skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Once people can run JavaScript and WASM in a sandboxed environment (the browser), you might as well give them the ability to run a rendering engine. There is nothing magical about rendering engines.

Comparison with Flash et al. is not accurate anymore, since these ran in an unprotected environment. Also, they were cumbersome install whereas WASM apps don't need installation (but can live in a cache if desired, and could even be shared among websites).
> If you ban a conspiracy theorist, doesn't that give him credibility among conspiracy theorists?

If someone believed this before without evidence, then supplying them with evidence either way does nothing to change that situation. Except...

> How is anyone better off now that he's banned? People who didn't watch him still don't watch him. People who did watch him still watch him ( maybe moreso because they downloaded his app ), and people who were on the fence maybe think he was right.

You forgot the future generations of people who now won't be exposed to his messages just because a random Facebook friend is a convert. I am thankful for that.

As quixotical as it sounds, we must be intolerant of intolerance. Exclusion is the only goal of the intolerant, and by allowing them to speak we are encouraging the very behavior that we are trying to prevent.
Feedback on InstaSchedulePro?
That's not the point! The point is that the intervention is natural, i.e, just abstinence. The person isn't consuming pharmaceuticals or inserting a mechanical device.

Likewise, if I use sophisticated ML techniques to identify young students who have attention problems, but then the actual treatment is 1-on-1 tutoring (rather than, say, drugs), this is still a natural intervention. And it is reasonable to suspect that it has fewer side-effects on account of being natural, which must be traded off against it's lower effectiveness.

Personally, I generally find the distinction between natural and unnatural interventions mostly unhelpful (since there are plenty of natural ways to hurt yourself), but it's a meaningful distinction and one that can plausibly provide useful guidance to someone who is very risk adverse.
there are historical and sociological reasons for why they're over-represented.

This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?

You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments

But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.

Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.
If you consume 20 joints of marijuana a day it won't go well either compared to tobacco. But nobody does that (I mean few do).
It's easy because a) the signaling system in use is pathetically insecure, b) the wireless protocols are pathetically insecure.
Opt-in security is the best form of security, after security by obscurity /s
Has China made anything original?
I think the problem with that is, in the US at least, once a company starts issuing a dividend, it is expected to keep issuing that dividend, no matter what. And not only to keep issuing the dividend, but to increase it over time, too. Companies are expected to cut almost anything else, even taking on debt or laying off workers, before thinking of cutting the dividend.
It literally is not, by the actual legal definition of freedom of speech. I think a lot of people have this oversimplified idea that "Freedom of speech" means "Anyone should be able to say anything, and they should face no consequences for it", but this simply has never been the case, and the people trying to redefine freedom of speech are being extremely duplicitous by pretending that they're not twisting the definition.
A loosely related interesting fact. When you go on long international trips you're more likely to go on older planes than would be used for short domestic trips.

Really counter intuitive since you'd think you'd want the tip top newest beasts for the long international flights, but the main wear and tear on planes is in pressurization cycles. International flights experience a single pressurization/depressurization for a long trip, whereas domestic flights experience numerous pressurization cycles over a much shorter period of time meaning they cycle through them much faster. The planes used on the long international trips end up being flyable, safely, for much longer.
why would doctors willingly give up making extra hundreds of thousands of dollars?
It's a fairly easy statistic to find; here's the first hit on Google: https://www.medicalbag.com/finance/examining-physician-salar...

One caveat is that oftentimes you'll see higher numbers (in the range of 15-20%) cited, but that's usually because they're not distinguishing between doctors (MDs) and other clinical staff (nurses, physicians' assistants, etc.). In the aggregate, the latter account for about half, or in other words, roughly equal to what doctors in total pull in. As that article notes, this also doesn't mean that all of that money goes to the physicians themselves. Some portion is taken by the practices and groups that employ them, and a huge chunk of physicians' take-home pay is allocated towards business expenses[0].

For the context of the original article, only MDs are relevant, not what NPs, RNs, and so forth make.

