skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No, you are wrong.

If you put all of your money into the S&P500 only at the absolute, single worst possible day (the market top on May 16th, 2008 at $1,425) you would still be up about 100% today, 10 years later at $2,779 (So about 2X, just checked).

If you put money in "after the plummet," as you suggest, which is the best case scenario, (buying at the low of $735 in January of 2009) would put you up approximately 300% (4X).

The average investor would get somewhere between these two just by ignoring the market and investing biweekly.

I'm not even advising to go 100% for the S&P500 Index Funds. However that's an infinitely better idea than a portfolio that is 75% of Gold (Dumb), T Bills + Cash (Losing money everyday), and Bonds (Which are paying at near-historic lows). It's just bad advice.
The "Factorio specific" way looks the same as the Mac OS way (aka the correct way, since the Mac was built on UX research ;-) ). Was the author just hesitant to admit that his/Windows idea was wrong?

The other advice on the linked NN post is sensible too:
"If you're designing a desktop application for one of these two personal computer platforms, your choice is easy: Do what the platform owner tells you to do."

Not conforming to your environment's native design language is trouble. A miniscule part of the audience are playing the game on both kinds of platforms; the vat majority toggle between Factorio and their home OS.
I'm at a week-long point of one of the harder depression episodes I've ever had. It came from running out and thus taking a break from my adhd meds. A week ago, I was worried about my health, because I loved life and wanted to live it to the fullest. The last 3-4 days has been 14 hour sleep sessions, lack of will to get up and out, and a profound sadness about my place in life. I had to keep talking myself out of saying I didn't want to be alive anymore last night; it was uncontrollable despair accompanied by insomnia. Went to my shrink today who gave me a welbutrin script so I'm hoping that works out for me. My saving grace in all this is how I've come to externalize the prolonged feeling of down-ness.
I talked to a good friend about it, who proceeded to tell me how it was just my state of mind and that "Its literally the way you look at a situation". Not only is that patronizing, it tries to erase the agony of my experiences. I've experimented with mdma, psychs (lsd, dmt, shrooms), weed, ket, none of it has sustained any sort of cure. The problems just come right back.
"Does need extra work in some cases" is an understatement. With type 'inference' that's unidirectional, like in C and C++, you only need to look at each expression once. Thus, in most cases, the whole job is O(n) in the number of expressions.

Admittedly, there are exceptions. For example, it's possible in C++ to create humongous types:

auto p1 = std::make_pair(0, 0); // pair<int, int>
auto p2 = std::make_pair(p1, p1); // pair<pair<int, int>, pair<int, int>>
auto p3 = std::make_pair(p2, p2); // pair<pair<pair<int, int>, pair<int, int>>, pair<pair<int, int>, pair<int, int>>>
auto p4 = std::make_pair(p3, p3); // ...

Also, since templates are Turing complete, it's possible to create situations where type checking a single expression takes arbitrarily long.

But neither of those are situations you're likely to run into by accident. In most real C++ programs, all the types in the program are reasonably simple, and the template system isn't used to do anything especially clever, so the O(n) bound should hold.

On the other hand, full type inference, at least in a language like Swift that allows arbitrary overloads, is inherently a process of exhaustive search over an exponential number of possibilities. Now, as described in this post[1], it ought to be possible in most cases to reduce that exhaustive search to something much simpler – and I actually agree that the Swift compiler could be much, much better at doing so (although it has improved over time). But the post also mentions at least one case where Swift type checking can simulate 3SAT, an NP-complete problem; and I think there are other cases the author didn't think of. So it's really far from straightforward.

[1] https://www.cocoawithlove.com/blog/2016/07/12/type-checker-i...
>1950s era US ICBM fleet

Minuteman III is 1970s era.

>Destroy the few dozen 1950s era upgraded B-52s and a few misc aircraft.

That's actually incredibly hard.

>Step 3. Take out the ~14 outdated US ballistic missile subs using new supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Target subs with AShMs!? Come again?
Agree, specifically on the soundproofing aspect. Being an incredibly light sleeper, I've paid extra for luxury hotels hoping I wouldn't hear silly TVs in the rooms adjacent and slamming doors starting at 7 and repeating with housekeeping.

With Airbnb I get a separate bedroom and a fridge that isn't the size of a shoebox and strategically filled so I can't put my own store bought water into it. Just thinking about hotel culture makes me mad. And it seems global.
> The concept has been deployed at super large scale and people interact with bots everyday

Has it? Are these experiences people enjoy and would like to see more of?
Yup. It's interesting. On the one hand, they could have an employee with impeccable skills, background, training, etc, but have to pay them well, guarantee benefits, hours, etc.

