skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think a good proxy for what you should and should not be eating is how much you enjoy the food. If you really enjoy it a lot, then it is easy to over do it. However if it is mostly palatable, but doesn't give you that feeling of bliss (compare salad without dressing vs. pizza or chocolate cake), then you won't be necessarily going back for seconds/thirds once full.

Of course, this can be mitigated if the food has a negative feedback cycle. I'm that way with shellfish, after a certain amount it becomes nasty tasting. Same with a good steak, after I've eaten enough I can't imagine shoving more down. But with pizza, I always go back for that second or third slice.
What can pandas do that SQL can't?
I like the fact this joke is 100% US-centric and this alone never came forward as a reasonable argument for its removal. Glibc is used worldwide, people outside the US (they exist!) would have no clue what this joke is about: civilized countries do not have this terrible gag rule.
Yeah, I think they stumbled into this, and having realized where they were, decided that having a proxy fight about RMS' authority in general is something they were needing to do at some point. I just don't think they set out to end up here because they were looking for the fight, and I read your comment as accusing the glibc maintainers of being non-core maintainers who were looking for a way to cause a scandal. If I misread it, I apologize.
That might work ok for Clearbit's customers - who can send an IP address and either get back a company name or nothing, but I suspect Clearbit have to have some solid legal advice for answers to questions like "What if a customer sends you a home/residential IP address?"

I live alone - my ip address is (and has been for a decade or more) static. It without doubt will qualify as Personally Identifying Information.
Problem is recapitalization might mean never getting that payday, even if the company does well.

Personally I think such things should be illegal but that’s how it goes...
Alphazero’s real secret sauce is MCTS
Wait, who considers real estate money?

If the answer is no one, then this doesn’t seem like an interesting point of comparison for liquidity.
It’s entirely possible for someone to understand that, and to be willing to trade the quantity and quality of housing for stability in the lives of existing residents.
What I’m saying is that while eating 1500 cals of pure sugar a day might not be good for your long term insulin sensitivity you’ll lose weight at about the same rate as eating 1500 “well balanced” cals of fat/protein/complex carbs a day.
A constant function doesn't act on its input. `f(x) = 6` doesn't perform a different action on each input. But given your comparison to `f(x) = 0*x + 6`, let's move away from numbers and consider a different function. `f'` which I'll define as:

const :: a -> b -> a
const a _ = a

f' :: a -> ()
f' = const ()

Now I can give `f'` anything at all. Can you try to explain the action of `f'` in any way but that it ignores its argument?
"why are some classes protected while others aren't?"

Let's be frank, a lot of the times, the idea of "protected classes" arises from the problems incurred by NOT protecting them. If something will cause problems in society, I think governments will tend to consider that thing with a great deal of care and caution. That said, your point is still well taken. We can see the problems that, for instance, having slavery caused in terms of bloodshed. It's more difficult to see the problems caused by, taking the original example, not making wedding cakes for the LGBTQ community?

So those laws are, at times, UNQUESTIONABLY ethical. I think it would be difficult to argue against the ethical foundation of the idea that in some cases, (again, slavery, Jim Crow, etc), protected class status is pretty good policy. (Certainly preferable to slavery, Jim Crow, etc.) The questions arise more when the stakes don't seem quite as high to the average person. (Taking from AlexB138's comment, the example of wedding cakes for instance.)

Maybe "protected class" is simply an idea that developed via "scope creep" over time? It starts out with everyone, quite rightly, saying "we're going to enshrine the rights of enslaved people into the Constitution so they can never again be assailed or threatened." But it develops over time into, "Well, you did it for blacks or women or whatever. So why not for nazis and pedophiles?" What you need to realize though, is that the average person, myself included, is going to think that is an extremely silly argument. Blacks and women, are not the same as nazis and pedophiles. Even if it's simply for the sake of making your argument, people will have a hard time with that equivalence being drawn.
Computers are better at the eyeballs-on-logs tasks. You teach them what is "normal" to be ignored and they may warn you about what is left, even the old logwatch is pretty capable for that.

Of course, there some basic security practices. Firewall, fail2ban or similar to stop/ban misbehaving IPs, monitoring systems metrics to detect abnormal activity/usage (not just for intrusion detection), and maybe feeding logs to i.e. ELK to notice new/unknown patterns.
Forgot to mention, biggest tip I have is to avoid tall grass and don't touch any branches or bushes but if you do then check you hand and whole arm.
They ate fewer calories, but still had lots of starch.
When someone has time to consider their actions the blame has to be put on the person carrying out the action - not the one who gave them the idea. This is for a multitude of reasons:

1) People are not automatons and they don't carry out orders exactly as given. At best you can say speech confirms their pre-existing convictions.

