skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you unsave a newer one, wouldn't the older one pop up again because it updates the index with limit 1000 again? If the data is there, it should find all posts and then truncate, in that order, if I'm understanding this correctly.
Yes. A review that explains why the product is good is harder to fake. Plus the reader may be able to verify independently whether the explanation itself is good. In which case the source no longer signifies.
> Which I believe is the entire point of QE.

Not really. The point of QE is to stimulate economic activity. Unfortunately, buying bonds doesn't do that either if banks don't use the newly printed money to make loans.
I don't think it is correct to say Australia didn't have a crisis. I graduated in 2008 there were no jobs at all until about 2012 companies on the East Coast just stopped hiring. I know I lived through it. About 2/3's of my graduating class (Engineering) left the East coast to move West for work in the mining sector. Fly in Fly out was about all there was going it was tough times and hard lifestyle.

Basically resources sector was only part of economy still functioning retail, manufacturing etc had huge contractions and we are still feeling the impact most of those lost jobs won't come back. Holden, Ford, Mitsubishi etc all those plants shut and left the country.

The resource boom which was driven by Chinese demand for Iron ore + Coal propped up large parts of the economy. Lookup all the articles from treasury etc at the time "Two speed economy" was real.

To say Australia was not affected by 2008 is a gross misstatement.
That was a very cool link.
That's a different problem and falls under opportunity actually being denied, and those people are wrong for doing so. They should be educated to change their ways, or removed from that position if they fail to do so.
I used to be a Smalltalk developer on Windows 3.1 for a brief time in the early 90's. When I found out that internally, Smalltalk was compiled into a sort of intermediate assembly language, and run on a virtual machine, I wondered why couldn't we just distribute the assembly language part over the Internet, where it could be run on any kind of machine with an interepreter. Everyone told me I was crazy, it was impractical, it would never work.
Passive funds are priced based on the activity of active investors trading underlying securities.
The only scenario I can imagine where underground habitats won't cut it is if we turn the Earth into another Venus. In that case the heat would eventually cook the underground habitats and kill everyone off. While global warming is by most accounts as bad or worse than the worst predictions thus far, we aren't quite to the absolute out of control greenhouse effect of Venus.
The the parent posts' user, but...

I think /mostly/ the 'big ticket' items; anything with a cost over 1000 USD.

However the price of many other items are also quite high, particularly for infinitely replicate-able information (entertainment).

I'd argue that the price of many other things under about 10 USD is largely a land ownership or transportation cost; as a society we've become so effective at producing (even grown things) that the biggest issue is the price of energy and labor associated with managing those products to end users.
That's the one I intended, thank you!
What's funny to me is how JavaScript has gone from something of a joke to a very well regarded, performant, and heavily used programming language. I can clearly remember the days when proposing any significant programming in JavaScript would get a developer laughed out of the room. Is there another example of a language that has had such a 180 degree turn around in respect and popularity?
I cannot imagine how bad whoever decided at HMNY to invest in MoviePass is feeling right now.
> javascript actually makes sense and can be the most performant.

Thanks to V8 you can definitely achieve good enough performance with JavaScript for most applications, and the ergonomics are pretty great. But it’s not true that performance rivals or beats C in the general case. The ‘sufficiently advanced compiler’ rainbow is something that Java has spent decades chasing. I think it’s fair to say at this point that humans are better at writing C code than we are at writing clever compilers.

It’s many of the exact ergonomics which make JavaScript useful and easy to use that also make it much harder to optimise. For example, what code should V8 generate for `x+=x` ? The optimiser might find that x is always a positive integer, but every time it gets doubled, it might cross the magic overflow point where it needs it’s representation swapped for a double. The generated code must check for this every time. Or consider memory management - For games I’ve heard of people making a per-frame arena allocation pools for values with a lifetime that won’t cross frame boundaries. This basically makes these allocations free and improves cache coherency. I’m happy that the JS GC is multithreaded now, but there’s no way a GC can compete with that. And unlike C, there’s no way in JS to override the allocation behaviour.

