skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Media and social media have all but lost their reputations, or at least in my eyes anyway. Does anyone still believe anything they read on social/regular media?

Everything is either regurgitated clickbait or a vortex of hate inducing fluff piece. Eventually you just desensitise.
It is! It's good for their health, but at a much finer grain and for different purposes than protecting them from, for example, buying beef that's full of arsenic or a bottle of tylenol 500mg +/- 2000mg.

Being able to read critically is absolutely a necessary skill. But it's fallen behind as a defensive measure against outright attacks on your knowledge base. There's simply no level of critical reading that can keep your opinions correct in the face of a torrent of falsely-attributed hate speech.
The best vacations for me have always been “take it at your own pace”. Sort of like book a flight to a destination and only book a hotel for a day or two. Then it’s all an open book. what to do, how long to do? You do what feels good to you. Sometimes we’d spend an entire day at the spa, or have a picnic by a remote lake, or hike up a mountain to a beautiful view, or just chill at the markets and talk to the locals, try new food.

There is no deadline, no next place to be, one activity at a time that feels good. Sometimes you crave adventure, sometimes just do nothing and sleep, read a book, cuddle, have sex, etc.

The world has a lot to offer than just your home.
I last used boot camp in 2012, and it was fine; buying a MacBook for the purpose of running windows is ... uneconomical, at best. But it does work.

However, could you elaborate on why the fact that you cannot buy an OSX license proves your point that Apple is in the business of selling licenses? I am at loss.
It may have been my incoherence after having just woken up but I was more sardonically commenting on the existence of the bias itself and whether it being a hidden bias or a publicly stated standard operating procedure would be preferable.

Naturally eliminating it would be better, but at the moment I am not confident the US will. It was more a stab at the sad state of affairs and if at least pretending to not be biased is preferred to at least knowing it's the default state
The answer is easy -- No, it won't be able to change and grow.

Have been to more than one character museum where they show evolution of character. For most of the history you can see some change between 10-20 years, but it stays completely same for last 20 years or so.
But at the same time an average person cannot afford to save any money!

This assumption is stated and accepted around here uncritically but with zero supporting evidence. Four out of five Americans are not desperately hand-to-mouth poor as this figure suggests. Accepting the extraordinary 80% claim for the sake of argument, some of them must be in stable, full-time job situations — and some those have to be in two-income households — by law of large numbers.

Having identified a segment of the 80% with at least decent incomes, that shatters a premise of the Reich piece. They can afford to save money but do not because consumption is too high relative to income. The balance goes on credit cards, home equity lines of credit, or other debt instruments.

Of those who are living paycheck-to-paycheck with no emergency fund for contingencies, how many have written goals? How many are executing an intentional plan where they make and follow a budget each month? Those are important questions that go unasked.
Is the documentation ready?
> they may in the future not allow me to enter the USA (I'm a citizen of USA).

I always thought that if you're a US citizen you cannot be denied entry into the United States, though you might be delayed.
The character set has been pretty stable for a long time with the exception of post-war character simplification (which could be done again without changing the codes)
Well some things are way cheaper in US, like gas which makes owning a car cheaper. Most consumer goods are also cheaper due to no VAT and stuff like that. But Europe has things going for it too. Free healthcare and free education being the top 2 areas were you save a ton of money compared to US (literally tens of thousands dollars per year you don’t have to spend).
Twenty? I don't know what you mean. If you pick up a Japanese book published in 1960 the characters are the same ones they use now. Nobody was using bone script or anything.
I have been occupied with other things and only now have the time to respond.

Every model of "black hole" has as a fundamental underpinning which is time dilation due to increasing gravity (by whatever definition of gravity you may use). At whichever "event horizon" you may choose (in discussions with physicists, they have claimed a minimum of three different event horizons), time at the event horizon as observed from the universe at large stops. The underpinnings of "black holes" requires an eternal universe, no "big bang", no finite age. Formation as we see stops and can never proceed in finite time. We live in a small isolated part of our galaxy and we are unable to observe clearly many sections of our own galaxy. We rely on proxies and a belief that these proxies are adequate to match to the models and theories that are considered to be correct by consensus.

If you think about "black hole" formation as described by the various models in use, there are a number of assumptions made that don't actually match what see in our observable universe or in any practical experiments we do.

