skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nineties has nothing to do with it, that's more of Brezhnev's doing, and some extend Stalin's. Whenever there is a talk of socially endowed classes, that pretty much means ex-communists, and officials' families.

The amount of genuine self-made men who got to any level of prominence in society is so small, they never influenced the societal dynamics in any perceivable way.

Such are still being looked at as if they are some kind of space aliens by regular people.
This is Delta which do not have a copy or scan of your passport - just your textual info..., different to customs which do have this.

Also note that quality of Delta's photo booth will be much better than a copy of your passport.
Doesn't Excel now support Power Query M which is similar to F# and supports lambdas (and much more)?

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/create-power-query-...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/query-bi/m/understanding-po...

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/query-bi/m/power-query-m-re...
I think it is double negative as “nobody” before “doesn’t” is supposed to emphasize the negation, not reverse it. With that the sentence is supposed to mean: “Only body that watches the show could have the slightest idea what that sentence meant”.

Such constructions are frequent in Russian, like “it is not true that I have not done nothing” but apparently people use them in English too.
The title is indeed wrong. There is no definition or usage of the word "open source" that is compatible with restriction of commercial usage.

Never in the history of free software or open source software from the release of Donald Knuth's TeX in 1979, to the birth of FSF in 1985, or the formalization of OSD in 1998 was it ever acceptable to forbid commercial usage in something that is known as open source.

The corruption of the word "open source" to mean anything with source code available on GitHub under a non-commercial license is very recent and does not reflect the true origin or meaning of the word "open source".

The implication that CC-BY-NC-SA could be open source seems to be your belief which is not based on facts.
You're definitely on the right track. Human communication is rarely just about the words that you speak. Your speech intonation, pauses, body language etc. speak volumes. Those that don't understand these things well tend to not "get" what others are trying to tell them via all the non-verbal stuff.

Initially it seemed extremely confusing to me; why would someone ask/tell me something when they meant something different? What did they really mean when they said something? Those questions continue to cause me much anxiety but I am beginning to learn more about these non-verbal communication skills.

It kinda make sense that this is more common with nerds/geeks: we spend an awful lot more time with ourselves and things we like doing rather than socially with peers/friends/relationships. The people who tend to be more social, learn more social skills this way... kind of a chicken and egg problem.
> while every other network that offers potential competition suffers.

Good, that's the goal.

> And yet again this only makes the duopoly of Facebook and Google trackers even stronger.

It takes time to break entrenched monopolies. If you want to speed this up, antitrust enforcement would help a lot.

> browser makers consistently ignore any cooperation with the industry and keep making naive mistakes.

The the User Agent isn't obligated to help any particular industry. What you are calling a "naive mistake" is really just "fulfilling the needs of users who do not want to be tracked".

> anonymous Advertiser ID

That isn't possible. Make whatever random number you want, but the first time someone browses to Google (or anybody else) it will forever be associated with their (personally identifiable) Google account. Regenerating it just makes Google store a few more values in the account.

> Instantly that would remove 90% of the pixels ... and would prevent this continuous arms-race.

History suggest this would have little effect on that "arms-race". Advertisers have demonstrated many times that they only increase surveillance. The only effect your "Advertiser ID" would have is to make surveillance even easier.

> make it simple to opt-in or out of preferences,

It's naive to think anybody that already ignore the DNT header would respect a future redesign of the same flag.
People react badly to anonymous accusation that rely solely on the word of the accuser. Because, indeed, it's impossible to evaluate this situation without knowing how trustworthy the accuser is. However, if the accusation is backed by the documents, nobody cares that the accuser is anonymous. Deep Throat has been anonymous for 31 years, and still his information has immense value. If you say "I heard X say Y" then maybe you're lying, maybe not - we shall see who you are and whether we could trust you. If you say "I've got a recording of X saying Y, made in a way that makes it extremely hard to fake" - nobody cares much who you are anymore, everybody cares about the recording now.
Ha I thought you were wrong, but it turns out that indeed, you can disable image loading in the Gmail Web interface, in the Android app, but not on iOS: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/145919?co=GENIE.Platf...
Which annoys the shit out of regular people and is one of the reasons they shun us, I've come to learn.
Used it in one of my CS courses back in 1996.

Did ARM assembly too - little did I know just how prevalent ARM CPUs would become. It's amazing.
I see this as unlikely in the same way that having the next Facebook in the EU is unlikely. Companies in Europe tend to bet more on B2B instead of B2C, which leads to a lot of data siloing and many attempts at building ML models with tightly focused legacy data within a specific domain.

The article doesn’t make a very clear distinction between academic and business AI, but I can’t see any inherent advantages for the EU in an academic perspective either-there are fields of AI that are under-represented in current consumer tech, but... I’m skeptical.

