skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From an insider's perspective (I work in self help), there are a couple of hidden things that contribute to you feeling self-critical that aren't your fault.

1. The field is very competitive and so everyone in the field hypes up their success stories. It's easy to go in to a self help book thinking it will work 100% of the time. The truth is that it probably only works 10% of the time. 10% is great unless you were expecting 100%. So failing is normal. And the most common cause for failure is simply discovering change is a lot of work and you'd rather put that effort somewhere else.

2. The vast majority of free self-improvement articles are written by content marketers with zero personal experience. They are essentially writing book reports about different famous people. It's actually a little worse than that--many think up the title and framing, and then farm the words out to Upwork (this happens even for articles you find on Inc.). The downside of this is that the advice has never been tested, not even on the author. So the readers hype themselves up and then find out that the actions they've been given just flat out don't work ever.

3. Otherwise well meaning professionals in this space get obsessed with problem solving. And as a result they talk at you like you have a problem. That's not their call though. You need to be in charge of deciding whether you are happy with your weight or not, or wealth or productivity. I walked out of a Mobile Health Conference once because I was so disgusted by the parade of thin speakers who were talking about how awful fat people are. But it comes up in article titles too--many of the proposals I see are framed as a chance to fix you. I politely talk them into a different framing.

So those are three things our industry does to unintentionally make people feel bad about themselves.
>I don't get it. Parenthood is the easiest it's ever been.

I'm not entirely sure this is true (for everyone at least), since many people don't live as close to the children's grandparents as they would have typically in the past.

All the tech in the world doesn't make up for 8 additional (in the best case scenario) eager helping hands.

As for the rest of your comment, I have a ton of respect for your handling of this hardship. I'm not entirely sure what else to say other than I always vote in such a way as to build a society that makes life easier for people dealt such an unfair hardship such as yourself and many others.
Ableton Live 10 Crack and Keygen [Mac and Win] Free Download
Will this become the Rust's era Minix (which encouraged a certain student to do an improved version?)
I looked for some Chinese developer on GitHub. This is the most Chinese source file I found https://github.com/hzxie/city-picker/blob/master/city-picker...

Variables in English, strings in Chinese when they have to (it manages a list of city names). I could work on that code and I don't know Chinese.

This is more or less what I see in code here in Italy. Sometimes somebody slips a variable name in Italian but among pro developers it's limited at cases when there is really no obvious English counterpart. Example: legal terms, they tend to be very specific and you'd need a lawyer to translate them correctly. Accounting too.
How to fairly distribute resources when the recipient are not equal?
I am setting up a crowdfunding website for medical research projects. We've decided to have 5 research projects/campaign. People could make a specific or general donation and the team would distribute these donations fairly among the projects.

The projects are different in
- their budgets
- their scopes (different diseases)
Another level of complexity is the ALL / NOTHING model. Let's assume the budget of a research project is 5000 USD. If the researcher gets 100 USD of donations, it is too small to make any difference. Typically it could be 1000, 1500 and 2500. So if the campaign raises 1500 USD, this could increase the chances to find one or 2 other grants to have the research done.
The "all or nothing" threshold should be a fraction of the total budget, it should be the minimum amount of money that could make a difference.

Here is my proposition:
Assuming:
- 5 research projects per campaign, each with different sizes of budgets B. The total sum of these budgets is T
- individual projects will be able to receive dedicated donations or a fair share of non-dedicated donations.
- before they reach the mini-goal they can't take "home" the money they raised but the campaign goes on for 3 months

Proposition:
(1) Before reaching the mini-goal:
Dedicated donations are allocated to the dedicated projects. General donations G are shared between the projects proportionally to their budget:

Scenario (1):
Each project will receive GB/T until all projects reach their respective mini-goal
If one of them reaches early its mini-goal, it will continue to receive its dedicated donations but not general donations.
Its B value is subtracted from T and now on projects receive GB/T, T having a new value. Until they reach their mini-goal.

Scenario (2):
Each project will receive G*B/T until all projects reach their goal or the end of the campaign.

Do you agree? What scenario do you find fairer? Do you have another scenario to propose?

Thanks!
So, if I understand what you said correctly, we can't vaccinate for bacteria because they're too complicated? They don't have consistent enough (or unique enough) surface protein?
Thanks, but no thanks. I’m not keen to do the homework for your argument.

[e: I’m not saying this to be petty, my point is this is not a strong argument. It’s a common occurrence, and a pet peeve of mine. I can imagine it feels right—in fact I also believe you are probably right! But were I of the opposite inclination, this wouldn’t convince me.]
Damn. I’m 30; my fiancee is 32. We are going through this HARD right now.

