skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with physicians.

But not every other profession has the same problems. I have been on call for 12 days in a row where anyone who tells my answering service they are a patient of our office can call anytime to ask any question, no matter how ridiculous, for free. Today I have returned calls to a patient who is pregnant but concerned that she does not feel enough pregnancy symptoms and someone whose temperature is 99.8 and is concerned.

I am almost always in the office before my patients arrive, often as much as two hours, doing charting. I am signing forms to get people FMLA. We don't charge for filling out these forms. Do you think your lawyer would?

Frequently patients are late, but then still want to be seen. So either I make the late patient angry, or everyone else behind them is angry.

How many lawyers get called all night long? How many accountants are at their place of business in the middle of the night?

I have a nurse to return phone calls, but it seems that hardly anyone can have a voice mail that it set up, and due to HIPAA regulations we are advised not to leave any personal messages anyway. So we pay a whole office full of people to play phone tag all day.

Sometimes I am late, but sometimes people are unexpectedly trying to die. Sorry I never met this lady who has 2 liters of blood in her belly, so I didn't know she was going to come to the ER with her ectopic pregnancy today, and inconvenience you. We do try to call and reschedule, but again can't always get through.
Some people get it, some people don't. When confronted with claims that drive the no-carb/keto people crazy, they resort to bashing him. I'd recommend following Danny Roddy, Chris Masterjohn and CowsEatGrass, and also look for the On The Back of a Tiger documentary which is due to be released soon.
I believe this essay was submitted since it's mentioned in the top comment of the Valve guy story on the front page of HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17584563
> This is wrong. P hacking has nothing to do with the p being too lenient.

> This. I can p-hack in my field, if I wanted to, up to a p-value of arbitrary strictness, given enough time.

I'm not a practicing scientist/academic, so I want to be careful here. But, I think both of you are being a little uncharitable/pedantic.

P-hacking is one contributor to the broader reproducibility crisis. Lowering the p-value to address the lack of reproducibility is not something that I made up. Yes, lowering the p-value threshold does not eliminate the motivations/techniques that are necessary for p-hacking, but it can make it a lot harder, and a lot less worthwhile. If you work in academia, and it takes you much longer to now cherrypick a sample to meet a much lower p-cutoff, it seems to follow that we would see less of it.

This is an excerpt from a paper soon to be published in Nature: https://imai.princeton.edu/research/files/significance.pdf. The key quote: 'We have diverse views about how best to improve reproducibility,and many of us believe that other ways of summarizing the data, such as Bayes factors or other posterior summaries based on clearly articulated model assumptions, are preferable to P values. However, changing the P value threshold is simple, aligns with the training undertaken by many researchers, and might quickly achieve broad acceptance.'

With regards to the comment that you could p-hack up to any strictness, I'm not sure this is correct. If you accept the proposal laid out in that Nature paper, to lower the threshold to P<0.005, or if we go even lower to P<0.001 I don't believe that you'd be able to p-hack in any practical way. Yes, you could cherry pick a tiny sample, but any peer reviewer or colleague of yours is going to ask questions about the sample.
I’ve seen flat organization work well at one organization, essentially a consulting firm where we worked on short-lived projects. Teams had to assemble and disassemble within a span of two or three years.

It really worked well, in retrospect. Our clients (from one branch of the military or another) came to us with actual clearly-defined problems, and gave us space to engineer real solutions.

I left because I didn’t want to spend my time developing tech for the military, and I joined an industrial R&D lab. What a mess I walked into. Layers and layers of hierarchy, all decided by political in-fighting rather than merit, and every team is pushing mocked-up half-solutions to imaginary problems.
7 Space Simulators That Let You Explore the Universe
Oh, somebody got triggered here! Yes, there is sarcasm in this post! And if you don't like it, fine. But please, don't give me bullshit about being a jerk. I think you probably have not seen a real jerk in your life yet.
And yes, plenty of people have had success regrowing hair following Peat's principles - aspirin, high CO2, high carbs, little to zero polyunsaturated, moderate saturated, (thyroid, pregnenolone, progesterone, vitamin A+B supplementation) etc.

The Peaty things I've discovered that made the most dramatic difference in my life were colagen and methylene blue. My stamina, focus and overall health improved immensely after I started using 10gtt methylene blue and 2tbsp colagen in my morning shakes. Oh, and of course, RED LIGHT!