2) Not all forms of violence are considered morally reprehensible and this definition changes over time. For example most Americans don't consider the revolutionary war to be unjust - despite its proponents calling for the death of British soldiers.

The decision of what is just violence needs to be subject to the market place of ideas. If it were not we'd still be in a feudal system - most regime changes come about with violence. This is also why speech advocating the abolition of free speech must also be tolerated.

3) Speech about taboo subjects is necessary to explore the hypothetical. Current ideas of human rights were in the past taboo.
> the problem people have is NOT lack of awareness of the number of calories in their food

Maybe that's not the problem but it could be part of a solution. Don't underestimate gamification and feedback loops.

What type of awareness are we talking about? I imagine a progress bar telling you precisely where you are for the day and the week, now you have to consciously break the ceiling if you want to eat too much.
This had more to do with safety system failres and procedures regarding operation of critical valves than poison kinetics.

LM designs were abandoned prior to this accident due to availability and maintainability issues.
Would it have been fraud if they disclosed it to the investors? Ie is going into a store and buying your product to create an illusion of demand, by itself a criminal fraud?
> can you get sued and fined?

Generally not.

I found this blog post pretty helpful: https://takecareblog.com/blog/neo-nazis-wedding-cakes-and-co...

(Nit: anyone can be sued/fined for anything. The question is whether the plaintiff/gov't will win the resulting lawsuit.)
Swift LispKit
A lot of them are designed specifically to make it difficult for the average person to open without specialized tools.
All aircraft landing gear are certified for landing at MTOW, they just need inspected afterwards before the plane can re-enter service. The fact that frequently the captain's judgement is to prefer to land at a lower weight is a separate issue.
It happened with GCC. Today's GCC is actually a fork of the original, which became the "blessed" version once the forkers and RMS worked out resolved some issues that led to the fork.

The unforked (for lack of a better term) GCC was set aside, and the fork became the official version.
Herbal treatments can be quite helpful. Plants have developed compounds to fight various organisms over millions of years.

It's quite logical to assume, even without requiring a peer-reviewed double blind placebo controlled 100 million study, that nature has made it so, otherwise we would have single groups of organisms ruling the planet unhindered.

The fact that life on earth displays tremendous diversity and balance, from the macro level down to the micro level, means almost every organism has an equal and opposite adversary somewhere.

Plants and trees have a tremendous number of compounds developed over millions of years to fight diseases with. There is a reason, for example, that the Materia Medica for Chinese medicine is over 1300 pages of microscopic text. It's over 2000 years of accumulated experience on plant substances, while our modern pharmaceutical medicine is barely a few hundred years old.

There is also a reason why many pharmaceutical companies spend resources investigating and cataloging native plant substances. It's not that they want to sell herbal medicine, it's because they want to develop synthetic analogs for patenting purposes.

Which is also the reason you will never find as many scientific articles on herbal medicine, as you will find on pharmaceutical medicine. One is a billion dollar patent-protected industry, while the other is not.
I put it at https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hfzm3Rvm4xpwp_xHUKBHxuIEgf.... Please let me know if that fails, and I’ll try to fix it.
That’s the pragmatic acquiescence that makes them “special”.

I don’t mean to suggest people literally consider them special in thought (though there are folks that do believe wealthy folks are divine).

But an objective view, minus culture bias, of economic activity would show a lot of activity swirling into Bezos’s bank accounts

What are Bezos ideas? Selling books online. Today that seems rather quaint, so yeah it was a different thing in 199-whenever

But that’s it. Everything else has been curated around him — cloud and such, he didn’t invent shared compute time.

But the system inherently protects that now. Ownership is the root of power. And the public, through government, has taken on debt to prop up ownership of new ideas and achievements as described in the anecdote about nuclear subs

IBM refused to invest in transistor computers. So the government did. And gifted it to IBM for mass production.

There’s a paper trail to tell a narrative that shows Bezos, etc, got lucky to live now, after all this government invention

And now he just says work on cloud and homes for me with 25 toilets and that’s how it goes. He’s that special in the system that he can command such

But he’s not elected. He’s not divine. And the species has plenty of demands that aren’t related to what he needs.

I’m picking on Bezos, but to me the notion applies to any super rich “my great grandkids can retire on inheritance.”

Those are the conversations we should be having.

I’ve tutored kids in comm college, algebra and basic coding, who can absolutely build web apps and shit, but all their lives assume adulthood is pragmatic acquiescence their future

Not working with the neighbors they grew up knowing, but for elites a world away

Pragmatic acquiescence has us literally discussing the value of Bezos and the stock market and not opioid addiction, and mental health — where there is plenty of demand
What does API-linked mean?
They did a lot more physical labor and food was much more expensive, for starters.
People today eat more calories, because technological advances have made food more accessible and convenient.
> There's no good reason to pander to the latter

"Pander", no. Avoid offending when "offending" would require active effort and "not offending" would just require doing nothing, yes.