I’ve asked tons of folks why they’ve decided to have kids and what their experience with them has been like. Nearly everyone has said that it was extremely hard upfront EXCEPT for a friend of my fiancee’s who had family nearby to take care of her child while her and her husband worked. But my gut feeling is that those that legitimately regret having kids won’t say it in fear of feeling like they are a monster.

My Mom is guilting me pretty hard into having kids. My fiancee’s sisters are both pregnant as are many of her friends. It also doesn’t help that most of the people in our age in our neighborhoods also have kids.

Our lifestyle is mostly: lots of going out, lots of fun, lots of “us” time mixed with time for ourselves when i travel for work. Whenever the “do you want kids” question comes up, the answer is never an immediate, resounding YES on both sides, which means that it’s a no. The thought of never being able to do what I’m doing now seems like it would destroy me. But “everyone” says that their feelings towards their kids replaces that, so maybe it won’t be so bad?

But not having them is feeling harder and harder by the day, not because I want them more and more but because I feel like I need to have them for some reason and she’s running up against her “soft limit” (35).
It’s not a bad idea. Sleep deprivation combined with distraction is terrible. Try driving safely with them choking on something or screaming about something. It’s not good.

Also, any excuse to avoid dealing with car seats.
The Interface Is the Product
Higher minimum wage, IMHO, leads to a zero sum game. Wages increase, then prices increase, returning us right back to where we started. Businesses are not going to give up profit, and I think it's basic Econ 101 that if your fixed costs rise, you increase prices, or you shut down. The minimum wage in Sydney, Australia is $17.70 per hour. This has led to an increase in everything - from food to apartments. Sure you're making $17.70 an hour, but that apartment that was previously 1,000 a month is now $2,000, so you've really gained nothing.
I don't want kids, but I really want to find someone to not feel alone and depressed. Since I broke up with my gf after 10 years that we had been together I feel more depressed every freaking day.
Sorry, I should have been better about citing my sources. The manager who was blacklisting people for their opinion of social justice was Paul Cowan, see page 33 of Damore's lawsuit [1]. That section has many more examples of such behavior, which should be enough to persuade you that it's a systemic problem.

This article[2] is also worth reading, it highlights a bunch of other shocking tidbits from the lawsuit.

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Go...

[2] http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james-...
By definition you are their legacy.
I said:

>> It depends on your perspective.

You didn't change yours. If too many people choose to not have kids, their community dies. So, if you change your perspective to the community then childlessness starts to sound like:

>>> A critical part of life would suggest to me that you die without it.
ecommerce retailers would peer with them directly and the entertainment networks would then be left holding nothing.
> There are known environmental factors in IQ (most notably, early childhood environment factors), and because of de jure and de facto segregation (including redlining)

Redlining doesn't really have much to do with early childhood malnutrition[0], which is the majority of "early childhood environment factors". Though pollution[1] seems to cause problems as well, which would have more to do with the neighborhood someone lives in.

> so adjusting for socio-economic status other than race does not actually control for the environmental factors that contribute to IQ.

I'm not sure this follows. Why wouldn't controlling
for socioeconomic factors (such as parental income) be able to control for an environmental factor that has been shown to lower IQ (such as malnutrition)?

Some of the lines of logic that this would result in are kind of disturbing. It almost seems like you are suggesting that black people being segregated (via redlining) to be around other black people will make them have a lower IQ, even if they are just as wealthy as the white people across the railroad tracks. Perhaps they are on a more polluted side of the tracks? Though it doesn't seem that pollution would account for the standard deviation difference. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you are saying.

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2628311
[1]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-pollution-in-womb-linked-to...
I agree with you, poster. I'm baffled as to why you felt you needed a throw-away, though. If you don't think you can speak in earnest within this community, it probably isn't healthy for any of us to be here.

Back to your point, though, I think that the mark of an effective essay on the Internet is whether or not it drums up interesting conversation. This one has.
> only 10% of childless women actively chose not to become mothers. That leaves 90% of women like Day. Only 9% of that 90% are childless for known medical reasons

Where is individual responsibility? 81% are not 'involuntary' childless, but delayed it until it was too late.

Solution is not to comfort 40-something children, but education. But that is almost taboo.
The counter to this is, we're a uniquely complex species where culture is vastly more important than genetics. (If you doubt it, consider what in our genetics makes us different than cave painters 30,000 years ago).

I see humans who don't reproduce as analogous to cells in the human body that don't contribute to the germ line. Is the reproductive system the most important part of the body? Of course not. The brain is important too, even though none of those cells will have direct descendants that outlive you.

You might think evolution would weed out people with this attitude over time. But not necessarily so! It's quite possible to do things that help a population or a lineage, and the multiplier effect can have more impact on the frequency of your genes than directly reproducing would. (Because your culture impact can affect many people instead of just your offspring.)
That assumption isn't helpful, and even if it were, isn't necessarily reasonable. But I'll just fwd you to pmyteh's post instead of rehashing those claims here.
How so?

