skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, but when someone says that, what does it mean really? Market is the best process we have for determining relative value, just like science is the best process we have for determining truth.

But let's not take this for granted and let's try and approach this practically, for this specific subject.

If I said "I think the market is wrong and having a decentralised consensus system that provides strong cryptographic guarantees is not worth X amount of electricity, while maintaing multipple centralised banking systems is worth Y amount of electricity"

then there are some hard follow-up questions to deal with:

Is it not worth any amount of electricity then?

Why is it worth only that amount (or none)?

Who is to say what amount of electricity it is worth? So far we know that markets are the authotity of how much anything is worth. Why should we trust some other authority? And if we accept that some authority can decide how much electricity one application deserves, then why should it do it selectively? Why not say how much every application should be using?

And if we somehow found answers to the above, then we have to ask:

How would that be enforced?

Would we want to live in a society with this level of control where enforcing such things is possible?

Without extending to address these tough problematics, any opinion about the market being wrong carries no weight -the simple answer would just be

"if the market can be wrong, so can anything or anyone else we know of"
or maybe caitlin will just print out her own shoes.
Agreed. There are endless examples of politically damaging stories that make headlines for days and are later retracted with no coverage.
From the title:
"from 3 feet away."

From article and press release:
"of up to three feet."

As usual, the devil is in the details: one angstrom would satisfy the "up to three feet" claim as well.

I also would like to see the actual throughput. Wasting say 10 watts to get 1 watt of available power because one doesn't want to use a cable seems pretty lame to me.
> Javascript is a legitimately bad language, and Rust is a legitimately good language.

Yeah, statements like these without even trying to back them up are pretty ridiculous.

Sometimes someone brings some stupid issue that's never a problem in practice, but most of the time people just admit they simply have no real experience with JS. They just love to claim how superior they are, and anyone who disagrees is "not paying attention".

FYI you are just showing how awful are communities around "legitimately good" languages.
Big cities have all sorts of IT needs. And they employ a lot of contractors. Firms like IBM and Palantir make a lot of money contracting for government IT contracts...
You're still missing killjoywashere's point.

Their point was that _of course_ everyone involved (including the person you were originally replying to) knows that a weight-measurement is not sufficient to diagnose CHF. Literally everyone in the conversation has already presupposed that point.

However, blhack working with a physician learned that it would be a super useful medical tool to have an automated mechanism for taking those weight measurements because it's a useful early indicator.

Your response was exceptionally dismissive, given that there were people in that space who knew what they were doing and knew it was useful. Yet, you came by and in 10 seconds decided it wasn't useful and wasn't worth doing.

So, what makes you more qualified to make that decision that blhack and the physician they were working with? Why are you so arrogant to assume that the physician who stated that would be useful was just wrong?

Your insight wasn't particularly insightful, and you presented it in a way that was condescending and dismissive of others in the space.
how about: in the year 2036, the chinese are just better at making shoes than anyone else, because they've been doing it for 60 years?

why is this so difficult for you to imagine?

i mean, i'm pretty sure i know why, but ask yourself.
Thank you for the analysis.
What Are the Best Tips for Customer Development?
Of the year? So react is new or something? This is super outdated meme at best.
Then it must have been pure luck that the one Nyt poster I checked posts only Nyt links, works for Nyt and only comments to his own posts. He is not hiding he works for Nyt. Still I believe I see more Nyt links than ever before. I might be wrong though.
Thank you, this is precisely what state I feel the tech is in: we are just figuring out the elements of qu-circuit design and it took a while to get from Binary to C++, just like it may take a while to get from Qu-nary to Q-up-up
The WHATWG and the W3C have been moving in a very different direction, treating testing as a major part of spec development, because the goal is to get implementations of the specifications, and how do you determine that if not by testing.

https://blog.whatwg.org/improving-interoperability is a post from the WHATWG side about this, and the outcome isn't just the direct "it's easier to write code against tests" but also "it's easier to notice when the spec changes" (because you now get a failing test).
I see Scrum/etc as a program for people. It implies certain values, and defines new words, but in that sense it's like any program (in the machine sense). You may not like it, but it's hardly bullshit in the sense of the article.
I just want to take the time to tell the author that he's not that important and I couldn't give a flying rat about him and his egotistical opinion.
Show HN: Cixl – a minimal scripting language
I don't think we're really disagreeing here. Afaik, hard bounds aren't a well defined mathematical concept, and it's fine to have different ones.

What I initially meant by "hard bounds" was any kind of mathematical proof more rigorous than "well, dropout kinda makes your neural network not rely on one feature so that's why it generalizes".

As for your points, I don't think they're really criticisms of PAC bounds.