Let me talk about professionalism for a moment. The whole concept of "professionalism" is that it's a set of artificial etiquette that allows people who absolutely detest one-another to get along for long enough to complete a joint venture.

I think we forget what professionalism is; a relatively-isolationist country like the US (in terms of where its citizens go on holiday, not in terms of its foreign policy) has little need of it. For most countries through most of history, though, professionalism is the thing that you're expected to show when your country decides to ally with that country you were just at war with, and you have to work with people who had just been shooting friends of yours.

We expect—and depend on—our tooling enabling professionalism in this sense. That means obvious things like not having insults toward the French in ARM ISA references; but it also means not using religious iconography in a country with multiple religions; not including the Battle Hymn of the Republic as a default ringtone on phones; etc. We want to ensure that we don't accidentally, through coincidences of technology, destroy a negotiation or cause a diplomatic crisis.
Why would you expect that? Or use it that way? The clouds are IaaS, and Kubernetes is like a virtual human that creates resources using the same APIs you would. It's on K8S to keep track of what it's creating.
I do think describing (American) law in more detail here did help resolve some tension, because it clarified an alternative between absolute tolerance and absolute prejudice.

I don't see why protected classes aren't an impartial standard? Admittedly, the inclusion of a particular class into the set of protected classes is perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it has the advantage of being simple while also addressing the common and egregious cases of injustice fairly well.

I fail to see the connection to Rawls, aside from an interest in "impartiality".
This is actually very well defined. If the IP address (the contract with ISP to be specific - thus every IP it might provide to the user) is used for business purposes (doesn't matter how much), then it's regarded as business even though it's residential and the businessman lives there.
Agreed. I've been amazed at how good cheap guitars have gotten in the past ~10 years or so. Fender is making incredibly great cheap guitars. Even their Chinese made stuff is good. Yamaha, too. Probably others, as well, but I've had hands on both of those in recent months and been really impressed.

The quality improvements that come from heavily automating the process are hard to overstate. CNC machines, and improved metal fabrication methods, have revolutionized guitar making. They're still putting cheap hardware and electronics on the low end stuff, and it shows in the longevity, tuning stability and some other areas, but as you note they mostly play really great right off of the rack.

They're still using cheap-ish wood that doesn't age very well, also. Fret sprout and various sorts of warping is, as I understand it, still much more common on cheap guitars. My 29 year old Schecter has never had a setup or adjustment, and still plays beautifully (frets are a little worn and could probably use a touch up, but still very little buzz). The G&L L2000 bass I have is 31 years old and has maybe had a couple of turns of its truss rod in the time I've owned it. I dunno about any other setup or adjustments in its life as I've only owned it for about half of its life. But, I get the impression that cheap guitars are needing attention within a year or two, mostly because the wood is fresher when they build them and so they aren't as stable.

My G&L ASAT guitar is actually a Tribute, so it's one of the cheapish ones made in Indonesia. It's in need of attention already (quite a bit of fret buzz even without really low action), and it's only a few years old, so it seems to bear out my theory. It's not a "cheap" guitar, and it's not poorly made, but it's not an expensive guitar, either, and I'm guessing the wood was aged/dried for a much shorter period than my American G&L or the Schecter. The only other American-made instrument I have is a Gibson J-45, and it's holding up very well, too, but it's much newer...a 2008, I think.
Just guessing based on rough numbers:

$400,000 / $20 = 20,000 purchasers at that $20 price point (which is probably low for the books I see around in the space). If you guess a conversion rate of 2-4%[0] you’re talking 500k - 1mm people. Obviously those numbers shift down with purchase price normalizing to what feels more standard in the tech space ($30-$40).

[0]: https://chrismcmullen.com/2017/11/03/book-marketing-by-the-n...
Except, I don't think RMS intended this as a "joke". I honestly think he was dead serious, but worried that other people would interpret it as a joke and thus be inclined to remove it, hence his "do not remove" comment.

Technical documentation and reference is really not the place for political commentary. It adds nothing and is distracting. Technical documentation should be just that: documentation; not political diatribe. The politics would be better left to a blog post or something of the sorts.
>Well I'm not sure what economics degree you have

Could your appeal to authority be a little more obvious please?

>a Nobel winning one, says that most economists are in agreement and they disagree with you

The economist profession is badly captured by moneyed interests. This is partly why they are terrible at building predictive models (think about it: which one of them wasn't blindsided by the financial crisis?).

Often the more prestigious seeming the economist, the more captured they are.

With Paul Krugman specifically this level of capture was made embarrassingly obvious when he wrote a screed saying "what's wrong with the TPP? More trade is always good!" and then got schooled by his own comments section about what was actually in that trade deal (that had nothing to do with "more trade") and what was wrong with it:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-bran...