Or they can outsource the contract to a 3rd party, let that company deal with coming up with hired guns, liability, etc, and just hope it all works out. And if it doesn't, it's a lot easier to fire a contract company and find a new one, than to fire actual employees.
Seem to work pretty okay in the rest of the developed world.
This can be true, but it's not necessarily always so.

Many years back, my partner was sexually assaulted, so I attended a few of her counseling sessions with the local Rape Crisis center as a support person. The female counselor commented that I was "very brave" to do that - something I found very odd.

Years later, my partner said that the sessions I didn't attend were little more than "man hating" and "man-blaming" for all of the world's wrongs.

I have also attended counseling, as I've recently started to understand the level of physical and psychological abuse that was inflicted upon me by my mother (and her boyfriend, as well as my stepfather) while I was growing up. My counselor was also female, yet not once did she belittle my suffering as less because of my gender. As I described a few events, I'd even hear her let out a gasp or draw a sharp breath, or a few words of concern.

It seems possible to me that you've come across individuals with their own concerns and agendas that lie outside the requirements of their jobs, but I couldn't write off an entire profession based on that.
You point out that I made a misrepresentation, which I did do by exclusion of a better example and citation.

In Harris v Quinn, the plaintiff quit work to care for a sick relative. Finding out that Illinois had a program to assist home health care workers to help defray the costs. She enrolled in the program and was awarded a grant to help her take care of her relative. According to the Service Employees International Union, this made her an employee of the state of Illinois. Because the state of Illinois was a "union shop", it meant that all people of this sort were de facto "home health care employees of the state", and all home health care workers who received grants of this sort were compelled to pay union dues, whether they were employed by the state, the individual to whom they were providing health care, or whomever else.

In this regard, anyone who the union deemed to be in the home health care profession, and who availed themselves of state assistance, were members of the union, and obligated to paying dues.

[1] - http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/supreme-court...
If you look at the statistics over time here for accelerators:

https://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/

it appears the number of top500 systems with accelerators is not really increasing much - it has been sitting at around 20% of the top 500 machines for the past ~4 years.

Can anyone working with these systems comment on why that might be? Are accelerators still tough to apply to a lot of the problems these machines are used for?
color cancel red.

and never color an “ok” or “go” or any action other than cancel red. not even if your app’s color scheme is red.

and don’t use both red and green.

then just be consistent.
I just posted a thread, maybe you have some insight, not sure if this is allowed on here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17270396
Short Uber etc. specific point: "Uber's market is not a free market".

But more broadly… it depends whether someone is a dogmatic free-marketer fundamentalist or just someone who was swayed by the arguments from that dogma. For the fundamentalists, forget it.

For those actually open-minded, take the scientific argument. Start with confirming agreement that you're both pro-social instead of anti-social (you both actually want what maximizes overall flourishing and well-being and don't prioritize some other value or dogma). Then get them to acknowledge that the free-market argument is a model that needs to be backed by empirical evidence to be accepted as actually describing reality instead of being just an untested hypothesis.

If you can get them to thus at least accept that understanding the complex factors in play is daunting and we can't just take an elementary principle and blindly apply it to any situation conclusively… well, then you can have a discussion with them over the next couple years about behavioral economics, psychology, culture, power…

My general go-to is emphasizing that employer power comes largely from being organized. It's not like each interviewer completely makes their own decision about hiring anyone with no rules or restrictions from the company (unless the interviewer is a sole-proprietor themselves hiring one other employee or contractor). The power in the corporation comes specifically from the organized structure of the company. The individuals on the other side of a contract are divided. They use things like unions and government to have power in solidarity, and without that, they can never have comparable power in negotiations.

So, either we accept the impulse for workers to build organizations or use government for solidarity or we insist that companies shouldn't exist either and need to just be free-market masses of independent actors too or we drop the pretense that we're describing some sort of equal-enough, voluntary free-market negotiation.

Good luck!
The internet was supposed to save democracy. 4 tech optimists on what went wrong
A dead-end job is still a job. Unemployment rates are historically low.
In the future, most people will become “gig” workers of some sort due to ubiquitous automation.
We have a review software that has buttons "Wait"-"Approve" and then "Sign"-"decline". So on one screen the positive button is on the right but on the other it's on the left. I have declined tons of reviews just by clicking on the right button reflexively.
Technically, but it doesn’t tell you much about what you’re doing. Having the action be more descriptive allows users to act more quickly.
Elon said[1] in the shareholder meeting that the Model S has changed significantly from the older versions. I don't know the differences myself, so take it FWIW.

[1] https://www.tesla.com/shareholdermeeting at around 01:16:00
[pdf] Seattle Floating Bike Share Pilot Evaluation Report
This has been a debate for as long as I've been a UX designer (mid '90s), and probably much longer.

