nothing to say, make it as brief as possible, maybe even one paragraph. Most employers will open the resume anyway.

Don't try to fake passion, that just makes you sound like a teenager desperate to get laid.

My format:

First paragraph, say what you are applying for if it's not in the title header.

Second paragraph, tell them how you meet the requirements. This is where you make it clear you have read the job ad and aren't resume blasting.

Third, explain other unique skillsets you bring. I like to emphasize my entrepreneurship and product development experience or that I can do full stack, if applicable.

Fourth, why you want to work for this company specifically.

Each paragraph would ideally be 1-2 sentences. The shorter the better. If not applicable, don't write it.
Basically they put the amount of the movie on a special MasterCard. You’re not guaranteed a seat until you use that card to pay for the seat.
But isn't Mobilecoin just borrowing stellar's approach to consensus? And what stops anyone from setting up a full node?
> when we use limited social capital to address a problem

Let an actual free and fair market solve it. When externalities have to be included in pricings (be it insurance premiums for superfund cleanup, earmarked money in trusts for cleanup, or simply preventing emissions in the first place) instead of having them shouldered by society, the market will by itself weed out companies doing excessive environmental damage.
> The nice thing about analog is that signals may get weaker but they don’t just go away as easily so you hear continuous music, etc.

I think it is worth mentioning that this is called fault tolerance, aka graceful degradation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tolerance