(I live in the EU and work in AI and ML-there is so much low-hanging fruit in terms of just making companies aware of what they can do that I seldom have deep enough engagements to step outside prepackaged approaches)
Music's rarest instrument
Yes, you can. There were existing high-value ($100B/$1T+) markets before either of those companies started.

Focussing on SpaceX specifically, Musk has always been clear that his business goal was to provide space transport at 10% the current cost. There's a story that he'd worked out (based on his existing rocket-building knowledge) that it seemed entirely practical to build a rocket for far less than going rate - on a plane while flying back from Russia. He had a business case before he spent his first dollar.

There's obviously remaining uncertainty but it would be foolish to start a project without some idea of how you'd profit.
Most people are constantly trying to use their connections to advance their careers - That's not difficult at all.

The hard part is making those connections.
Here's the subhead from the article: The tech giant wants to make scripted shows for streaming, only without violence, politics and risqué story lines

That already exists. It's called the Hallmark Channel.

My wife likes to watch. I also occasionally watch. At Hallmark the movies are invariably rated G and often end with the romantic leads having their first kiss (after about three interrupted attempts earlier in the movie).

I wish that, in at least some subset of the Hallmark movies, the romantic lead characters would "bang it out" at some point in the film. But that never happens. Nor have I ever seen a Hallmark movie with black lead characters. Haven't seen any gay lead characters either.

Hallmark is enjoyable. But it's a niche. Apple couldn't make enough money to move the needle by pursuing a niche like that. And how much edgier could they get if they're so worried about their brand?

Disney used to use the Touchstone Pictures distribution label for their edgier content. But that now seems to have faded out. Maybe the simplest answer is for Apple to use a different label for the risqué stuff?
If you need some technical insight, I've worked in HW and SW for testing and optimizations for most F1 teams, built our internal knowledgebase and can answer obscure questions. Mostly engine and transmission, not so much vehicle and driver. But we simulated even those.
I don't understand why people keep saying Safari closed some extensions. It simply disabled them and they're ready to be enabled again in the preferences panel, simple as that.
Well, I think I have to disagree with a couple of points here.

First, Musk is not a domain expert in building rockets (by no means deminishing SpaceX technical achievements) nor in building cars (which is showing itself clearly as of late).

Secondly, most problems one likes to solve are surprisingly easy to solve within the existing realm of knowledge. SpaceX itself is not a real moon shot (figuratively speeking, literally they are) but rather catching up with 60s and 70s space tech. And electrical cars have been around since the 1900s, so again nothing resembling a moon shot. Automotive mass production on the other hand is a very well understood problem space, one Tesla failed exploit so far in any meaningful way so far.
Your scenario is one of many (infinite) possible scenarios and a probability can be put on it. In the context of your example, my point is that Google needs to be confident that their math works out such that them inventing (hiring, R&D) and implementing (infrastructure) the carbon machine is profitable for their business. Unfortunately, they are a business, not a charity, so they'll have to be selling their new carbon tech eventually. If no one will buy it, then it won't be done, because it would have to be done at a loss.

Back to real life, Google doesn't provide search because it makes the world a better place. Google provides search at the scale that they do because they had a clear business model and an incentive to do so. In an alternate reality, if it turned out nobody clicked ads, then Google would probably not exist at the scale that it does. Ten years ago, some decision to build 50,000 more processing servers would have been rejected by the board because they would have deemed it unprofitable.

The profits a company makes gives them the ability to make a choice on where to expand. If they keep expanding into avenues that do not return profit, they will be given fewer of these choices -- and will eventually go bankrupt.
Tension Myositis Syndrome (1)

(1) http://www.tmswiki.org/ppd/An_Introduction_to_Tension_Myosit...
This would help somewhat, but all keyboard input could still be logged, as could all screen activity.
My wife suffered the same. She consulted a nutritionist who after hearing her symptoms suggested, with much suspicion from me, that she try the elimination diet from the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital’s allergy unit: https://www.slhd.nsw.gov.au/rpa/allergy/resources/foodintol/...

And now we know that she can’t ingest a high level of saicilates without complications. I still struggle to reason about what foods prepared in what ways meet the criteria (the book at the URL above maps it all out, I’ve just been unable to build a mental model/pattern match in the same way I can on carbs vs proteins) but I no longer have any doubt that these are the triggers.

Hopefully the same process helps you out too.
Big in China: Tiny Electric Cars [video]
Ask HN: Better tools for the software requirements / scoping phase?
Many software projects seem fail or go over-budget from poorly defined or changing specifications. It seems we have excellent tools to manage the delivery of software, but less so at the design/scoping phase.
What are your thoughts of using better tools that leverage, say, Domain Driven Design or BDD (Behaviour Driven Development) that would engage end-users early on?
> It makes sense to me that to get the investment required to fund this, you’d want sole rights to commercialize.

It indeed does make sense to commercialize. Nobody said otherwise. But making good sense does not make a software open source. Releasing a software under an open source license makes a software open source. CC-BY-NC-SA is not such a license.