skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The key takeaways for me from the 80000 hours test (https://80000hours.org/psychology-replication-quiz/):

> Papers that report boring or common-sense results seem to be true very often. Cognitive psychology (e.g. memory and perception) mostly held up.

> ...it turns out for most people "if the claim of the paper doesn't make intuitive sense, the paper is wrong" is a good shortcut that works about 70% of the time.

Generally, the closer to the "metal" (e.g., memory, perception, learning) and the more pedestrian the psychological finding is, the likelier it is to hold good.

I might be giving in to a bit of hindsight bias here, but I have come across this in the psychology of learning myself. It has been a bit underwhelming I must admit. "Good sleep, retrieval practice, elaboration, paying attention, meaningfulness and organization, and spaced repetition result in better learning; massed-practice is not very useful for long-term retention". Well, no kidding!
That is true, but a child is definitely interested/drawn to certain fields than others. I guess that is what your parent comment was referring to.

As a child, I was enrolled in some music classes when all I wanted to do was play Chess. My parents had good intentions, it sucked for me though.
Scratch is fantastic, and has an amazingly supportive community. My (middle-school) daughter has spent tons of time making Scratch programs with groups of people she's met on Scratch, and it's been a really positive experience.

She and I worked her way through: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1305075196/
Public companies can raise money through "secondary" offerings of stock. That's why an IPO is called an "initial" offering.
Why would you think it's Amazon? Have you given them your SSN?
Reminded me of Ken Robinson telling the story of Gillian Lynne [1] in the most popular Ted Talk "Do schools kill creativity?"

[1] https://youtu.be/iG9CE55wbtY?t=909
Physics as a Way of Thinking (1936)
> So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed?

Are you putting words in my mouth on purpose? I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be investigated. I'm arguing that "trying to screw over short sellers" is not the only and "obvious" reason why he could have made the tweet.
Configuring logback in spring with file rotation and retention policies
The Dating App for People Who Travel
The fees are high largely because of fraud. Both directly (cover the costs of actual fraud) and indirectly (channel consumers to using other methods that leave the bank less exposed). Wire transfers are tailored for businesses sending large amounts of money. If the bank has reason to trust you (e.g. wealthy client), you can often work with the bank to reduce or eliminate wire transfer costs.

Transactional banking law has evolved over the centuries to leave the retail bank holding the bag for fraud. That's because they're the least cost avoider (i.e. the agent best placed and most skilled to minimize fraud). But it also means they're highly sensitive to these issues, and are reticent to expose themselves unless they've arranged recourse in case of fraud.

Newer methods of transferring money seem cheaper only if you discount the cost of fraud. Nobody factors the billions of fraudulent Bitcoin transactions into the cost of Bitcoin, even though a stolen ATM password or account number is exactly analogous to a stolen Bitcoin wallet password or online account. If Bitcoin miners were legally made liable for fraudulent transactions (as banks are for unauthorized use of stolen credentials), you can bet the cost of Bitcoin transactions would skyrocket.

Fast, automated payment and money transfer mechanisms are unfathomably attractive to criminals.
Short sellers. People who sell something they don't own, speculating that they will be able to buy it later at a lower price.

If so, they make money. If not and the price goes up a bit, some shorts are forced to buy at the higher price to limit their losses. That pushes the price up further, forcing more shorts to buy, etc., causing a "short squeeze" where the price rapidly shoots up very high, "destroying" a lot of shorts.
Yes the theorem holds for any base.
So, people feel some sympathy for the author of this submission because they can see work is being taken without being paid for.

> Defending copyrights as an individual isn’t an easy matter.

But the same people seem to fucking hate Article 11, which would forbid these sites from copying the entire article and would give the author of the material real options to take action.

I don't think article 11 or 13 are particulary good, but this submission does a good job of showing why some people think they're needed.
In fairness, most patient-facing doctors have approximately zero freedom around ideas like these. For a particularly vivid lesson, it's worth checking this out: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

The short version is that a psychiatrist noticed there's a screening test for bipolar disorder which is used without any solid study backing it up. He proposed running a test; give a bunch of patients formal, full-length diagnoses, give them the screening also, and see how often they match. This is the easiest thing in the world. Both the screening test and the full diagnostic were already in use, and could be deployed without any justification. The only 'study' here was to do both and compare them.

Except. Except that this is medicine, and it's overseen by IRBs, not doctors or researchers, and there isn't a non-study treatment plan in the country that would stand up to the rules of IRBs. After a year of bureaucratic crap, our intrepid protagonist managed to scrape together a study-worthy amount of data. And then it got audited, and after another nine months, was halted for an impossible-to-fulfill list of idiotic revisions.

That was to administer an already-in-place questionnaire, without using it for diagnosis. I'm pretty sure the assignment "experiment with controlled failure in cancer patients" would drive most IRB victims to quit medicine and become subsistence farmers.