Ultimately, the answer about this UX style is very much the same as a question about writing style—there's no objectively right answer, but you have to be consistent.

For example, you can pick up any number of style books from Strunk & White to the Chicago Manual of Style and get different "right" answers about writing style, but any editor will tell you the ultimate solution is to be internally consistent.

The arguments for each approach have merit. "OK on the left" designers will argue that because we read from left to right, the positive response should be first. "OK on the right" designers will say that the positive response carries the user forward, and because we read from left to right, forward progress should be on the right.

My personal feeling is that there's another argument for OK on the right, which is that the majority of users are right-handed, so the default choice will be closer to their dominant hand if it's placed on the right.

Then again, I may be looking for evidence to support my preference, which probably arose from the fact that I began designing on the Mac, so I was conditioned to Apple's "OK on the right" standard at an early age, and I've simply conflated "familiar" with "correct."

So the answer from this veteran UX designer would be: Use whichever placement your users are going to be the most familiar with, but whichever you choose, be 100% consistent with the choice you make.
I came back to edit the snark out.
They really are that terrible.

Back when Facebook started and people worried that they were giving info to Facebook, most thought the worst that could happen is that Facebook would be the one using that info. Not this dystopian scenario where they give it to everyone else to exploit.
Does anyone know why the standard seatback entertainment systems in planes don't have channels showing feeds from an external camera or cameras? I would love to be able to watch the scenery or cloud formations.

Is it a security issue? It seems like such a no-brainer.
Yes, there's the GCC extension __attribute__((packed)), or #pragma pack, an extension supported by both GCC-style compilers and MSVC.
That's remarkable, though a huge downgrade for passenger experience. Those 787s are really magnificent.
I really don't want to be asked if I'm having suicidal thoughts. Ever. By anyone. If I say yes, someone might try to "help" me by having me confined to a psychiatric hospital. Or worse. Having to lie about it is unpleasant.

I have suicidal thoughts regularly, but I am not going to act on them. From most objective standards, my life is generally good. I've never had problems getting dates - at least once I got the courage to try, though long term relationships are hard. I have a job I like and find fulfilling. I'm well on my way to having "fuck you money". Still depressed.

Since childhood (25+ years) I've been taking antidepressants. Have changed them a few times, though not for many years. They allow me to be mostly functional most of the time. Switching now might put me in a hole I can't get myself out of.

Talk therapy has never really helped me. I don't really have any hope left of ever not being depressed. I've thought about trying psychedelics or ketimine therapy, but can't really find the motivation to do anything.

Fuck depression.
We need a civilian-life equivalent of Rangers from the burner community.

> Rangers act as non-confrontational community mediators, providers of reliable information, facilitators of public safety, and navigators of the edge of chaos.

And/or, train police in these techniques. More empathy and patience, less judgement.
It's because Musk is a micro-manager that is easily frustrated by flaws in external solutions and more tolerant of even greater flaws internally. It's why he puts his nose into everything his companies do (eg in the article it mentions he had a role in designing the extruded aluminum base of the Model X seat, which is absurd).
Correct. On iOS/tvOS, it looks like Network.framework (and NSURLSession) is using the transport stack in-process, not layered on top of BSD sockets.

On macOS, I believe they're still using the traditional in-kernel transport stack for everything. They want to move to user-space for macOS though, this is why Network Kernel Extensions (NKEs) are deprecated (which started last year). I wouldn't be surprised if macOS uses the user-space stack starting next year and NKEs are fully gone (this also corresponds with 32-bit processes being gone)
I was surprised at the minimum requirements. I don't know if I'm not up to date with current games, but from the style of it I thought it would be much lighter.
I understand exactly what "input" means. Please stop assuming that I'm an idiot and that you're infallible.

Yes, all "data" is right there in the source code for the programs I'm talking about. (I do also write a lot of code that deals with external data, for which I write parsers or use existing ones.)

For example, I did some consulting for a company where I made a mathematical model of their physical product and simulated the static and dynamic behaviour of it in various situations. The model and situations are completely defined by a few parameters in the source code. There's no need for external input and definitely no need for any kind of parsing. Thousands of lines of code.

As a simpler example, the other day I helped a high school student write a program to do basic numerical integration. No external input needed.

I have university students who do an entire course on numerical methods without external input (partly because we're stuck in Matlab where IO and string processing are horrible). The few times they need to process a small amount of data it's just pasted into the code.

For part of my PhD I wrote programs over a thousand lines long to derive mathematical functions. No external input, and nothing that can even be called data.