I am no mathematician or theoretical physicist, but every source of mathematics that I have studied and am continuing to study makes it quite clear that our mathematics is approximate in its mapping to reality. There is nothing wrong with this technique, but it does mean that one has to take what results we get with a grain of salt when comparing to the actual universe around us.

I find that when any of the many mathematical models in use today is declared as "reality", then I see this as the peddling of misinformation. Mathematics can and does provide us with a tool that is useful in describing what we see around us. But it is limited and always has its failure points. It is interesting that I have had this discussion about disagreeing with the consensus view with someone (a physicist) who argue for it, yet they themselves hold a particular non-consensus view over other matters relating to cosmology and could not see the extended possibilities in looking at different potential models and theories.

The simple point is that the mathematical models and theories are possible maps of the territory and are not the actual territory itself. It doesn't matter how detailed that map appears to be, it is still missing a great deal of the detail of territory itself. When it is used to decry alternative models because they are different, without actually testing those models for any kind of veracity, then we have a problem.

The simple fact is, we actually have little understanding of the universe about us. When we find discrepancies or phenomena that don't match the current models, we should be big enough to allow people to investigate alternatives freely without treating them as pariahs and heretics. It may well be that those alternatives have no veracity, but then again, they may be the start of a new outlook and understanding of the universe about us.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who disagree with the consensus view will be treated badly. This is a function of what it is to be human.
> but nobody treats that as the ultimate goal.

I remember watching Andrew Ng's course on ML and he was often talking about "AI dream".

I think that the goal of AI is to build machines that are progressively more intelligent. To build those machine you have to build an artificial form of intelligence, to further analyze and research what intelligence really means.

I don't think humans are really able to visualize a form of intelligence other than human or mammal/earthly life forms. Our intelligence comes from an evolutionary need to figure out things in order to survive, but it's an earthly version of how we evolved. With that said, I think we can already say that our definition of intelligence will always biased because we put our human intelligence on a pedestal, and worst than that, we won't be able to detect other forms of intelligence because of those reasons.
It's a site where we browse published stories and then go at length having meaningful discussions. The pinnacle of social media.
> All in all, numbers that describe the natural world aren't all that impressive compared to the human world.

But you're comparing mere cardinality with combinations and permutations. We know the latter always produces huge numbers.
Remote Spectre exploits demonstrated
"How is that even possible if the median income is $59.000?"

That's median household (or family) income.

If your household consists of 2 people, that $59k is slashed to $29k per person.

So the real per-capita median income is significantly lower than $59k.
It wouldn't surprise me if, on average, one household had two income earners, so it seems in line with the parent's point.
That seems to be the attitude across tech, not just with electric cars. “Trust us and come into our magical garden where we take care of everything”

Extremely unappealing to me.
The increased demand is the other side of the squeeze on regular people driving the housing prices up. So they lose bargaining power both with their employer and their landlord or developer.

Meanwhile many other goods are manufactured outside of the US, benefiting primarily the mega corporations who can do international arbitrage on physical products.

There's also the third side of the squeeze where the native workers desperately need to contrast themselves from the millions of migrants. They do it by going deep into debt to get a college degree from an American university, which then goes completely unused except for its signalling value

the official rate hides more troubling realities: legions of college grads overqualified for their jobs
The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust those stupid voters to make any choice if this choice is predetermined by ads?

Personally, I think people can defend themselves against lies (though it doesn't happen instantly) if they have alternatives. And that's why we should resist censorship, and not prescribe filtered news to societies.
This reminds me of an incredible bit of satire from P.D.Q. Bach (Peter Schickele)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vHpeUO5mw
Feel free to reach out to me, all my contact info is in my profile. I’ve had a similar experience recently, I’m a software engineer, plus I have experience in counseling/life coaching.
Perhaps you are right that the most effective long-term way to stop the masses believing bullshit and eating shitty food is by forcing the companies to do something about it, rather than teaching kids to think and look after themselves. I hope you're wrong, though.

