skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
OK, so first, you bring up three points, which if they were sound, are good ones. However:

1. Has it? Jacob Sullum (for whom I have a great deal of respect) addressed this fairly squarely in Saying Yes. That's over a decade old now. He also addressed this as one of his main points during his appearance on C-SPAN[0]. Are you saying that you have research to correct his work? Have you presented this to him?

2. Here, you presume that addiction is spread through a vector of casual use. But that has never been shown, except in the strange case of nicotine, which appears to be an outlier in this property. [1]

In fact, in times and places of widespread drug use and in times of temperance and sobriety, addiction seems to afflict between 10 and 20% of the population.

The evidence suggests that some people are pre-disposed to addiction, and that the act of drug use has only a small effect compared to this pre-disposition. So then the question becomes: why treat this segment of the population like an underclass?

3. Again, do you have evidence to support this claim? There are today many functional heroin users - see the medical field, for example.

...but even if you were correct on these three points, is that sufficient to justify such a repressive, immoral policy as prohibition? Don't you think that, in the absence of prohibition, people will generally be healthier and have better access to help?

What do you say about prohibition psychedelic drugs? Isn't this an affront to religious freedom?

Your points seem to assume that drugs as we know them will continue to be drugs as we know them in the absence of prohibition, but it's far from clear that that's the case. For example, we currently have access to alcohol (a drug which is as dangerous as any) in varying degrees of concentration, from beer (relatively benign) to grain alcohol (which can cause death quite easily).

However, during alcohol prohibition, access to milder forms of alcohol disappeared, leaving people to drink mostly whiskey (and often horribly impure whiskey at that). James Gray talked about this quite a bit and quite convincingly I think. [2]

Similarly, today, we have a very corrupted view of plant drugs because the benign forms (coca leaves, poppy tea) are unavailable, so people with a taste for those plants instead use cocaine and heroin. In the absence of prohibition, we will likely see more people return to use of the plant forms of those drugs, just as the end of alcohol prohibition has gradually pushed the slider toward beer and wine (although liquor use still hasn't returned to pre-prohibition levels).

Finally, the best argument against prohibition is probably that it funds incredible evil in the world. Illicit drugs are a market of over $400 billion at the wholesale level. A great deal of this money in turn funds criminal gangs or third-world dictators. Why allow them to continue to corner this market?

[0]: https://www.c-span.org/video/?176758-4/us-drug-policy

[1]: http://drugwarfacts.org/node/3343

[2]: https://youtu.be/xEC2IK4piwI?t=5067
Definitely. Car injuries have stayed roughly the same per capita.

And it seems like many communities have quietly lost pedestrians (it seems like baby boomers are atypically car-dependent compared to the generations before and after them but they're a huge generation and the biggest one in many places).
Same argument for eating meat, and fast food right?
Companies should stop treating an MBA as a technical requirement for employment.
>This approach will give you income, and at the same time you can start noticing problems in your clients you can help them solve with a product.

this has occurred to me
It is possible to reopen, but it requires 5 voters with >3k rep to do so, or one voter with a gold badge for the tag.
I think the point they were making was that they do all this extraneous stuff as well: if I’m looking at a single tweet, why on earth does it need to serve that much JS up? Why on earth is it not a simple HTML page with the information on it?
TensorFlow 1.8.0
This is a common problem with folks who start in management roles right after college. It sounds incredibly trivial, but you have to kinda be on the other side ... "be managed", to better understand the difference b/w good management and bad.

I also had some very incorrect paradigms about the world which I was able to correct in the first couple of years of work (and which I continue to do today whenever I find them to be wrong). Not having the opportunity to do so is a great disservice to these folks... they may never realize some very simple things that most people find rather trivial but they seem to have great difficulty understanding.

e.g. that person who never responds to emails. If I were to guess, it sounds like he has a very inflated sense of self (not common right after college, especially from a top university). It is likely he thinks whatever he does is AWESOME and the boss will realize this and he doesn't need to communicate with the rest of the team.
You don't need anything fancy like culture to explain the rise of East African humans, just food will do it. My Neanderthal ancestors required something like double the number of calories to survive that my East African ancestors needed.
Wow. I would love to see this become real. There are so many cases where I want to be able to use assignment as an expression like in lisp and it is simply not possible in python because of how locals works. This would (hopefully?) finally make it possible to assign names dynamically in python which is a feature that is sorely missing and leads to enormous amounts of code duplication where sometimes you have to write the same variable 3 times when you should only have to write it twice (the if statement example is exactly this). f-strings solved some of those issues, this looks like could solve some of the others.
Wait, do you use sunglasses for the purpose of protecting your eyesight?
You can see how the sentence increases with the value in the chart at 2b1.1 (b)(1) here:

https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/2015-...