There are a million paper cuts like this which lower the ceiling of how fast optimised JS can run. I’m glad V8 will keep improving, but for my money the future of really fast JavaScript is Webassembly.
Might just be me but I'm missing the relevance. The point is that a household which has already maxed out its possible number of workers no longer has the option of sending someone else to work to deal with a sudden expense, so a two worker household is more fragile than a single worker household at the same income. The only reason I bring up productivity is to mention that it hasn't come down in proportion, which this graph doesn't show either.
What about a Fast and the Furious situation i.e. when humans start hijacking trucks? It was a ridiculous plot when you have a human driver, but not so much when trucks are automated.
You are crazy, it is impractical, it will never work. /s
The best advice I can offer for people who know what they are doing (eg: HN readers), for their homes and home offices, is to separate the functions of modem, router and wifi.

Have a DOCSIS3 / DOCSIS3.1 modem that is a dumb L2 bridge. TP-Link makes decent ones that are compatible with Comcast. You can find them and their reviews on Amazon.

Use something like a Ubiquiti ER-X (Edgerouter X) for your WAN-to-LAN interface and NAT. The Ubiquiti EdgeOS is developed by a team of people they hired away from vyattta when vyatta was sold to Brocade. It's a fork of Vyatta with a decent UI on top of it, and full SSH access. Which is of course based on Debian.

Have no wifi functions in your router!!!

And then something like a set of ubiquiti UAP-AC-LITE or UAP-AC-PRO access point(s), as needed. You can set up the ubiquiti unifi controller inside of a debian VM in virtualbox. The controller does not need to run persistently , just once to provision the APs, if you're doing basic WPA2-presharedkey authentication for your home. Bring up the VM again in the future on your laptop if you need to make changes.

This is a pretty low budget but highly effective solution ($65 cablemodem + $48 router + $78 wifi AP).

If you prefer Mikrotik to ubnt, there are a lot of small, similarly sized things you could replace the ER-X with that are in the $45 to $80 price range that will perform similarly.
Because it's interesting, dammit!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity#English
My first trip to SF was a solo trip (20 years ago) to skate all the classic spots in the city. EMB, Hubba, Pier 7, etc.

I remember getting off Bart in the middle of the city and having no idea where I was. This guy skates by as I’m standing there looking clueless and asks if I needed help finding any spots. Once he realized it was my first time in the city, he spent the “entire” day showing me around to every spot. At the end of the day I bought him a sandwich and he pulled out a giant blunt (I used to smoke).

One of my favorite memories of skateboarding and of SF.
I've already taken in intro philosophy class. Furthermore, I've been debating philosophical points with friends since I was a kid—and since I've grown up two of my good friends who I spent multiple years talking philosophy with were either presently in grad school for philosophy or had finished with it.

I see what you mean about doing philosophy in a group setting, but for what I'm interested in anyway, I'm not going to have a great time debating the above questions with an intro to philosophy class. A starting point for me to enjoy it would be that my interlocutors would need to be able to have some degree of understanding of the answers I gave above, what points might be in their favor, and what their limitations might be.

I can say no philosopher I've met personally would answer those questions like I did (though I think I've read some who would), so I'm still very curious to see why we choose different ways. But my guess is still just that they'd answer differently if they had more knowledge of cognitive science and other topics.
"Our approximation is that less than 1 percent of reviews are inauthentic"

Get the hell outta here. Look at literally any product and you'll see a plethora of obviously fake reviews. The worst I've noticed? Check out headphones. 500+ 5 star reviews for cheap Chinese products all over the place. In fact, anything that's around 500 5 star reviews is probably mostly fake reviews.
One can argue that PHP is the least suitable language to write web servers in, no standard async or multithreading, tones of leaks, and so on. Node asynchronous model is quirky but given js world's "isomorphism" it should have squeezed PHP out of existence by now
I thought the same at first but a bit further on it turns out to still batch them, you can apparently specify multiple IDs by comma-separating them.
Concrete usage seems to be a major cost predictor for anything that is not construction. That's probably because if you need a lot of concrete it's because whatever you create will face a lot of stress (thus more and more expensive material and shorter life).
That's only for a 2D ticket.
The AMC subscription for 20$ a month is so much better if you even go "only" twice a month.
He had almost crashed into me by suddenly changing into my lane on a snow-covered highway.

I braked to avoid the collision, he swerved back into his lane having seen me brake, but my car rotated from the too-agressive braking. I was able to prevent a spin, instead limiting it to some highway-speed unpleasant fishtailing, but the whole ordeal had brought my car awfully near his trailer which was now next to my car again due to his decelerating.