I'm not familiar with the first point, but it'd be surprising to me if most PAC bounds had that, considering PAC is a framework and not a specific technique...

Your second point is irrelevant to generalization. You're looking for theory about capacity I think? I think learnability also comes into play.

3rd: that is indeed what the bias variance trade-off would imply. It's also why most classic PAC bounds are vacuous for neural networks.

4th: I think that's a fair assumption to make for any meaningful study of generalization.
Canada.
5 year old. (My 2 year old doesn't really count here haha)

I know that my parents definitely did not watch the movie with us.
Html Header (Html tutorial)
Same goes for the modern 737
How Postgres Unique Constraints Can Cause Deadlock
Well, the easy way to flash the firmware goes through the ME, so that's about as good at removing infected ME firmware as Windows Update is at removing viruses. The other way... I mean, you could simultaneously bring down every computer your company and its employees own, airgap them all, open the cases, expose the SPI headers, flash the firmware, bring them all back online, and hope you don't have to do it again tomorrow because someone didn't get the memo and was working from home that day. And that nobody did anything Bad while they owned your entire corp net. You could do that. I wish you the best of luck.
There's a reason Atlassian products have the graphs front and center, and the actual data entry you have to drill down a lot to find.
This sounds common-sensical, but of course in practice it's almost impossibly hard to tell if any reasonable course of action really will make money, save money, or save time.

Will refactoring help? How about a continuous integration system? A better bug tracker?

In fact will fixing bugs make/save money/time at all? Customers seem to put up with them, and it's always easier/cheaper not to bother.

Will customers leave if our product is shit? Often they won't. Sometimes they will, because a competitor's product eats our lunch.

So what's the best course of action?

One problem with Agile - and all management fads - is exactly this lack of prescience. Future outcomes are unknowable. They can sometimes be estimated, but given a huge field of possible actions, making optimal choices is incredibly hard, and there's always a trade-off between long-term and short-term rewards.

The bigger problem is that corporations and businesses are very rarely primarily dedicated to making money. Internally, the true function of business processes is to highlight and maintain a political hierarchy which supports resource concentration for senior management and shareholders. Senior management and shareholders may know what's best for themselves, and that may well not be what's best for the long-term survival of the company - not even in terms of an apparently simple metric like "Does this make money?"

Because you can't answer that question without also asking "For whom?" And it's not that unusual for senior management to choose actions that protect their status over actions that increase income.
> This is YC pursuing their own best interests very openly with HN

That's actually true, but not in the sense that most people mean it. Usually when I hear this it means something like "HN promotes YC's business and suppresses criticism of YC", phrased in more sinister language. But that of course would be the dumbest way to operate such a site, especially with this crowd.

The way we promote YC's interests is simply by trying to keep HN interesting. The most interesting HN is the most valuable-to-YC HN. That's why people come here, so that's all we optimize for. Literally everything we do with site moderation derives from that.

For example, why do we moderate flamewars? Not because we secretly agree with one side or the other but because flamewars are repetitive and therefore bad for curiosity. Plus they encourage people to do worse things, so their damage extends forward in time. These are empirical observations, not moral edicts. We just look for what makes HN richer and more complex vs. what makes it dumber. Scorched earth makes it dumber.

I remember years ago hearing a radio interview with the CEO of Costco. When asked, "What would you say to Wall Street analysts who criticize you for giving all those benefits to your employees?" he replied, "I would say have you ever run a major retailer?" Something similar is how I feel when people criticize how we moderate HN. The trouble isn't the criticism—I'd be delighted to be shown how to do this better. The trouble is that the criticisms usually aren't relevant to the actual problem of running HN, which is: how to maximize the interestingness of a public-anonymous internet forum dedicated to intellectual curiosity. Maximizing interestingness includes preventing decay.

I hope that doesn't sound complainy. We're all lucky to have the opportunity to participate in an experiment like this. It derives from two things, btw: pg's own curiosity, which started the site, and the fact that the people running YC get HN's core value. It's an unusual set of conditions and we're all responsible for making something interesting of it.

p.s. I forgot to add that there are also some formal ways that HN gives back to YC: https://news.ycombinator.com/jobs and https://news.ycombinator.com/launches.
Nah. I actually read that part twice because I was so mystified by the absurdity of it.

Light bulbs are not obvious. CFLs are efficient but produced with toxic mercury; LED bulbs are efficient but produced with plastics, semiconductors, and sometimes phosphor; and incandescent bulbs are inefficient but simpler to make, with fewer harmful materials.

If the choice is between a CFL and an incandescent, it's unclear whether the mercury in the CFL is justified by its higher efficiency. LEDs are the most efficient of the three by far, but production and disposal may ultimately be worse for the environment than is the case with incandescents.