(I'm on a soapbox here, I know, and I'm sorry. It doesn't make the idea bad. But I have a lot of sympathy for why doctors would respond to research ideas like they're being asked to wrestle a tiger.)
> My comment: what does it say about us humans that we fall for progressively more extreme stuff?

Simply that we're biological creatures. The response to a stimulus is proportional to the strength of the stimulus. Also see: supernormal stimuli.

There is no sufficient dampening factor towards the extremes because the stimulus/response mechanism evolved well before we were vertebrate. It wasn't designed for sentient beings able to manipulate their environment to such an extent that it becomes such a powerful feedback loop.

For those unfamiliar with the theory of supernormal stimuli, think about super hero comic book characters. In particular the female ones. They are simultaneously both incredibly attractive and would seem grotesque if you were to encounter a real human being with the same body proportions.

The fact is that our response to stimuli which are "larger than life" just keeps increasing. It's not that it stops or saturates, it's just that usually there are counteracting stimuli saying e.g. "this is deformity and thus unattractive". But the balance between these varies per person (and per moment, per instance, etc), and it basically becomes a screaming match between two opposing forces.

Sometimes the opposing stimulus is too weak, can't be cranked up to eleven as much, or is simply nonexistent. Especially with abstract stimuli based on social constructs, especially inside filter bubbles or echo chambers.

Sadly it is these unopposed stimuli that survive a screaming match, not the balanced ones. Which is exactly what we're seeing today.

Combine this with Baudrillard's theories on simulacra and the hyperreal, and you get our current Strange Times, heading towards a breaking point until either someone gets a fucking grip on things, the collapse or possibly something even weirder.
I would think of it less as an "accommodation" and more as an evolution. The way that roads are marked right now is a direct consequence of the fact that the markings need to be consumed by humans moving at high speed. When highways were for oxen, horses, and pedestrians, they didn't need guardrails, explicit breakdown lanes, and exit ramps with highly reflective signs. In the same way, when the majority of the piloting entities using the road have other input options besides visible light, to support them we can/should take advantage of those other channels.
There’s something to be said for joint car/pedestrian spaces as a permanent situation. Pike St outside of Pike Place market and Hanover St in the North End of Boston come to mind. Both are nominally streets, and cars attempt to drive them, but the speeds are slow enough, and there are enough pedestrians that both are on relatively equal footing. Cars are cautious of the pedestrians, and pedestrians weave around the cars, everyone has their choice of mode of transport.
I was reading r/TeslaMotors that day and a long made the astute observation that shorting the stock after Musk's announcement when it hit around $380 was the most logical thing to do, because at most you'd be out 10% if Musk were telling the truth. If I had a trading account I think I might have gone for that.
Ad-based, VC funded needs sprawl and people spending time looking at the app/site (and thus ads, too).

Paid can avoid that, but of course has it a lot harder to get people to sign up, so those options tend to grow very slowly, often too slowly.
Tesla has various options for raising cash including selling stock or bonds. In the case of stock, a secondary offering would come at a price relative to the current stock price. In the case of bonds, bonds are in almost all cases higher in the capital structure than equity. Having a large "equity cushion" makes bonds more attractive because there is someone else that will take losses before the bondholders.
I guess it's a complex topic but maybe we can stick with the example I offered? Or we could talk about Windows and Linux.

There's different bands of consumers, really. Like there are literally billions of customers on this planet who can't spend more than $1,000 on anything, full stop, period, even if it would radically improve their life.

So, the differences of an OS or a car are lost to them. The best they can ever afford is Linux or a chromebook or XP, not windows 10 or a macbook air. They'll never purchase a Porche, they're stuck with a beat up Camry or Monte Carlo if they're really unlucky.
Intent does not matter. If Musk got up on Twitter and announced "I have secured orders for fifty million cars at $50000 each" because he was drunk at 8am, that would not be excusable either.
TL,DR, my main takeaways are:
- it's all about the team (what every VC will tell you)
- don't start a company with friends you haven't already worked with and really tested
- first mover advantage won't help if you move straight into a wall

It's really all about the humans. I started a UAV company with some friends about 12 years ago, and we had a very ambitious initial project: an amphibious drone. I had gone to work right after graduating, while my friends had studied some more, so that when we started the company, with my 2 years of work experience, I was the most experienced one around. Needless to say, the original plan didn't work, and it was all about the team not being good enough.

We raised over a million, paid ourselves shit salaries (ie less than minimum wage), and managed to survive 3 years. After year two, a couple of the co-founders were given the boot for gross negligence (burning over 100k through sending the wrong plans to production..), and a pivot happened. It started working, then an accident happened and no money was left to recover from it.