For anyone interested, look for the "Ray Peat Forum" (community organized) and the "Ray Peat Inspired" videos on YouTube.
It makes your code many times faster in a lot of cases?
And supposedly the virus can survive for an extremely long time in a dormant state. Could someone do a little bit of homework who died from smallpox, dig up their corpses, and find live samples that way?
No license or fee required. It's called the first-sale doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
I just don't like the idea of a business social network to be honest. If I get along with coworkers then I'll exchange numbers, email address etc and talk to them that way.

For job hunting, I prefer to do it on my own terms: linkedin has job postings I can view from a dummy account, then there's glassdoor, indeed etc. I don't do consulting/contract work so I tend to stick around companies for at least a year, the weekly job offers are just annoying to me. As is having to deal with connection requests from people I don't know or don't care about.

Salary wise I'm comfortable enough and not in tech to make as much money as possible, I just enjoy it: there's better fields for salary in the UK. I've doubled my salary in two years without linkedin anyway, it's not essential to have.

Then there's the whole security side of things. I want linkedin to die solely because it's such an easy source of OSINT information. I also do hate social networks in general, at least the implementation of them, for quite a few reasons.

What exactly does Linkedin offer me other than ego stroking which I can't do myself?
How much do you mix in?
Great tool for Cross-browser testing!! Day pass thing is plus for me as I need testing project wise.
Socioeconomic integration sounded great from afar, but I don't know how how much more sidewalk urine/feces I can take. I'm learning that I'd much rather deal with traffic and drab suburbia than in-your-face extreme poverty every time I try to take advantage of walkability and transit.
What type would you like? Do you think doctors would recommend such products and patients would continue to buy such products if they didn't work/help?
Once at a programming conference, I was talking with a very senior developer at a well known company. He was going on and on about their A/B testing efforts.

I asked how they decided how long they would run an experiment for. The answer was "until we get a significant result."

I was shocked then, but now I am used to getting these kinds of responses from developers ... That and a belief that false positives are not a thing.
Why Women Volunteer for Tasks That Don’t Lead to Promotions
I'm curious how many of these applied:

"""

While working in this kind of group is a very heady experience, it is also rare and very hard to replicate. There are almost inevitably four conditions found in such a group;

1) It is task oriented. Its function is very narrow and very specific, like putting on a conference or putting out a newspaper. It is the task that basically structures the group. The task determines what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. It provides a guide by which people can judge their actions and make plans for future activity.
2) It is relatively small and homogeneous. Homogeneity is necessary to insure that participants have a "common language" for interaction. People from widely different backgrounds may provide richness to a consciousness-raising group where each can learn from the others' experience, but too great a diversity among members of a task-oriented group means only that they continually misunderstand each other. Such diverse people interpret words and actions differently. They have different expectations about each other's behavior and judge the results according to different criteria. If everyone knows everyone else well enough to understand the nuances, these can be accommodated. Usually, they only lead to confusion and endless hours spent straightening out conflicts no one ever thought would arise.
3) There is a high degree of communication. Information must be passed on to everyone, opinions checked, work divided up, and participation assured in the relevant decisions. This is only possible if the group is small and people practically live together for the most crucial phases of the task. Needless to say, the number of interactions necessary to involve everybody increases geometrically with the number of participants. This inevitably limits group participants to about five, or excludes some from some of the decisions. Successful groups can be as large as 10 or 15, but only when they are in fact composed of several smaller subgroups which perform specific parts of the task, and whose members overlap with each other so that knowledge of what the different subgroups are doing can be passed around easily.
4) There is a low degree of skill specialization. Not everyone has to be able to do everything, but everything must be able to be done by more than one person. Thus no one is indispensable. To a certain extent, people become interchangeable parts.

"""
I don't like him and his delusions of grandeur or his conspiracy theories about the world (some of which turned out to be plausible, though), but at least as far as this embassy business goes, his election meddling doesn't seem relevant as his imprisonment in the embassy began way before the US election, back when Obama still was president.

It was a time where the US/UK were pretty paranoid about the Snowden affair and even pressured journalists (e.g. Greenwald's partner, not even involved, was held for hours in London) and it seemed relatively plausible that they could try to get their hands on Assange for political reasons. In an Orwellian age of secret courts and secret warrants, it seems prudent to be better safe than sorry.

And who knows, maybe that time in the embassy radicalized him into unhinged person he is now? In any case, what he did _after_ being confined for this embassy for years (possibly cooperating with Russia to sabotage US elections a bit) is not relevant for the case.
It's their strategy: they also hired developers of Dota, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, and even Ricochet.
This seems to be an opinion/summary version of https://hbr.org/2018/07/why-women-volunteer-for-tasks-that-d... (which it does link to)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17585397
It's just absurd to call him a quack. The man is 80 years old, a renowned biologist, several books published. He has ZERO interest in monetizing his ideas -- he charges a ridiculously small amount for his bimonthly newsletter, which is hardly making him richer.