The example I used for myself is the typical group/herd mentality that people have (unlike individuality). The assumption is I'm a Hindu Indian, hence by definition I should not eat beef. And if I do I'm a "bad" person/outcast, rather than someone who is different from you despite sharing a similar background.
> If Microsoft paid a lot to train you up and you leave before they get that value back, then they may want you to repay them.

Who's going to pay back societies that send off educated, healthy young adults to the US economy? The value invested in individuals does not accrue all at once while they are at university.

It makes zero sense to try and balance the value at level of individuals. It is better to look at it at a larger scale (tens of thousands to millions) and approximate the value of what's coming in and leaving. There is a lot of guess-work involved, especially around future-value. There are no precise control-knobs to get the exact number and caliber of people you want; the best countries can do is set policies and hope for the best, without accounting for second and third order effects.
I failed sys design interview at FB and it doesn't look these GitHub repos about sys design helps that much. Could you tell me what book should I read to get better at it?
I might be wrong about any of these points. Here goes:

* I don't think Meltdown depends on eager (both-branch) speculative execution.

* Memory access during speculative execution almost has to work (and does on AMD and ARM), so that's not the problem. The problem is that permission checks on memory pages are done asynchronously on Intel, and may not abort execution until after footprints have been left in cache.

* You can't use memory writes to store the locations of transient memory reads because the instructions are transient, will never be retired, and so can't affect the architectural state (things overtly visible to programs). It's not that the CPU designers realized and specifically prevented that line of attack from working.

* It's not that cache state doesn't seem to be rolled back; it's that you can't roll it back. Modern computers are themselves small distributed systems. Changes on shared caches have to be coordinated. You'd be trading one race condition for another.

* Exception suppression isn't necessary for the attack because otherwise your process crashes. That's fine: you just run more processes. It might not be necessary to suppress exceptions at all, except that exception handling adds overhead and thus noise to your measurements. Also: the suppression technique you describe here is an oversimplification of Spectre; in reality, Meltdown deals with this with signal handlers or (probably better still) TSX.

Finally: I'd recommend not telling people to avoid the actual paper. Your summary is about as technical as Meltdown's is anyways. It's a great paper; more people should read it.
I live a few miles outside of Loudoun County, still in DC metro, and I have NO terrestrial internet access beyond dialup. It is quite possible that large sections of Loudoun don't have real broadband, just DSL. The county doesn't even have 100% cell phone coverage. There's Dulles/Leesburg, and everywhere else.
Agreed. Do not put a human life through the hell of not being wanted.
Mildly off topic, but do you mind sharing your approach to telling women about your vasectomy? I've started dating again recently and it's the first time I'm dating with a vasectomy so I don't know when or how to bring it up.

More on topic, there are a lot of ways you can volunteer or mentor kids in order to pass on lessons, knowledge, and make the world better. In fact there is probably a bigger impact on the world than reproducing or adopting, as these kids need it the most and you can affect more than just a few. Check out "Big Brothers Big Sisters" if you're interested.
We basically do. If half the population chooses not to bear kids (pretty normal) and the other half has like on average 2.5 kids, then social safety nets are going to collapse without massive immigration. If the WHOLE WORLD does this (which will become possible some time this century due to everyone thankfully getting richer and more urbanized), then there's nowhere for the immigrants to come from, and our social safety nets for the elderly will collapse.

Japan has managed this fairly well, considering, but it's just going to get harder and harder for them, Western Europe, and soon the rest of the developed world, China, and even the US and on to what is currently the developing world.

People don't know it yet (although they should, since it's pretty clear where the demographics of urbanization and development are headed), but population decline is going to be the problem of the 21st century, much as the population explosion was a problem in the 20th.
Foto-Foto Cewek Seksi Dan Cantik Pilihan Para Pembaca – 16
Show HN: AI Recruiter
Toss a coin (known to be non-evenly-weighted) five times. It comes up heads once. Can you now estimate the probability of the coin coming up heads? Of course you can. What you can't do is put error-bars on that estimate: you might have just seen the only "heads" that you'll see in the next ten thousand tosses. So the error bars are essentially infinite, but you can make a first-order estimate.

Analogously, we've had the capability to to detect `Oumuamua-like objects for ~5 years, and after searching for 5 years, have found one such object. That's good enough to start making first-order estimates of probabilities. Such estimates will obviously change, possibly significantly, as more observation time goes by.

Absent error bars, you can't be certain of that first-order estimate is even approximately correct. But if it's not even vaguely correct, then that means your initial "heads" observation was very, very, unlikely. Hence my conclusion is valid: either we got extraordinarily lucky in detecting `Oumuamua when we did, or Carl Sagan is wrong.
I think if you try to buy anything with that many quarters they’d push you away.
Yes, it's the perception that is concerning me a lot. To the physical doctor in A&E the prescription for anorexia is "1 cheeseburger daily" to which the patient says "no". To the doctor, this is then self-inflicted and less deserving of sympathy.