There was a lot of snow/slush accumulated between the lanes, and this kept pulling the right side of my car closer to his trailer, regardless of what I did, before the tires of his trailer struck the rear corner my car, violently forcing my car under the trailer, shattering the driver and passenger windows from the compression. At that point it was pure chaos from above and the steering wheel was ripped from my hands by a frontal impact with the landing gear.

Somehow after what seemed like an eternity my car broke free from captivity under the trailer and shot out the side and off the highway, through the air, before landing on an embankment and sledding down to a frozen water retention pond where it circled a few times before coming to a stop in complete silence.

I can't speak to what was going through the trucker's mind when I knocked on his passenger window and told him I was the luckiest person on the planet, and asked if I could wait in his cabin until the police arrived. My car was not even visible from the highway. He claimed to have no idea what happened, just that he saw my headlights disappear after he swerved. He had no idea my car had been under his trailer. Typing this story has been surprisingly emotional.
Countries do make agreeements on water usage. Even countries that don't like each other. Like Pakistan and India.
Partly by being inundated with them via LinkedIn and then weeding out the ones who are unhelpful. Partly by speaking with people who have successfully used recruiters to find employees or jobs.
It's a legal requirement to some extent unless you have a margin account. Funds take two days to settle. If you sell, buy, and sell again within two days, your account can be suspended for violating SEC rules.

https://www.ally.com/do-it-right/investing/what-are-unsettle...
Good old Nathan Myhrvold!
Is Owl similar to ANTLR? Could you explain the differences between the two languages, and what makes a parser unique if they're similar?

I'm curious because I've quickly run across two of these types of projects now, but admittedly know very little about them.
"But I'm assuming the general consensus is that it wouldn't change anything - a plane would be down and everyone would still be dead"

When you know the exact crash site, you can send help more accurate and therefore faster to save people, as airplanes can sometimes make a emergency water landing...

And in general I don't quite get it. GPS exists, so does Sattelite communication. And sure, for one private person it is quite expensive, but for an Airliner??
TSA “Quiet Skies” surveillance program targets innocent U.S. citizens
So is this only an issue if you don't pay off in full every month?
I didn't intend to imply all vowels can be dropped or wild-carded in English. As far as schwa, if we do refactor English, we should probably stick to existing "normal" letters rather than introduce symbols such as an explicit schwa. I agree this risks either ambiguity, or some potentially non-obvious rules to remember.

As it is, I feel sorry for non-native English learners; English's spelling is a mess. The only saving grace is that being semi-phonetic means one can often make a decent guess.
I suddenly have the urge to research "Why was an interstate system built vice an interconnected railway system?" I'm guessing that the auto industry lobby team was stronger than the rail lobbyists, even though at this point it seems like the rail was the better choice economically.
It's the towels.
This article is essentially an opinion article. It is paywalled, and the Abstract contains no actual quantitative data on which to judge the contents. It uses "today's technology" as some sort of viability deteriminant, but this is really kind of tautological: we haven't really perfected the art of sending large payloads to Mars, yet. We struggle to do about one ton. So of course current technology is insufficient.

They speak of CO2 greenhouse effect not being sufficient to cause sufficient warming... But that's kind of obvious, isn't it? Because if it was sufficient with easily accessible reservoirs, that'd imply Mars is in some sort of unequilibrium state that could randomly trigger into a partial runaway greenhouse effect (to terraform the planet, not make it like Venus) without even our intervention.

And another thing, warmth is fairly easy to address. What's critical is pressure. I'm much less interested in the amount of CO2 to heat the whole planet by itself than I am in the amount of CO2 needed to exceed the Armstrong Limit (0.9psi, the minimum pressure you can survive without a pressure suit and only a forced air oxygen mask) at the lowest points on Mars (like Hellas Basin). That's not addressed in the abstract at all, and I'm not about to pay for an article that doesn't even bother to answer such a basic question in the abstract as what mass of CO2 exists in these reservoirs (from which one can easily determine the pressure... Mars needs about 6e16kg of additional volatiles added to its atmosphere to reach the Armstrong Limit in Hellas Basin... Mars' atmosphere is currently 2.5e16kg).

Every terraforming proposal I've seen does something like this:

1) Increase albedo of surface via dust on the poles or black powder.

2) Increase greenhouse effect by industrial production of super greenhouse gases that are far more effective (>20,000?) than CO2.