The value of the goods matters a great deal. The sentencing documents go into detail on it. The 11th court judge writes that the previous sentencing range, which he affirmed, was "largely based on a calculation that valued the infringed goods at $700,000." That put it in the range of 37-46 months, and prosecutors had threatened more early on when valuing the discs at $299 each. The plea deal took it down to 15.
"people who are very pro-legalization often ignore the fact that recreational drugs currently seem overall bad for society"

I don't think it's the drugs that are the problem, but the way people use (or rather abuse) them, and the conditions that drive people to abuse drugs.

Lots of social conditions are bound up in problems for which drugs alone are blamed. Too many people are poor, desperate, lonely, outcast, downtrodden, hopeless.

These and other social ills are what encourage drug addiction (and other types of addiction and destructive behavior), and they are the things that society will have to squarely face and overcome before they can effectively treat addiction.

Merely making drugs illegal hasn't and isn't going to work. Locking people up for seeking a way out of their misery hasn't and isn't going to work. Merely making drugs legal isn't going to work either, but at least it isn't making the problem worse or adding all sorts of other problems to it.

One day you're an addict, the next day you're an addict and shot by the police or in jail and your life is ruined and it's likely to get even worse once you're out. That doesn't help anyone.
There was "popular" (secular) music back then: think of troubadors playing bawdy songs accompanied by lute, pipe, and drum. But there was no way to disseminate a great song to the masses until the advent of the phonograph (and even more so the radio).
Info-metrics
> 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now?

Two thoughts:

A balance has to be struck. We can't preemptively take away people's liberty to do anything that the government claims might harm others. That would be a very restrictive, totalitarian society, with government empowered to control any activity; driving is a danger to others, for example. On the other hand, we don't accept people walking around with plastic explosive in their pocket. The question is, how dangerous is each drug? Alcohol makes people violent, for example.

Also, the illegal drug trade creates an enormous amount of violence domestically, and also undermines government and funds insurgencies throughout Latin America, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the worst-case scenario for violence among users, legalization might reduce violence overall, especially organized violence.

> 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs.

> 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?

Both questions assumed no regulation or other measures. For example, certain drugs can require prescription (e.g., if the doctor diagnoses addiction), and sale and distribution of them can be regulated through pharmacies, like other prescription drugs. Other drugs can be regulated like alcohol. Treatment can be part of the prescription.
How can it possibly have any value whatsoever if it's not real?

If it's real you can wonder ok what motivated actual people to behave in this way, what actually happened?

If it is made up (which it almost certainly is because it's so far fetched and ridiculous) then it has zero value. There's nothing worth thinking about here or discussing if it didn't actually happen. Like I said it's just a really poorly written short story.

You don't discuss literature the same way you discuss journalism. I can't believe you don't already know that?
Is the current legal situation actually preventing the deleterious societal effects you predict? There is an enormous amount of crime and abuse associated with controlled substances now. If our current strategy was going to work, wouldn't it have done so by now?

Addiction does not result from experimentation. That's not how drugs work. Vulnerability to abuse and addiction comes from social, mental, and emotional instability. Furthermore, addiction is not a phenomenon unique to drugs. It's a neurotic state that can twist any activity which is healthy or innocuous in moderation (e.g., shopping, gaming, weightlifting) into an unhealthy obsession.

Healthy, secure, and informed people generally don't have any interest in drugs like meth or heroin, even if they have access. Criminalizing the people who have fallen into abuse and addiction isn't addressing any of the root problems. It just perpetuates the broken system.
This would catch attempts to use wrong-typed gadgets. With current CET, if I can corrupt a branch target to point to, say, system(), then I win. With type checking, I would need to corrupt an indirect branch that has the right type.

AFAICT the CET shadow stack isn’t protected. An attacker that can write (using a regular write-what-where primitive) could modify the shadow stack. It should have been a new type of memory that is only accessible with special instructions.
I suspect that's because HN doesn't make it clear that your email isn't publicly visible on your profile.
You've probably experienced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photokeratitis

I don't know if photokeratitis of the severity caused by normal outdoor activities has long-term consequences, but more severe UV exposure such as from welding without goggles can definitely cause permanent damage.
I think we basically agree.