I agree completely that the NHS is critically underfunded and preventative mental health treatment is the ideal course of action. I didn't mean to imply that completely refusing to treat is an option, more wondering if there's a point at which a doctor can turn around and say "You say no, therefore I say no".
I think the author, who admittedly sweeps through a lot of strange generalizations on classical history in this article, is just using the idea of Aristotle and Plato "not being enough" to illustrate the delusions of consumer culture. We are no longer satisfied with pure virtue but instead have to buy things to display our success.

I do agree that self-help writers have a strong tendency to completely ignore Aristotle or do some terrible injustice to his self-improvement philosophy, but I'm not sure if it's really happening in this particular article.
It's not pronounced wee-men. It's a shorter sound than that, but I guess I'm proving your point!
Says or does?

He might talk about profits a lot, but Berkshire is very much a cashflow-optimized machine. The entire thesis of the company was a hack, noticing that insurance collects cash upfront (premium payments) in trade for future liabilities, giving smart insurers a huge amount of cheap, investable cash.

Within Berkshire, they have operating businesses (Marmon, Fruit of the Loom, Dairy Queen) that throw off operating profits, which then get plowed into high-return but illiquid assets like BNSF (the railroad) which are great long-term investments, but require deploying mountainous, almost government-sized piles of cash.

This isn't my own thinking either; it's a bit of an infection of American businesses that we're so margin-obsessed. This is the thinking that got IBM out of PC manufacturing. "You can't take a profit margin to the bank", as they say. And given the current rate climate, we're anything but capital constrained.

Cashflow is everything.
Not really. It’s the long tail. The most popular videos are (in addition to likely being ultra resolution like vevo media’s) watched many (8-10?) orders of magnitude more times than the least popular videos. Bandwidth matters, cpu doesn’t.

It’s actually the same 80-20 rule. Eighty percent of the costs come fro serving twenty percent of their videos:)
People that grow for quality over quantity can produce some prodigious pot plants. 20L/day is right about in line with what is described here: https://hightimes.com/grow/giant-plants-of-southern-oregon/
I dunno about the no-consensus thing. It's kind of like saying "there's very little consensus about how to do frontend development with javascript." Well, perhaps in one sense, but in another sense there are some obvious paths (proven frameworks whether Angular, React, Vue, etc, proven and well-documented patterns/approaches - SPA, REST, etc), best practices, and things to avoid. And context matters, of course. When would it not? Surely life is not less complex than software development.

A couple things which I believe there are consensus about, at least within the clinical psychology field:

Exercise is the most obvious thing that comes to mind. And getting into nature. And meaningful relationships.

Cognitive behavioral therapy generally seems to have good results.

Meditation.

Coffee is good for you (just kidding, that one flips back and forth every week).
That seems defeatist. Healthier/stronger support networks would almost certainly benefit everyone.
I most cases say, mammals have a desire for sex. Also instinctual love for their offspring and a motivation to feed, care for, and teach them.
Humans certainly have all that..

But that does still not tally with a pre-meditated rational conscious desire to have children. We certainly wouldnt expect to see that in other mammals.

I think the type of conscious decision to have kids discussed in this article may be a socio-cultural phenomenon.

There are documented cases of stone-age level people who had not actually made the connection between sex and resultant children. We are not certainly imbued from birth with knowledge like that.
Clojure seems to be very conducive to this by importing a library of words in another language:

https://github.com/echeran/clj-thamil/blob/master/src/clj_th...

Elango Cheran gave a talk about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqjMZNwnYCY
How to Win Friends and Influence people is still my favorite book on self improvement so far. I'm big on improving myself and I've read a lot on the subject, and often make some suggestions to others. Part of the problem is different people need different advice.

But there are also a lot of scammers/bad advice in the genre that people are wary of. I think specifically because I often listen to self improvement, educational, and entrepreneurial videos on youtube I get a lot of ads for it. Promises that if you just follow their system you'll be rich, in perfect health, adored by all...and they'll let you know their secrets for the low price of $100/month. Even with good intentions sometimes the advice is just to be ridiculously optimistic and some of it is just about wishful thinking. Sorting through it all to find the good stuff can be hard for people. Although internet reviews do help somewhat, I think people get a bit tired of trying to find the answers that work sometimes.
I'm pumped too see the new OS architectures Rust will allow for.
I have seen a junivile cat do the same she was hardly out of kittenhood and took a rat bigger than her.
Same in Czech. "Kyslicnik uhlicity", and "uhli" means coal (plural).
Wow, I would have loved to take this class in my undergrad. This looks really cool!