It could seem that a bit more money could have saved the day, as in the third year we finally were onto something which we could do and for which there was a market fit. But the pivot only happened because the team changed. The remaining members of the team, notably the flight test / composite manufacturing team, were very competent, but I suspect they were just spent after 3 years of startup purgatory. So, when it seemed like we might survive a bit longer, they decided to just kill any such possibility and finally be able to walk away. The other co-founder that was left let it happen and just folded, going so far as to forbid me in writing to try anything further to sell our assets or save the company.

It was very hard realizing that my co-founder friends, some of whom I thought of as brothers, had behaved the way they did. It is heartbreaking to see people you trust be negligent and ruin the efforts made by others, and betray the trust of the people who had trusted a bunch of 20-somethings with a big pile of money.

I'm not blameless either. I should have reacted much earlier to the lack of professional standards of some of my colleagues, and either left or asked for them to leave. Friendship made me blind, and way too trusting. I should also have tried to raise more money when we pivoted, and focused a little less on product and business development, but I couldn't see that at the time.
Has Reddit been sold again?

Things were arguably better under Condé Nast. once they bought themselves from Condé Nast, they raised VC and all the dreams that go with it
> What is with the obsession with hand soldering everything?

My guess it is because it's the only thing a lot of people who are not used to doing hardware (like me) has dabbled with, and so it looks simpler/easier on the surface.
Have you tried 3rd party apps? On Android I use Relay and it works great, I assume on iOS there are similarly good apps.
Don't, its a dead end. Encourage them to be social and go into business. Counter to what we've been told over and over again, an ounce of social grace makes up for a pound of intelligence.
Sometimes its possible to care so much that you lose sight of what is important. This happened to Elon. I think this will be a case study someday about CEO ethics. I found it very interesting that when he was on the Joe Rogan podcast he had so much to say about social media, and none of it was complementary. How he did not see the dichotomy of his twitter use and this situation strikes me as humorous. I feel like Elon needs to find some new handlers and get some team members that can keep him from shooting himself in the foot.

I only recently got back on twitter. I do not use my likeness or use it for any other reason except to find out about things I consume(stand up comedy, concerts, etc). Twitter is a great platform for that. Its an awful platform for speaking your mind when you run a company(or the country)
> I left the July 31st meeting with no question that a deal with the Saudi sovereign fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of getting the process moving. This is why I referred to “funding secured” in the August 7th announcement.

Elon is a smart man. He knows this does not mean that funding has been secured. "Could be" is not a "secure" state.
After 4 years of excellent growth my partner and I had enough income to support one person full-time. Both of us were programmers, the company was a side gig for us. When his dad was laid off from his job, we hired him to handle the day-to-day of the company, which was mostly turn-key at that point.

He did a bad job, drove the company into the ground, and we couldn't fire him without major personal issues, so we let the company die. I divested myself before things got really bad, but it was so sad to watch all that work and potential go up in flames.

We should have fired him anyway, but that's how you learn.
Hopefully, the sale to start the position and the purchase to close it do not move the market themselves. People do long positions without moving the market (affecting the price). Sorry if I explained anything to anyone who already knew it.
Since when do we make jokes on HN :)
Did you even watch the show? In about half of the episodes Ramsay kicks the owner who can’t cook but thinks he can out of the kitchen and lets staff handle it
The area your talking about, where there's little places where kids can play: it's called the Suburbs. Growing up in the suburbs, cars went slow enough that we could play in the street. The neighborhood grocery was about two miles away and we could walk or ride our bikes, and we had plenty of friends houses along the route should we need to stop. There's not the density of little shops that you might find in SF, but as a kid you don't need that density (I don't need it as an adult; the suburbs I live in have a nice downtown, but if I need serious shopping, I have Amazon)

Suburbs, much reviled here, are the answer to all of the density problems that people are complaining about. Mass transit works with commuter rail. There's no argument except prestige to stay in the city.
I'm surprised Tor usage hasn't skyrocketed.
Clearly a connection cannot be “unlimited” in reality, because there are many physical limits. That’s why you introduce the idea of “artificial limits,” but what are those? The number of cell towers in an area is also an “artificial” limit—the provider could build more. So even by your reasoning, you can’t take “unlimited” literally, and have to apply context. (And that is, in fact, the relevant legal consideration. Advertising must not be misleading, but that does not mean you resort to dictionary definitions and ignore context and history.)

And what is that context? Well, “unlimited” has always meant the opposite of time or usage limited service. I.e. you don’t pay extra for exceeding a certain usage. If you asked me in 1997 what "unlimited" means, I wouldn't have pulled out the dictionary and said "unlimited means 'not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.'" I would've said "that means you don't have to pay extra for AOL after your 20 hours is up." All this supposed confusion seems entirely contrived to me.
There's a stronger generalization: it's true of any divisor of the base (not just prime divisors and not just proper divisors). For example, it works for divisibility by 6 in base 12, or divisibility by 10 in base 10.