It just seems that teaching kids good habits early on will kill off all the bad habits, fake news nonsense at the source. Fake news would die by natural section because everyone would see through it. I hope it is possible. It would be nice to see more of a focused effort on teaching kids that anyway. Perhaps evidence shows it's futile, though. The current state of affairs is very disheartening in any case.
It's not about "identity". It's about experience with the issue which for many gender issues is often tied to identity. "Other thinking people" can also do better to recognize this.
For maintenance free batteries, coupled with an intermittent power source and an intelligent controller, the whole system coukd act as a constant power source.
How the BBC is reinventing iPlayer to try and keep up with Netflix
I had many adventures interfacing other stuff with mostly MicroFocus COBOL. Some personal observations:

* The COBOL knowledge shortage is a myth. I got pretty good at reading their code and giving the COBOL guys small bugfixes while most of the time not even having the compiler at my disposal. Learning COBOL the language is pretty easy, even if actually doing something with it is slow, verbose and bureaucratic. Training new devs will never be the problem if a company and a person were found willing.

* But training is the problem, politically. Why would a dev learn a language that is a bad mark on the resume while being paid less? Why would management want to risk their career by pushing forward an evolutionary dead end?

* And the language is a dead end. NLS in Cobol is really weak, which means it's a no-go for anything global. Fixed width everywhere causes massive technical dept as there is a tendency to 'cheap out on bytes', after which you're completely locked in by the required data migration everywhere. Cobol culture is rife with obsolete practices. One program equals one file (and some libs managed by other cobol devs) most of the time, so methods of a few thousand lines are the norm.

* The real value of the COBOL devs I know is that they are business people first, technical second. They know their business, deep. They've seen everything and smell if an idea is good or bad. Because of this, they run rings around younger devs and analists when you look at business value, especially if said devs/analists are outside consultants that knknow basically nothing and just code what's been fed to them. While training for Cobol is easy, training for the actual business is close to impossible.

* Another Cobol upside is being a technical dinosaur: The Enterprise Architecture Astronauts or bungee-boss CEO won't touch it with a 10 feet pole, so there is no new great architectural vision every other year. Lava flow architecture is not that huge a problem. Besides, your code base lived more than 40 years and is already ugly as hell. The technological investment and training cost have been made long ago. Cobol devs can just convert problem to program without weird technological surprises, integration hell, or architectural distractions.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad I don't do COBOL. But its not burn-it-down-and-start-over-now bad either.
If you prefer reading this as a single PDF document:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcu...

(From: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z...)
Confusion about many of the comments.

COBOL can be used for online system and performance wise a 16 MB (M not G) even for a small mainframe (PC on P5!) can support 1000 uses easily. Whilst it is totally dated, no one support and IBM charge a lot - None is related to cobol, or cics or ims ...

For the floating point part ... not using those. Most of the attention is to handle and agree upon how to do exact calc inclding reminder. No rounding per sec in the system. Nothing lose. Not even one cent. Hence, floating point ...

And change it to c, ada etc. It is English programming language. The hard part is to translate and test. And explain to use decmical as exact number.

... lots of project has successfully migrated. But unless you get that right - cobol is not slow and it is an exact number computation with in depth business know-how, good luck.
I did not talk specifically about Japanese, and I don't think the OP did either.

And I should clarify for that -- character mostly stop changing once printing press is introduced, and stop almost completely once digitization is completed. Of course common language get digitize long before, but all common language seems to have digitization completed 10-20 years ago.
No, the original commenter threw in ”because capitalism” in a context where that causation is clearly not obvious, and failed to give any justification for the claim. They got justly downvoted for a poor argument.
The political challenges sound immense. The last paragraph in the article sums it up nicely.

> "The hurdles are minimal and the negotiations simple, as long as everybody agrees with Nevada"

Besides the Hoover Dam/Lake Mead, what other large scale energy storage opportunities exist in the United States?
The cost of living in those countries is also much lower than in the US.
Go to is shopify for sure
> It's possible that real world code that converts to double uses temporary variables and a more complicated expression involving other operators with different precedence.

The primitive types in Java and their operators have always been a hack for performance in the object-oriented type system of Java. So if such code exists in the program, there can be very good reason (in particular performance), but it always has "code smell". So it always should be commented properly.

> if the developers are unaware of the implications

You do not do such a conversation if you have not read into the implications.
086: Last Chance, Kubernetes, Knative, Ansible, Google Next, and More
Fair point. Like all situations it’s just another kind of a challenging situation. I’m a first time dad to 3 week old. Our day needs to be structured as little 3 hour days. Sleep deprivation is very real. We get by, by appreciating “other people must have had it worse and their kids did just fine. look at the single moms, or people in poverty, or parents of colic kids. We will do just fine! Nothing special”
I don't blame them. If the market on macOS isn't big enough to justify a Metal rewrite, I'd do the same.
>parents

yes, it does assume all those things. I was kicked out at 18. I saved enough money such that I'll always have enough for a deposit on an apartment. I am very good at hawking rooms to roommates. Beyond 18, I wasn't afforded the privilege of living at home for cheap.