The only way I can think of for measuring the complexity of a language is an inaccurate empirical one: see how hard it is for speakers of unrelated languages to learn it. That approach would probably confirm that Hausa is harder to learn than Bahasa Indonesia, for example, though whether that's what other people mean by "complexity", I can't say.
> So we might be interested in low-precision arithmetic to save energy in a battery powered mobile device, or to save clock cycles in a server application manipulating a lot of data. This means that the numerical tricks that most people have forgotten about are relevant again

The more I experience engineering advances the more I see how cyclical techniques and technologies are. Almost everything old that was useful will eventually be needed again. Early computers were severely memory and cpu restricted. Then we got giant computers. Then we're putting microcontrollers everywhere and need those frugal techniques again. And so on the cycle will continue.

A possible conclusion is that the danger of obsolescence from a really profound knowledge in a field is far lower than one would expect, specially if you can weather the cycles of technology and find new markets to apply your expertise.
"Safely" or "legally" slow down?

It seems that in cases like these there are two possibilities --either the driver is passed out/dead, so you definitely do want to stop as soon as possible, or the driver is a dangerous idiot, as it is in this case, so he also should be stopped quickly, and if he rack up another traffic violation in process, well, serves him right.

Practically speaking, of course, it is not obvious if Tesla is capable of safely navigating to a safe shoulder.
Why did it take you 11 years? This doesn’t sound like a startup, more like a monetized hobby.
It isn't an accepted PEP, just a draft.
> Maybe the type would just be an integer that the ABI would assign meaning to. But if you did that, how would the function's type be determined? Some pseudo-instruction at the CALL target?

Exactly.
Pain implies that something is not right, but something may be wrong without being painful (e.g. endocrinian disruptors).
Hmmm ... in hindsight it looks like I took one phrase out of the whole comment, interpreted it literally, added some analysis of my own, and really pounced on it. Now I understand what happens to public figures. Sorry.
At Nike, Revolt Led by Women Leads to Exodus of Male Executives
Most times there are shades of the true answer spread across multiple HN comments. That isn’t true here. This (the comment I’m replying to) is the only realistic way of looking at it. You need raw grit. My brother hit his tendon with a hatchet an 8 hour hike from civilization deep in the Canadian wilderness. He hiked back. Every step hurt. Sometimes you just need to move forward step by painful step. If you don’t you will fail. Sometimes it’s ok to fail. Sometimes it’s not. If not, just keep moving forward.
> It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now?

It isn't largely prevented now, prohibition has not been effective.

> If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity?

Public health screenings and interventions that aren't inhibited by fear of criminal sanction. Addiction to certain drugs serious through entire populations now, with prohibition, and treating it as criminal matter complicates intervention.

> It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?

Perhaps. Making drug use itself a crime obviously doesn't prevent that from happening, so I'm not sure how that is an argument against ending prohibition.
Qtum’s Blockchain governance
One more... massive effects on entire countries who lose rule of law because the local population simply can't compete with the drug/gun money of the narcos. In fact, a caravan of people displaced, in no small part due to our war on drugs, are now at our boarder to ask for asylum.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-caravan/b...
Has your community looked into a toll system, with reduced cost or free passes for residents?

Regarding public transportation, I wish this was an issue that more people understood. Yes, it takes higher taxes to build public transportation infrastructure (although buses have pretty low upfront costs), but that public transportation could replace your need for a car, saving you a lot of money. Even if you personally don't use public transportation, it has a lot of external benefits: less traffic, less air pollution, brings in workers who may have been priced out of working in a certain area.
If you legalise it you can tax it, you can ensure people don’t go overboard with personal consumption, and ensure the drugs are actually not laced with potentially deadly substances.

It makes users more visible, and gives an easy point of contact to help those that want the help.

I’d say it comes down to how you deliver the drugs - like you should not sell to people that have never used it, and it should still require something like a mini consultation before you get it - allowing people that really want help to walk away from it.

People today are taking harder drugs - so why not put a supportive and regulated context around that. Having it underground causes more problems and makes people judge others when what they really need is help.
Bank of America Is Closing Three-Year-Old Daughter’s Account Over Crypto
This is why I'm leaving fintech for good. Is healthcare worse??
The tri-state area is far more complicated than you seem to make it out to be. For one you can't make sweeping generalizations like "property taxes in NYC ... are drastically lower than the suburbs".

What are "the suburbs" here? Westchester? Nassau? Which parts of Long Island? Which parts of New Jersey? Each has different characteristics. Likewise, NYC property taxes have characteristics all of their own.

NJ is known as a high property tax state. That's true but you need to understand why. Why is because so many NJ residents work in NYC and pay NYS income taxes rather than NJS income taxes.