(Also, the digital root test, where you add up the digits, works for any divisor that is also a divisor of the base minus 1, so for example hexadecimal has a digital root test for divisibility by 3, 5, or 15.)
You shouldn't. Just give them many different opportunities, rather than hoping, that they may follow in your footsteps (which would be much more comfy for you, I know).

I hadn't been really interested in the Fine Arts (apart from literature) till I was 15 and my mother took me, and two of my best friends, to a 200 mile trip to one of the great art museums (in Basel, Switzerland) and a passion was born! Just by seeing the things, the work of the masters.
What were the economics of that operation? Cost, profit (or loss), time required to operate it?
> Then again, people would develop a convention within days. A month, tops.

That's exactly my point -- the convention they adopt will most likely be to abandon UTC in favor of some local time. At which point, we end up with an ad hoc reinvention of timezones.
Developer time is expensive. Embedded guys aren't as cheap as python/javascript programmers. If you can grab an off-the-shelf solution that, say, already runs android, you can pay a high-school graduate to whip up an android app and have your embedded product on the market for less time and money.

That said, as an embedded developer, I think there are a lot of bad products thanks to this mentality. But it is the future and it's one reason I try to keep my skill set up to date.
People Sorting: An Interview with ‘Personality Brokers’ Author Merve Emre
How does a human know it can't see well?
Maybe a more subversive method would be publish the page with gibberish, initially, then republish the real content a day after?
If you use pocket, you can add it and read it through there.
Sears CEO: Retiree Pensions Are Killing Us, Not Online Shopping
I 100% agree. I don't understand how is returning 'Maybe X' is more complex that returning 'X'. In a safe programming language, a well designed 'Maybe' class should be both comfortable and safe enough to use by the callee. This post solves a non-existent problem.
I was about to link to the Opportunist / Idealist / Pragmatic blog post but this is even better.
>The trend has been clear for the past decade, and it has been going in the wrong direction, at increasing speeds.

Tools to block tracking have gotten better. Spyware is more difficult to spread, etc. I'm not convinced it's going the wrong direction "at increasing speeds". Do you have any empirical evidence of this or is it just based on perception?

>IOW, from a techie to another: cry me a river.

Don't do this.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. "

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Max loss being 10% is absolutely not accurate at all in that scenario. Taking the company private would still be up to a shareholder vote and shareholders could determine that the price offered was not sufficient. In that case, there are a lot of ways the stock could trade above the takeout price.
I just started my 6 year old on ScratchJr (simplified Scratch for Kindergarteners), using an old Android tablet. I was reluctant to give him more screen time, so we do it after dinner when we'd normally let him wind down and watch a TV show. We give him a choice between TV and ScratchJr every night, and he picks ScratchJr every time ("Scratch is better, I can control it").

We sit down together and do one or two structured activities from the "Offical ScratchJr Book", and then I let him go solo for a little while (he usually tweaks the scripts from the book to do silly things). It's a pretty limited environment compared to full-blown Scratch, but he's got a ways to go before he outgrows it--he's got the motion blocks down pat, but still hasn't absorbed the idea that scripts can send messages to each other to coordinate events.

https://www.amazon.com/Official-ScratchJr-Book-Help-Learn/dp...
I don't know if it really qualifies as magic realism but Gunter Grass is a very good writer that gives this weird fascinating vibe. 'The Tin Drum' and 'The Flounder' are very interesting books, highly recommend.
Also true for Canada, and when I lived in Australia.

Hell, when I was in the Oz I was a PM for Telstra working on getting better call center infrastructure setup for offshore calls...
>who everyone agrees was a poor leader of human

Everyone agrees?

Because I'm not sure I do. Jobs was probably an "asshole" for whatever your definition of that is. To suggest that he wasn't a capable leader of people is a rather different thing.

His leadership style was authoritative, petty, and probably even mean. It was also extremely effective. It's a style that was hardly unique to Jobs, and I can point to many other effective leaders (especially in the military) who used a similar style to achieve fantastic results. From Patton to Vince Lombardi the evidence is everywhere. Hell today we see much of the same behavior at SpaceX!

I would argue that an authoritative style of leadership, with small doses of intentional praise, can be really effective under certain circumstances. Particularly when the goal is very big, very audacious, and very hard.

There are lots of ways to lead people. Which one is most effective depends on many factors.
Being the most durable glass is a bit like being the sexiest person in the burn ward. I mean, yes, good, but you know what's far more durable than the most durable glass? Anything that's not glass.

It's kind of mind-boggling that, first, we took an object we knew people were going to drop frequently, and wrapped it in glass; and then, second, that billions are consequently being spent to come up with a glass that is sufficiently un-glass-like to be practical when wrapped around those objects.