Ray Peat is a true scholar and a gentlemen, he just wants to untangle the mysteries of our metabolism and sees through what the media and government try to shove down our throats.

His pieces on the vegetable oil industry are just the start of his many revelations. I've never looked at the food and drug industry the same way after knowing his work.
Show HN: Service to test your Webhooks (send request, and inspect them)
"It is clear that at a bare minimum he was used as a tool by Putin to sway politics"

Can you provide evidence or sources for this claim? It's not clear to me, although the majority of Western news-media seems to be pushing this speculation.
The regular link seems to be back now.
After listening to Optimizely reps give a talk about their success with a client (who was present) I suspect the support reps encourage these false positives. They presented a few tests as fantastic wins, when they all had basic flaws (like cold audience vs self selected for interest). Maybe that was just one bad apple (doubtful)...but it was a large client and someone they felt should represent the company as a speaker.

Concerns from the audience were dismissed and referred to follow up after the talk. Never thought the same of Optimizely after that.
> Shallow orgs can move quicker, but that isn’t free.

That's not intrinsic to shallow organizations. One common failure mode when scaling shallow orgs is consensus-based decision making that can grind everything to a halt. As you say, a flat structure with a few designated leaders as bottlenecks for all decision making barely gets you off the starting blocks. Conversely, a deep org can move quickly as long as each level of the management chain is given appropriate scope for autonomous decision making.
I'm not being nitpicky - they are components of a problem of reproducibility, but orthogonal to each other. Bad UI design and a poor backend are both reasons "X website sucks!" but that doesn't mean they're the same.

A perfectly designed, un-p-hacked study should still perhaps be held to a stricter p-value criteria than 0.05.

And I am correct - because I've done it. Presently working on a paper where, because I primarily work with simulations, I can translate minute and meaningless difference into arbitrarily small p-values. And I used arbitrary for a good reason - my personal record is the smallest value R can express.

Ironically, this isn't because I have a tiny sample, but because I can make tremendously large ones. All of this is because no where in the calculation of a p-value is the question "Does this different matter?"
Instead of defining what happens in the situation, most languages opt for making this type of error impossible in the first place. Languages with a GC do this by never freeing if a reference still exists. Rust (safe) does this by enforcing lifetimes at compile time.
One reason this has been discovered as of late in tech circles is Bitcoin.

Professor Arvind Narayanan at Princeton cited this in May 2015, as the Bitcoin community was having debates about decentralization and what it meant for governance.

See the fifth footnote in this blog post entitled "Bitcoin faces a crossroads, needs an effective decision-making process
":

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/05/11/bitcoin-faces-a-cro...

Also, this tweet:

https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1005151684807610368
We found the best way to beat LinkedIn was to create a better version of it https://peertal.com/#/profile/9

We've developed an algorithm for ranking users similar to how Google ranks pages. This does away with spam & depends on reciprocal endorsements rather than friend requests.
The "null" hypothesis would typically be that "there is no effect".

All that you can really do is prove it wrong, by measuring an effect when there "should", by the hypothesis, be none.

Due to what is known as the "problem of induction", it's not sufficient to accept a hypothesis because you appeared to not measure an effect in the past, as that says nothing about whether an effect will occur the next time a measurement is made.

p-value is the "chance" of measuring an effect, given that no effect actually occurred.
I’m surprised that they put toy example, imagenet, and RL results in the body of the paper, but object detection results are relegated to the appendix. Is their object detection result significant? If so, why not give more attention to it?
Isn't randomly looking for a pattern and then slapping a hypothesis on it post facto a form of "p-hacking"? Because that's completely commonplace and unremarkable practice in technology
JavaScript- Currying VS Partial Application
> The US seems exacty the same as it was 34 years ago.

In what sense? Surely the current administration realities - expressions, actions, how it looks from outside - have some noticeable differences from those of Reagan's?
Except when we occasionally download our personal archives.
Great post. “Contrary to what we would like to believe, there is no such thing as a structureless group. Any group of people of whatever nature that comes together for any length of time for any purpose will inevitably structure itself in some fashion”

I have always looked on and decided I would create a “flat structure” in my co. To avoid “politics”.

I have since changed
My view. An insight is that there will always be a hierarchy, or more appropriately recursive levels of control and moniotoring needed. The question is do you acknowledge that or not, do you design for that or do you let it spring up adhoc?

If you take a look at any biological system that must exist, sustain itself, there is always a control and monitoring system.