I fail to see how any backpack can be a "green" choice. I have an Ortlieb waterproof bag made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. It has lasted more than 10 years. I could have bought one wax-impregnated hemp canvas bag per year instead. However, this bag has through-hiked the Appalachian Trail on a friend's back, ridden through several countries atop my motorcycle, and made its way through many other outdoor situations that would have proven too trying for a "green" bag. Ultimately those outdoor experiences have helped to solidify multiple people's appreciation for nature, probably resulting in a greater net contribution to conservation than a bag made by some hippie somewhere.

For batteries, you would have to consider lifespan, production, disposal, energy density, power density, propensity to leak, etc.

See where I'm coming from? For the reasons I mentioned above, it seems to me that they just took a subjective stance on largely arbitrary shopping choices. Note that they don't go into depth about the structure of their experiments, the isolation of variables (eg, maybe men are more frugal and "green" choices cost more, so how do we control for that) nor about the math behind their analysis, which tells me that they either (A) had some kind of length limit for their publication, or (B) didn't feel those details were flattering.
thank you for this crystal clear explanation!
Yeah, sure. Let's say Phoenix and Denver. Or, Colorado Springs and Oakland. Or, Gatwick and Midway.
Not just technologies but also operational gains. The problems with the development of the A380 forced Airbus to synchronise their CAD/CAM software and development practices between their previously semi-autonomous offices in Germany and France. It also led to further organisational rationalisation and the removal of French and German government influence on commercial decisions. It led to the removal of a lot of identical functions on both sides of the border and removal of the rules stating that work had to be split rather than concentrating similar functions in certain countries. That in itself was a big gain for Airbus, probably worth a quarter of the money spent on the development of the A380 if amortised over the length of the project. Once the costs started building up it was easier to convince the various governments to back off a bit.
I hope that people would understand one single truth: AI isn't everything.
That isn't how the internet works. It's a series of requests and at any point some requests can be rejected. Whether that request was critical for site functionality depends on what request that was.

Consenting to requests from google.com does not guarantee or imply consent from adservices.google.com, so if google.com tells my browser to please fetch resources from adservices.google.com I'll tell them to go away.

Personally, I use a giant blocklist [0] of domains I do not wish to request resources from.

As a comparison, if you invite a friend to your house do you expect them to show up with 50 other people? Would you be upset with your friend for assuming it would be okay to invite other people to your house without your consent? Is it morally wrong to tell your friend they may not bring other friends to your house without your approval? If you agreed to letting them bring friends over, are you okay with any friends or is their neo-nazi friend not allowed?

[0] http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

>You don't agree to a TOS by watching TV and listening to the radio, the internet is fundamentally different from those media.

You don't agree to a TOS by visiting a website either. Agreement is usually done when registering an account and even those are limited in any legal ability to enforce it.
I think the best approach to internalizing those externalities are to build it into the cost of electricity. If electricity is too cheap, then it’s too cheap for everything, not just for Bitcoin mining.
I don't think we have to choose between reasons for bad design - both causes being discussed here have occurred repeatedly - but since you asked, I would suggest that there have been many products with security failures arising from designers not having sufficient skill in that area.
My father did environmental, health, and safety compliance for a manufacturing operation for 21 years. Simple guidelines would work fine for a lot of things if you could trust that the rules were just to advise thoughtful and non-malicious people. But there's always somebody too stupid or amoral to infer that "don't let this stuff get in workers' eyes" also implies "don't let workers apply this stuff without protective eyewear," so every detail has to be explicit. Sometimes the people trying to get away with something are in the executive suite; sometimes they're just forklift operators. For most rules in the rulebook, you can bet that somebody once did the dumb thing the book is now explicitly telling you not to do. That's usually why it got added as a rule.

I'm sure it is a burden to have such large accumulations of rules, particularly if 4 out of 5 are just telling you to do things that any reasonably careful person would already be doing. I don't see how to reduce that burden while also not introducing exploitable loopholes for bad actors.
You've given me a fantastic Christmas present! Now I just have to lobby the projects which use the defaults to make the delims configurable, saving their users keystrokes and horrible "how do I escape golang template delims" anxiety
I work in medical devices. The regulation can be unnecessarily prohibitive, but more often than not I see it used as a cop-out.

Where one entrepreneur says "the status quo in this space is so behind the times I can't work there," another says "there are enhancements waiting to be back-ported into this tightly controlled space from domains that have already been proven it to be a good idea." Only one of those people knows how to make money.

That's just the low-hanging fruit. And there's so much of it. Foot-stomping about having a formal quality system instead of "move fast and break things" is letting the perfect be the enemy of good.
I imagine they had other audits to take care of on that Tuesday morning in August and that Wednesday afternoon in November. It’s not like this farm was their only job for the whole year.
Emirates A380 is very comfortable, flying ex-Australia to Europe or USA it's common to get an A380 from either Emirates or Qantas. For Asia, you can get an A350 from Cathay Pacific at very competetive prices.