>health insurance

Yes, once again it assumes those things. I literally said that in the next sentence. I don't have health care. If I make below $20,000 next year, I get medicaid in 2020.

>Medi-Cal

each state is different. some go by tax return and not current income.
This idea of the idle wealthy is a stereotype that harbors envy despite the fact that it does not match reality. In The Millionaire Next Door by Dr. Thomas J. Stanley, the author found that 80% of American millionaires had parents who were not millionaires and inherited no more than ten thousand dollars.
Seems rational to me. Why should a vendor continue to support an operating system with only ~6% global market share, now that continuing to reach that tiny sliver suddenly requires that they rewrite their entire rendering stack to target Apple's proprietary API's that don't work anywhere else?
The reason for this is because the poster above shared an anecdote without that well-researched evidence. That means that if you're not aware of that well-researched evidence, the natural response to anecdote is by sharing your own, since anecdotes might not be representative and the sharer of the anecdote might want to be aware of that.

Thus, I think the most valuable part of your post is sharing that the original anecdote is actually in line with well-researched evidence showing that that happens. It would be even more valuable, I think, if that was the main point of the post. By starting out with "What's will all the <people identified by a characteristic they can't help>", which immediately guilt-trips people and makes them less open to the information that might actually lead them to change their behaviour. More effective would be to frame it more like "if you are <characteristic you can't change>, you might not be aware that <thing>, but you might want to do <desired behaviour> because of that".

Sure, it'd be nice if people would already know that, but I think it's good to focus on what's effective. Knowing all research or exactly how people unlike you experience life is really hard, so it's nice if you can help us with that.
> The logical consequence of the belief in people being unable to defend their minds against elaborate ads is that we should abolish democracy. How can you trust those stupid voters to make any choice if this choice is predetermined by ads?

In many parts of the world and many parts of history, voters' choices are determined by quiet words from the secret police or louder words from the guys with guns. AFAIK we don't really have those problems in the US or places like the UK. Why? Because we have laws against it and game-theoretic payoff matrices involved in the enforcement and adherence to those laws that make it generally better for everyone if those laws are enforced and adhered to. I think that there probably is a regulatory solution to this. I just don't know what it looks like yet, because it's a problem domain we haven't discovered a good notation or vocabulary for and can't discuss very well. I think that efforts like this report, which attempt to carefully define "misinformation" and "disinformation" to clear up the ambiguity of "fake news", are leading us in the right direction.
I always read the code first, but many times there's additional curl > bash and if I check that url there are yet more curl > bash several layers deep with branches. And they want me to run this as root ...
>Modern advertising techniques are effective enough that most people simply cannot defend themselves against them.

This worldview is just sad and wrong. You are dehumanizing human beings, victimizing people and trying to strip them of their agency. How can you let people vote when in your view they are incapable to make informed decisions?
i think regular people don't have great coverage of disabilities. is cancer a disability? you get it, you can't work during treatment, you lose your job and insurance.
What is utility if not an infinitesimal of quality of life?
Right, my point being that some of this stuff is non-obvious and there is often a reason “why not”
here is a perspective video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1mkjkTqg0Y
As I posted in my sibling reply, I think it might be good if you tried to focus on informing and actually trying to help people change their behaviour, rather than just voicing anger. I understand where the anger comes from, but try to realise that it is the exact thing you're angry about: you're mad that people can't identify with your experience, because you can't identify with not being able to do that without your (constructively formulated) help :)

Interestingly, I'm somewhat afraid that this isn't formulated constructively enough. It's really hard to write this without sounding like I'm attacking you. But I guess that's what discussions are.
> Same as newspapers do, television stations do, and every other media format do every single day.

But newspapers, tv stations etc. are centralized hierarchical structures that can afford to have editorial policies. They have such thing as reputation to think about. Social media, on the other hand, at least how I envision them, are open platforms for anyone to find topics that interest them and express whichever ideas they want. Social media are amorphous, are different for every user, and should not have any agenda to push. They are a delivery mechanism, not an instrument for selectively amplifying some voices and selectively suppressing others.
Adding a percentage of interest...
Because I don’t feel my genome data needs to be private, or that there is value in keeping it private.