He obviously wasn't too stupid to understand it, which is why after enough negative exposure he retracted.

I doubt you'll find any Nobel prize winning physicists having to retract a similar "mistake" although I can think of one climate scientist who might.

>So I guess the balls in your court. What evidence would you put forward to prove most economists wrong about rent control?

New York's highest level of house building occurred under strict rent controls.
I’m all for anything that helps people, including gamification.

But if your focus is calories, and not the quality/source if your food, then you’re not solving the REAL problem which is distorted hormone levels affecting how full you feel. Junk food causes you to be hungrier than you should be.

Look around, no other mammal is overweight other than humans, and most humans weren’t overweight until junk food wasn’t invented.
> However, if those maintainers find that their faithfulness is rewarded by being told that they don't actually maintain the project, they're just tending it while RMS is busy

Someone or some group/process has to be in charge, be the final decision-maker for a group. In the case of the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation is likely that decision-maker as the owner of the trademark for "GNU". The FSF as a non-profit organization has articles of incorporation and bylaws [1] describing its process for making decisions - but it is a corporation, just like any corporation, and its decisions concerning its assets are binding in the same way as if Google made a decision about one of its products.

I haven't read the FSF bylaws in detail, but it sounds like RMS believes that he has decision-making authority over the FSF and GNU Project, which he probably does. Someone has to - what's the alternative? In organizations like the FSF and Wikipedia, someone or some process has to have the authority to make decisions. There is no way to delegate actual decision-making to the "community" at large. A person has to have it, either individually or as the executor of a process.

I suppose the alternative is having no trademark nor legal organization in charge of a project, but in that case, a disagreement could result in two different projects contending for the same name. Besides, someone or some organization ultimately has to be in control of properties such as domain names and source control accounts. The moment that a project manages any properties like this, there has to be a formal decision-making process or the project is at risk of chaos. The person who has legal control over project properties like the project domain name, or IP like its trademark, is in de facto final control over the project itself.

There are undoubtedly options for going over RMS's head, such as convincing the directors of the FSF [2] to take a vote on the issue, or take a vote to remove him as president or as a director. Alternatively, people who feel passionately about this issue could lobby the FSF directors to put pressure on RMS to reverse this decision or delegate it, without using the mechanics of a formal vote, such as by threatening resignation. Furthermore, donors of the FSF could threaten to pull their funding over the issue.

Alternatively, project maintainers can fork the codebase and carry on under a new name, managed by a new organization, which is their right to do since the code is open source and free software. To the extent that an open source project or any project is operating under a specific name, managed by a corporation, we should all understand that someone is always "in charge", though that person or group may act with a light touch or operate largely behind the scenes.

[1] https://www.fsf.org/about/financial

[2] https://www.fsf.org/about/people/board

P.S. This comment is not an endorsement of either side of the issue in a normative sense. It is intended to be a positive comment concerning the expectations we should have in working with corporations.
As much as "rogue pedestrian" seems like blaming the victim, if you go actually did go "rogue" at any truck stop in this country, I suspect you would not survive one night. Trucks Stops and Times Square are two ends to a spectrum of expectations of erratic pedestrian behavior.

I want (and expect the system already does) account for this difference. And I also suspect the model to apply this pedestrian expectation modelling is imperfect and could use improvement. I don't know how to make it perfect, or if that's even a reasonable goal.
Imagine it’s the late 16th century. And one company exclusively owned the rights to the printing press. Now imagine that this company was a powerful company involved in all kinds of sectors of public interest. Would you still question the wisdom of ensuring this company was censoring according to the standards the public and not simply in the business interests of the company?
I suspect the tool industry has a strong incentive to keep as many of them as possible in use.

I have a feeling that they push new designs to manufacturers as being 'tamper-proof', then once sufficiently adopted, push them to the sales channel to be open to open these tamper-proof screws. Repeat as needed to keep revenue up.
No, parent said exactly what I quoted. Based on another comment of theirs, I think they interpreted their citation as a population drop.

I replied initially because on a first read, I read it as a population drop, found it remarkable and then my gut told me that didn't seem right. I hoped to provide clarification to others of the too general statement (the part I quoted) about the cited study.

Good reminder on the Bay Area not being reflective of the state as a whole (aka the broad numbers discussed above). I think it will be worth my time to poke around later and understand the population change components at a finer grain that state-wide.
There's an upper limit on that.

Moreover, the assumption that the wisdom of age can outperform the speed of youth is simplistic and as much based on cultural tropes as empirically fact.
Okay, sounds like the site definitely is pushing things too far.

However, it kinda makes me nervous that this happening at the DNS level. I understand go daddy is a private entity, but I think the DNS records should be held to a higher standard.