As for the high-tax NY suburbs like Westchester... it's complicated but the tl;dr version is school spending, inefficiencies and state-mandated defined benefit pension plans [1].

As a general rule though, NY state single family home ("SFH") owners pay disproportionately low property tax rates compared to those in multi-dwelling units ("MDUs") ie apartments, which is NY state's (fortunately tamer) equivalent of CA's Prop 13. Upstate SFH dwellers have voted themselves tax breaks in the form of caps on property taxes. Apartment dwellers however have to property taxes based on Assessed Rental Value ("ARV").

A $3m brownstone in Prospect Park might have property taxes of ~$700/month. A $3m condo in Midtown Manhattan will likely pay $1300-2000/month in property taxes (so ignoring common charges). And that's AFTER the condo and coop tax abatement, which is a "temporary" decrease that's been continually passed by the NYS legislature every few years continually since 1996. Without that, those apartment rates would be up to 50% higher.

But it gets worse. Those who pay the lowest taxes of all (as a portion of their property values) are... foreign billionaires who buy ultra-luxury condos on 57th Street, CPW, Park Avenue and 5th Avenue.

I applaud your effort to correct the GP's misconceptions but you've also made some sweeping generalizations yourself.

[1] http://www.westchestermagazine.com/Westchester-Magazine/June...
Slack was developed internally for years at Tiny Speck before being released.

So they aren't like most startups who generally start their 24 month period with a lengthy period of product development.
I'm on year 2 of my startup, and around month 9, I felt similar to you, so I can relate. Real traction began around month 20, and its still modest. Here are a couple of issues I see:

1. 9 months isn't long enough, as others have said. There are exceptions, but those are the exceptions. I can't think of any startup in recent history truly reaching product/market fit within its first couple of years. Facebook, I guess. It's not abnormal for it to not happen years out. pmarca's material on it suggests this, as well.

2. You not only raised money very early, but you raised it from non-professional investors, as far as I can tell, so you're un-nerved about losing their money, while they want to push you to turn their thousands into millions. Raising more money at this point is only going to exacerbate everything you're going through.

3. High-touch sales are absolutely the norm in B2B. Your efforts are a good thing. If you take a lot of the typical YC advice at face value, you'll be lead to believe that you should be measuring your conversions, etc, and having a nice hockey-stick shaped growth curve. This is absolutely not going to be the case for a B2B company on month 9, unless they've struck platinum. There was a startup school segment where Kevin Hale (IIRC) advised the founders not to measure sales, since they'd likely be in the single digits for the first year and not yield anything meaningful. Instead, you should be measuring your own outreach. Any other metric is going to be close enough to zero to be meaningless at this stage. Your product is going to be crappy, your presentations and pitches are going to be awkward and sloppy.

At the end of the day, you have the best idea of your chances for survival. With what you've mentioned so far, there's promise, but it'll be up to you to make it happen. Even if you stick it out for a year or two longer, the odds, of course, are still against you.
Pm-tools: small linux tools to manage processes
I don't think it's the eating they object to, but the killing. They protest this by not consuming, which lowers demand and reduces the need for violence against animals.
It hallucinates its own patterns.

the tl;dr is that a healthy brain produces a significant amount of activity, even absent of sensory stimulation.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-in-the-brain-during-senso...
That is itself an over-summarization. Strong Towns is absolutely not against public infrastructure investment. It even concludes recommending investment in the downtown area.

It is against the big box national retailer model. It is in favor of smaller businesses with local interconnections in denser areas, which creates are more resilient economy (which is where the "nostalgia" comes in). It's not against public investment, it just thinks it should be spent on a different model. Money quote:

> In the pursuit of the shiny and new, the efficient and the low-priced, we turned our backs on decades of small business wealth creation. We walked away from all of these stores — all these families and their local bank deposits, local newspaper ads, local insurance brokers, local accountants, softball team sponsorships, Fourth of July floats, Crazy Day sales and after school jobs — and, as the old saying goes, put all our eggs into one basket.
I'm slightly disappointed this book doesn't cover quantum computing -- which nowadays seems like a central part of quantum information. Any comprehensive resources to learn fundamentals of quantum computing? (without delving too deeply into particular applications)
All of those things are subject to substantial regulation, meaning that it's not that much of a risk to eat at a restaurant I've never heard of before. And even with those lower stakes, plenty of highly-rated restaurants I've been to turned out not to be so good.
Reassurance is valuable in itself. That would be one valid reason. Building a network would be another.