This model exists for example in the body i.e our regulatory system.

Stafford beer has developed a model for this, the viable system model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viable_system_model
Ridiculous advice. Home and landowners can be first in line to getting shafted in an economic downturn
Not all of the science needs to be fictional... presumably gravity will comtinue operating as it does today, tomorrow. Black holes will operate the same as well, unless the story gives it reason not to (black hole combobulators).

The "fiction" is only necessary for the stuff that doesn't exist today.
PowerShell Core from Microsoft Is Now Available for Linux as a Snap
Does flat = structureless?
Yeah for depression and PTSD the entourage effect is really important, the high is a part of the relief for those who use it for depression and PTSD.
I just now installed 8.0-release in vmware, with two drives, and used zpool to create a new zfs filesystem.

I can't vouch for how optimized it is; but zfs is definitely there.
https://gyazo.com/0f6261cf415b85010fcaa92557d783b4
> He also invested early in FB, Snapchat, and Uber.

Sources? I suspect origin will be himself. What does it mean to invest early in Facebook? FB completed its last traditional
round in 2006. Personally, I’m a fan of GV, but it’s weird when someone says they invested early to mean outside of an angel investment / funding round. I’d be surprised if he was part of a FB round. Instead like other social media entrepreneurs he likely picked up some on secondary market or directly from a shareholder 2007+ as much for the narrative as the financial investment.
Australia seems to have a lot of regulation in an effort to protect children form injury. As an example, it is not permissible to in the local outdoor pool with a ball. It's not permissible to use a ball in the park surrounding the pool.

You can't use a ball in the park.

I don't really understand this. Surely a tennis ball can't cause a person to drown. I suppose you could intentionally throw it hard enough at a persons head to cause serious injury, especially a small child. It just seems unlikely that would be occur accidentally.

The red strike-through circles indicating activity not allowed on signs as you approach the pool and park area tell a short story. Of sterile boredom. Okay, I'm overreacting.

And, sadly, yet people still die in waterpark accidents here.[1]

1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-25/four-people-dead-ride-...
We've got field-specific Academia.edu as our LinkedIn alternative.
To transpose the manner of organization here, one could achieve the same descriptive qualities with two tracks, and a gradation of experience levels:

quality people: early, midterm, late
full shitbirds: early, midterm, late

This is to say that terrible people (untalented, dishonest, delusional) and solid colleagues (eager learners, ordinary operators, seasoned experts) exist at all experience levels.

In organizations of chaotic leaderlessness, to keep one's wits sharp, usually the bellwether of choice is nerd signaling.

This is where knowledge of relevant trivia is used as a guideline for experience level, trading in quips, name dropping and advertisements of awareness in exchange for actual measures of skill. Actual measures of skill can prove extremely expensive, and sometimes require live fire incidents before a skill will show itself.

This is where the dishonesty starts to brew. It's easy to hear experienced people trade quips and advertise their qualities, and then become a poser somewhere else, and imitate the signals in a totally different group, while lacking actual skill.

Sometimes, in a leaderless organization, that's enough, because democratically nerd posers still add to a voting block, and doofy imitators know they are imposters and, are usually incapable of doing anything but vote a straight ticket, so adding a nerd poser to your team still ensures strength in numbers, and potentially amps up the current of buzz and gossip information channels.

But to stay alive, you need more than party members, because ultimately it still boils down to whataboutism, in the form of what-have-you-done-for-me-lately? Party members are that fickle, and core experts are still required. So now the back-stabbing, and boys clubs form.

But who really matters? The truth is in a leaderless system, there are still leaders, but the convention is to avoid signaling. It's all expressed by waiting games. You have to sit around and wait for things to become evident. So lurkers are rewarded, over time, based on familiarity with a deeper awareness of organizational hierarchy. It's just a different system of control and signaling, that integrates literal time via in-group awareness of social histories, instead of titles awarded to people who just walked in off the street.

This sucks if you were cool somewhere else, because you'll be starting over with at least half of your significance and relevance rolled back to beginner status. It's a mechanism for only rewarding years of mediocre service (loyal nerd signaling party members), or clear-cut high performance (core experts that can prove their worth), or some mixture of the two. But the core tenets remain: proof of loyalty, or actual rock stardom.

The side effect here is flame-outs. People who have social currency or expect redemption of experience levels and recognition for past external work at a third party, or expect to level up on nerd signalling alone, find frustration at the pace of advancement, and if they can't find an opening to perform, wind up lumped in with the imposters.

Some of these are valid grievances, but if you want to make an omelette, something, something...