[0] Unlike software developers, who generally have their business expenses covered by their employer, physicians are typically expected to cover all of theirs out-of-pocket, which means that the seemingly-high salaries that you often see listed aren't directly comparable to salaries in many other fields, where the out-of-pocket expense are much lower.
Historical epistemology of the body-mind interaction in psychiatry
Recreational usage is not relative to the substance, it’s dependent on behaviour. If you’re dependent on a substance (whether that’s physically dependent or mentally) you’re no longer a recreational user but if you’re using something frequently or infrequently for enjoyment then you are a recreational user — regardless of whether or not that substance is safe to use at your chosen frequency.
>It's all well and good to ingore minority issues, until you get a lot of other angry people with no political outlet.

That's exactly why the Federal government doesn't ignore them, and why States shouldn't either. But you shouldn't be able to carry discriminatory policies with you.
I think that ship has already sailed. We need to be moving to a world where those magic strings aren't valuable, and punish companies that use them. It seems unfair; punishment feels it should be directed at the leakers, but you can't put toothpaste back in a tube, at least not cleanly, and the toothpaste is still likely contaminated regardless.
I would argue that this is an awesome way to write a story. The same way you would enjoy reading a story written as a series of reddit comments.
The part of his argument I find most convincing is his first remark that in practice convention (a) has the fewest programming errors.

Aside, Antony Jay cowrote of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Jay

I'm familiar with the shows but didn't recognize his name.
It's the opposite of stupid - asking for explicit evidence is the only way to test whether this so-called "implicit bias" actually exists or is merely a conspiracy theory.
Are you suggesting it's status? Google engineers do better in the dating market?
I'll take it a step further: Companies have no obligation to allow speech on their platform. Full stop.

If I run a Transformers forum and I've decided that FIRRIB* will be the only opinion allowed, then that is the only opinion allowed. You come in here with that FIBRIR nonsense and I'm well within my rights to deplatform you on my forum.

* A semi-humorous debate in Transformers fan circles. FIRRIB stands for "Frenzy Is Red, Rumble Is Blue". Frenzy and Rumble are two tape cassettes that transform into robots. Their toys use the same molds, the only differences being in their colors. Due to the overall similarity of the two, the names get swapped in various incarnations. They toys have Frenzy as blue, while it's the red one in the cartoon.
Don't skip leg day.
law students
Google Employees Protest Work on Censored Search Engine for China
Do workers own the means of production? No. Are they going toward that? No. It's not "communist" then.
I think it absolutely should be. They're benefitting from the company doing better (in fact, in many cases, they're benefitting despite the company doing shitty), why should the actual workers doing the actual work not benefit as well?
So Chrome doesn't use certificate pinning for distributing updates?
> When you talk about preventing addiction, are you referring to the war on drugs

When you talk about preventing systematic racism against blacks, are you talking about the Atlantic slave trade? Because the the relation between the latter pair is about the same as that between the former.
In five years, people will be able to watch amazon content on large screens whenever they wish and manybe amazon will air new episodes on a large screen after you verify that you are a prime subscriber or something. I see poeple living in thessse theatres.

Brilliant.
>>Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and hundreds of other companies hire thousands of candidates every year.

Interviews in those companies are far more brutal, go upto typically 8 - 9 rounds, with an additional bar raiser round. And its a straight reject even if a single person from the panel gives a bad feedback, regardless how amazingly you have aced all the other rounds.

By any measure that IBM interview is a walk in the park.
That’s one part of the problem. The other part is that it’s actually quite easy to convince most cell phone carriers to change the SIM card associated with a given phone number. Once you’ve pulled that off hijacking the account is easy.
Certainly could! I was just lazy and wanted an alternative to managing swarms of containers.
With modern ML, that is not true. For example, a browser could easily run OCR on the frame-buffer and read it out loud.