Generative programs in general, for art, sound, video, etc. often have no external input. I have written many of these.

For another part of my PhD I wrote thousands of lines of code to reconstruct surfaces from point clouds. For real purposes it uses external data, but for testing and development it can simulate its own (so that the true answer is known).

You are simply incorrect.
Could that change in the future, assuming reliability improvements? Though, thinking about it a bit more I don’t really see why you’d want to launch eastbound out of Vandenberg. Not sure what you’d gain.
Did you actually read the patent? Or did you just read the title? The title of the patent is not the patent itself. The details of what they are patenting is described in (sometime very longs and numerous) pages of technical description. I'm an engineer at a big tech company and I'm an author on many patents that have pretty generic/vague names. The actual invention is described in depth in the patent application and that's what's important
Thank you for that thoughtful and informative reply.
I usually go with loud noises or swearing. That gets me through to a real person. To make up for it, I always say "please" and "thank you" to Siri when im at home.
Yes, but it does preserve some uncertainty about the rest of the world. The author may only feel comfortable enough to make a comment about Americans.
In that context "Ok" is merely a euphemism for "Accept", which would probably be a better label
no, no they weren't
I think its easy to be fooled.

I am a Software Developer with a decent salary for where I live. I got offered a job a couple of years ago, where 3/4 of my wage was through an international company and the rest through a normal Spanish one. When I saw the amount going into my account every month, I thought I had hit the jackpot as it was way more than I expected.

A while later when I got converted to a full Spanish contract, and my manager advised me to make sure I wasn't getting screwed. It was only then that I realized I hadn't actually been getting the pension payments on the 3/4 of my international contract up until then. What looked like a good deal hadn't actually been one at all.

I would be surprised if people less educated than me would understand all the hidden costs.
That's right, google search in past year only, btu focus on the php.net docs.
It's not completely trivial to secure crypto against government confiscation, without adding risk of accidental loss from hardware failure or forgetting something.
Frameworks != reproducible results. Ideally, they'd release all the code you need to get the results from the DDPG paper. I recognize that the code probably depends on proprietary DeepMind tools, making this not feasible. Still, it sucks.
As much as that American Studies professor might wish for PR groups to go to them for consulting, the word Community was meant to be received by people who are not American Studies professors (the public, maybe, and also Facebook employees if it's internal-speak). The warm fuzziness of the word choice has already been precisely calibrated.

Zuckerberg's ideal press conference would be some brief tonal warbling that made everybody support Facebook. In lieu of that existing, he talks about community.
No fucking way.
> Are there any examples of a company taking something as large as Windows OS and converting the whole thing from closed to open source? It's not like they can just flip a switch and let the whole world see the source code?

Maybe when Sun Open Sourced Solaris?

It took them quite some time to get it done, but with significant effort they got it over the line.
the full claim being countered wasn't "workers should be free to participate in the gig economy", it included "it's a free market" which is the part more easily countered.

Uber's market is a market, but it's certainly not a free market.
Going to the right seems natural to progress, but is that because English is left to right? If a language goes up to down, do their dialog boxes proceed downward?
Haven't read the article yet, do you mean airlines other than emirates? They have 3 or 4 cameras with decent views, but you cannot really make out clouds
Huh, apparently I do. It looks like I've been using that word incorrectly for quite a while.

I mean that I'm, put lightly, skeptical of the whole digital voice assistant thing.
Out of curiosity, which parts of Red Hat don't embrace Open Source?

I'm trying to think of some, and drawing a blank so far...
True

Getting diaper ads because your profile says you fit the category that might have a baby is slightly creepy but ok.

But

Providing a platform for interfering in the governance of another country and denying it is infuriating.
Why are we giving such a pass that it took till 2015 to even start walling off that information?

Prior to 2015 any facebook app developer could make an app that had a vague one-prompt ask for permissions that gave them nearly everything, and a ton of information on friends.
how? tax advantaged accounts, individual stock picks or building a business ?
If I put a gun to your head and say "Your wallet or your life," are you free?

If I lay a trap, and you fall into it, and I offer to release you if you give me your bank details, are you free?

If it's a disaster and I charge $10000 for a bottle of clean water, are you free?

If a society requires you to work in order to live but only offers you poor options for work, are you free?

We generally talk as though, as long as there is no specific person intentionally coercing you, you're free to choose. But those particular elements don't actually make much difference to your freedom. It seems to me that being set up with only unfavorable options is different from being really free to choose.
Put a window under your plane seat perhaps? /s
So you essentially stopped having high expectations of your therapist and consequently stopped paying her :-)
Maybe you forgot to read the article? All of the (non-obsolete) screenshots of Factorio have verbs, except for "Back", which is pretty clear to me.