3) Increase insolation of Mars via giant orbital mirrors (more realistic than you might think, as you can use micron-thick solar sail type material).

4) Adding more volatiles from exterior sources like comets or asteroids or moons.

5) Vaporize very deep reservoirs of volatiles using fission or fusion or geothermal or sunlight or impact energy, reservoirs not considered here.

Many of these require "new" technology, but the principles behind each one are pretty well understood.

...it's simply impossible to have a serious discussion of this paper as it's paywalled and contains no quantitative information in the public abstract. Instead, it serves as just a conversation piece for what people already think about Mars terraforming.
But with driving human lives are at stake now.

It just has to be better than the average driver.
> Why are you so eager to protect jobs that are measurably killing the people who work them?

uh...I'm not. Don't know where you got the idea that I was. Rather, I'd like to spend this lead up time before that industry is heavily hit to try and make sure the hit isn't so negative. Skill training programs, driver involvement in determining how the (future) devices would best work, etc. Make this a semi-planned obsolescence instead of a long-expected "surprise".
That's not an answer to the concern. Classical mechanics has no foundation -- it's a large castle floating in the air. Quantum mechanics tries to start from much less less assumed "something from nothing structure", which is puts much more complexity in sight (instead of just hiding it in axioms) that needs to be managed somehow.

If you want purely high-performance model of the Universe, nothing performs better than "everything you observe is simply invented the moment you invent it", be it classical or quantum.
Comparing college vs high school graduate life expectancies isn't valid because truckers aren't a subset of one or the other; they have a good proportion from both groups. Taking off 12 years is the maximum effect assuming there isn't a single trucker that has a college degree, which of course isn't true.
> Recursion IS hard to reason about, and then implementing it efficiently (in a runtime / compiler) is also hard

Regarding recursion, I find that recursion is easier to understand than an equivalent while-loop, but maybe it's personal preference. Also, most people shouldn't have to worry about optimizations like tail recursion.

> when someone else needs to read such code, it's hard for them to reason about it.

I'll admit, there are a few negatives with React, but they don't outweigh the positives. Micro-optimizations in user-land should never be seen by designers and if they are, then something is wrong. React's diffing algorithm is a leaky abstraction and forces the designer to be aware of component optimization, since how you break up your components affects how much work the diff has to do.

The new context API is inelegant and it feels like a square peg in a round hole. Additionally, shouldComponentUpdate is the wrong abstraction -- it is very imperative and it pushes you to break your components down into smaller components even if your app's organization suffers.

Reusability and organization should be the only two reasons for creating new components -- performance shouldn't be a plausible reason, because it creates a higher degree of overlap between the developer and the designer.
No, I'm actually saying that everything is QM, and yet for some phenomena you can use instead of that some effective theories called classical physics, that have these nice properties of needing just calculus and vector analysis and being easy to draw. That, and they having been discovered before more explanatory theories make them very popular, but it doesn't mean the world is actually separated in domains. Usually physics is taught in terms of micro and macro descriptions, the macro applies to those situations likely to be adequately characterized by classical physics, but that's because Planck's constant is really small, not because there's such a thing as a classical world. Hence for macroscopical everyday stuff classical physics usually works reasonably well, but even there, right in front of you there are very obvious phenomena that can't be explained with classical physics.

About the pilot wave theory, well it came after the standard formulation of QM, so people didn't choose between them, and it's quite a patchwork that brings its own complications. Apparently as it includes classical trajectories some people love it, ignoring that you put by hand the actual QM wavefunction to make it work, then you fix things to get the old stuff back. I find all that weirder than standard QM.
There is colloquial and there is technical usage of terms. I’m speaking colloquially. Like some people generally refer to the US as a Christian nation. They typically mean this in the sense of history or values and don’t necessarily mean to say that a majority of the population fits their personal definition of what a Christian is.
> For my own part, I'd rather have a million former truckers who need retraining and new skillsets than a million dead truckers.

I think figuring out how to deal with displaced categories of workers is a tougher problem than automated vehicles.

In any discussion like this, when I hear "retraining," I think of some county workforce office teaching you how to use Microsoft Word and Excel, giving you a certificate, giving you access to their jobs database, and forgetting about you.
The Solaris JVM from 20 years ago had an N:M green threads system. It doesnt work that well in practice when it is implicit. Some HN discussion when Rust decided to stick to native threads.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6977914