In fact, the approach would be more general, since a lot of text is already embedded in images on a lot of websites (think also about ads).
But that doesn't work here either -- 255 + 1 = 0, and 0 <= 255, so you still loop forever.
back in the day, it ran better on windows before we had strawberry Perl.
I also enjoyed High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games [1]. The photos bring back a lot of memories

[1] https://www.amazon.com/High-Score-Illustrated-History-Electr...
When was this? I graduated highschool only 2 years ago and all through it they forced us to use Delphi, because the old teachers didn't know anything else. At least I learnt Java in my spare time back then.
And then diminish it to zero again because yes it should be possible for employees to do that. The economic value for most people of being locked out of your phone number and not being able to easily fix the problem or easily upgrade a phone exceeds the cost imposed when some of those people are morons and assume ability to receive an SMS message sent to a particular phone number is any sort of security factor.
If I am reading the charts on page 3 right [0] the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that labor productivity raised ~1% in 2017 while unit costs of labor raised ~2%. Going off the assumption that labor should be paid in proportion to the value they produce, wages should increase when productivity growth outpaces cost growth. Thus since that didn't happen in 2017 wages should be about flat.

Can you give an alternative reason on why average wages should increase?

[0]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf
I have more or less the same experience.

I used tomato-timer.com. It’s really good.
Ha, touche. Although in this case, the legislative and executive branches are still separated more than they are in typical parliamentary systems of government, with differing incentives.
Go has a pervasive concept of “default being zero” where people are encouraged to write code so that zero-initialization is valid and reasonable. This means that, when adding a new public field to a structure, you always make sure that the default value (nil for pointers) is valid and backward compatible with the previous behavior (eg no change in behavior).

Rust has a half backed support for default initialization, where you can either mark all fields as default initialized via a macro or none (or you can mark them and add a constructor that only changes some, but then the API is confusing for clients unless default initialization is a valid construction). This means that it’s much more common to write constructors, and being forced to set many fields to 0, empty string, None, ecc. is tedious and factually useless; the provide support (Default macro) is not powerful enough to avoid this, unfortunately.

I strongly prefer Go’s approach to default initialization in general, and I think it is orthogonal to non-nullable types (you could have both and save the day). For instance, I don’t see what we lose in Rust by saying that integers auto-initialize to zero unless you name them in the constructor.
Seriously? A glimmer? TV is a wasteland of shows glorifying the lives of the wealthy. There's even an entire genre of reality TV called "Real Housewives of...". Or, you know, the Kardashians, who literally multiplied their net worth by filming a TV show about their wealthy, drama filled lives...
We're on a finite planet and numbers are increasing rapidly. Very few countries have a reducing population - Japan, and well, that's about it. At some point the solution has to be fewer people.

Looking at the world's pressing problems with loss of species, diversity, soils, climate change etc; all are hugely exacerbated by numbers.

Even if we were to perfect interstellar or interplanetary travel we're unlikely to be sending billions.

So what is your solution? Anyone who doesn't hold the view that the planet needs fewer humans, in the foreseeable future, is simply ignoring the problem.
> the people trying to redefine freedom of speech are being extremely duplicitous by pretending that they're not twisting the definition

What about the people trying to redefine freedom of speech from a concept to a legal definition?
> Most also don't know that accounts such as Authy and other non-SMS 2FA authenticators can still be stolen if your mobile number is stolen.

I was under the impression that apps like Authy and Google Authenticator have no connection with the telephone network/phone number. Do you have any reference that claims otherwise?
>How is anyone better off now that he's banned? People who didn't watch him still don't watch him. People who did watch him still watch him ( maybe moreso because they downloaded his app ), and people who were on the fence maybe think he was right.

Existing on a platform has two undesirable effects that are relevant here: 1) It legitimises them, to a degree, by putting them in the same place as honest and factual sources; and 2) It provides zero-friction paths to more followers. If one path to getting inside somebody's head requires being retweeted by somebody they already follow, and the other requires them to visit and re-visit an external domain, one of those is _much_ more likely to catch people.
Computers at its core have no clue about offense or defense, that is in the realm of context (and lawyers).
Some of this stuff is bananas, and you're totally within your rights to say, "please read this PR; I am using this library / this is Python.". But if someone's asking me for a refactor, I say "let's make a separate ticket for that", and if multiple people ask me for conflicting things, it's totally fine to say "please figure this out and update this PR, or I'm ignoring both of you". I think you made a good call switching jobs, but sometimes a great job is worth dealing with some troublesome processes.
It's easy (or at least easier) to be open and honest about our faults and failures when no one is telling us we'll burn in eternal damnation for them.
Accountability yes, but holding them responsible for what their service was used for is a slippery slope.
What you say must be the real story.