Seat Width is a big factor, 18" on Emirates and very comfortable seats. I haven't yet tried the 787 though, looking forward to trying the Qantas offering.
Probably so, but that doesn’t affect Bitcoin mining any more than any other usage of electricity.
>Just like people who don't want Trump to be their president should move to Canada, right?

The US is, at least nominally, a democracy, whereas all websites are essentially dictatorships. It's not even remotely the same.

>Run from the problem instead of trying to fix it... always a good choice.

I'm not suggesting running from anything, try to fix it if you like. You won't succeed, because most people don't consider it broken. Hacker News has a culture which doesn't consider free speech a priority, that's just the way it is.
Maybe it is something else, like the differing power-distance relationships that Americans and Indians have.
That’s more for B2B use cases. Like between a medical practice and hospital.

The unreliability of delivery to destinations that don’t support TLS will create customer service issues in B2C scenarios.
This is important, ETOPS regulation changes are a big reason twin jets are resurging
I think the argument is that the problems are too challenging for the management culture common at places like Google. Getting a product developed, certified, and deployed is likely be longer than it takes for them to get bored, forget what they were doing, and move on to something else.
I agree with your high sentiments regarding Elon Musk (however technology is in fact causing a huge toll, see climate change. In fact the very reason why we look at Elon the way we do is because technology's "price" as you put it is in fact not "fairly low".), but your central premise, essentially that human behavior is what's most responsible, not the tool (ie "guns dont kill people, people kill people") misses the the realization that if we can't critique the tool, we can't change it.

If we are tech enthusiasts, the discussion shouldn't be about what the causal effect is (because every problem can be reduced to human nature, and how useful is it to stop there?) but rather the discussion should be how we can improve the world wide web, and its empowerment of humanity and its amplification of our varied opinions, so as to better human interactions.

To give an analogy, to stop at human nature would be to, I admit, correctly blame humans for car accidents, but, and here's my point, it would fail to make any further vehicle improvements (ie self driving vehicles) to reduce the amount of people dying each year from car accidents. Yes, humanity is at fault, but are we going to change humanity to fit cars, or change cars to fit humanity?

Additionally, there are in fact massive amount of quality data, ie scientific journals, that are behind massive paywalls/"academia walls" and not in anyway freely available. This is the "data" that matters most, not IMDB or piratebay to rip movies and applications illegally.
> fax communication is HIPAA-compliant whereas email/SMS are not

I thought that HIPAA had the provision that stated that encrypted communication is compliant. That is, if the email or SMS was encrypted, then it would be in compliance with the act.
That isn’t what I meant, at least as far as promoting business interests; at least, not beyond nurturing networking here.

As for suppressing critique... well... that seems to be the case, but I don’t see it as unreasonable. Besides, a lot of it falls under other guidelines regarding politics or flaming.

Edit: Just to be clear, I don’t think there is any hidden agenda, and by “dirty tricks” I mean the methods, not the intent. I wouldn’t waste my time here if I thought it was just an elaborate stage show.
I am part Indian (albeit ethnically, not culturally) and work in finance. I always had a great experience working with Indian bankers, investors and VCs. The stereotypes puzzled me.

Then I spoke to a few IT outsourcing/consulting companies. It’s horrible. Starting sentences with “no” even when agreeing, jargon-laid bullshitting, lying about simple things, overt sexism (e.g. if my female colleague asks a question, the response is addressed to me), et cetera. I fully blame a small handful of firms for nurturing a toxic culture and then projecting it to the world.

(Indian tech start-ups have, in my experience, a wonderful culture.)
The thing about value is that you value things differently than other people. Thank goodness you, me, or any one person doesn’t get to decide to ban or penalize anything they don’t value.
>Maybe the firm you are dealing with doesn't pay the employees well enough, which in turn causes demotivation?

This. I had the same complaint about the India based team I had to work with, until one of them came on rotation to the states, we had a beer together, and he told me all about the working environment they have there. Nightmarish commutes, extremely nitpicky and punitive performance management, no commitment to career development, limited benefits, brutal hours, and meagre pay even adjusted for Indian CoL.

Under those conditions, it's no wonder people were hard to work with. They were overworked, held to stupid performance metrics that demoralized them, and were under the boot of a "beatings will continue until morale improves" management style.

If you hire based only on cost, nickel and dime each other to maximize your value for money in the short term, and generally treat your workforce like chattel, it shouldn't be surprising when they're disengaged and unable to be as forward leaning as you would like.