It's just that the article says, "was able to get his phone number".

Getting a phone number, to me, has always had a pretty universal meaning, which is to simply learn its digits. But I suppose you must be right and they actually mean a deeper compromise.
I guess they are all on some staging environment in order to test the next release.
Honestly, I find this practice unacceptable, and unfortunately I see it a lot. The academic world should frown upon this kind of presentation.
my @arr = (1, 2, 3);

for my $i ($[...$#arr) {
...
}

It is however, advised not to change $[.
Glad to see RethinkDB is still getting some use!
Yeah the article writes “They can either block gigantic swaths of the Internet (and face enormous backlash) or allow SNI to work” but I think China shows that depressingly the enormous backlash is a myth.
Interesting I have some studying to do. Thank you!
You're going to work as a "GP" with at most one third of the training of almost every other doctor in practice? Seems like you're shorting your future patients a bit. My advice as someone who sees a lot of patients who were incompetently managed at urgent care is to avoid going this route. You're setting yourself and your patients up to fail with potentially devastating consequences.
Blame Netflix, Disney and the Dodgers for Killing Americans’ Cable-TV Bundle
Can the person who down-voted me explain why asking for a source on a fact-based statement is worth a down-vote? Just curious why that's offensive? I could have googled it myself, but it's not my source, it's the OPs I was interested in.
In other words: You noticed that array offset operations have an additive structure, and as the neutral element of addition is the zero, the only sane way to do indexing is to start at 0.
Indeed, a relative of mine recently died of oral cancer, which was thought to be caused by moderate drinking.
Yes probably reshape would be the natural MATLAB way to do it. Under the hood it doesn't change the memory allocation of the mxArray, just the metadata -- so the reshape takes virtually no time. But if you wanted to do the loop like that, I think you could simplify that to 1:10:end , btw.
Also there is a blockproc function that will do it for you, you just pass in the chunk size and a function handle to 's', but it's in the Image Processing toolbox
The Engineer/Manager pendulum (2017)
App.net also made some mistakes (speaking as a subscriber). The biggest mistake it made was going freemium because it enabled a whole lot of post-only accounts that didn't have an investment in the platform. Limiting following didn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference for accounts that just wanted to make noise.

The social network I use is private and invite-only, and I make small regular financial contributions to it, which means I care about its health and the community. It's the only one I use.
> So anyone talking of natural birth control is eyed with sucpicion.

Right, so the author is suggesting something is inaccurate about the word "natural" (in the specific sense that if you quote the word in this context, it means you are disavowing its correctness and attributing it to someone else) -- even though it's not -- simply because the author disagrees with the other persons conclusions, politics, or methods. But the author does this in a way that isn't technically disputing the word usage, so that if they are challenged they can always back track. (See "motte and bailey": slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ ) This is a textbook example of a dark-side persuasion techniques rather than honestly engaging with arguments.
Because men in software don't agitate for them in the same way (some) women do.

But in other fields sometimes such events are organised, to encourage men into female-dominated jobs. Guess who comes out of the woodwork to attack them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne...

The University of Sydney is under fire for a new scholarship of nearly $30,000 that gives preference to male applicants, with the head of the scholarships office likening it to grants that “discriminate” against students who are not Aboriginal.

...

“The way I think about it, affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education – that’s what the exemption in discrimination law is about, so you can procure particular benefits for women in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics], Aboriginal students and so on,” Grant said. “It’s not for further advantaging men. It’s really quite bizarre.”
PGY1 gets you a license, but most private insurers will not reimburse for non-board certified providers.
> They unwind the stack.

That's my point. returning the err until some caller above you handles it is unwinding the stack. You're just forced to do it manually at every single level of the stack.
App.net did not have a sufficient user base to make it work. Actually getting users on your platform is the hardest part. And it's something that Twitter has already done.
Adderall is very common I think because it makes it much more tolerable to sit and do boring work.