skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"In order to appeal to other economists, behavioral economists are too often concerned with describing how human behavior deviates from the assumptions of standard economic models, rather than with understanding why people behave the way they do."

That is...actually, a good point, and exactly describes something I'd noticed.

One of the problems with economics is the assumption of the "perfectly rational actor", which sometimes leads to economic's descriptive vs. prescriptive issue: someone will create a massively complicated scheme that maximizes some positive value under a certain set of assumptions and then assume that people actually behave like that.

Some of what I've read, including by Richard Thaler, who I otherwise rather like, buys into that scenario, saying "no, this is what they do; they behave irrationally". Sure, people aren't by any means perfectly rational, but it's not irrational to not perform a complicated maneuver that's only useful in a specific, odd, circumstance.

There's another interesting bit from the article:

"[In the class mug experiment showing "loss aversion,"] the participants may not have had a clearly defined idea of what the mug was worth to them. If that was the case, there was a range of prices for the mug ($4 to $6) that left the participants disinclined to either buy or sell it, and therefore mug owners and non-owners maintained the status quo out of inertia. Only a relatively high price ($7 and up) offered a meaningful incentive for an owner to bother parting with the mug; correspondingly, only a relatively low price ($3 or below) offered a meaningful incentive for a non-owner to bother acquiring the mug.

"In experiments of our own, we were able to tease apart these two alternatives, and we found that the evidence was more consistent with the “inertia” explanation. Dr. Thaler has dismissed our argument as a “minor point about terminology,” since the deviant behaviors attributed to loss aversion occur regardless of the cause. But a different account for why a behavior occurs is not a minor terminological difference; it is a major explanatory difference. Only if we understand why a behavior occurs can we create generalizable knowledge, the goal of science."

"The deviant behaviors attributed to loss aversion?" Not only is there nothing deviant about the behavior, it's not in any sense "loss aversion". In fact, it's perfectly rational, given limited rationality resources, not to engage the whole engine in an otherwise minor scenario.
Whaat! Yes, it is. I’ve never clicked the “threads” link, it would seem.
Nat Friedman on Microsoft Joining the Open Invention Network
I don't understand how your example is an evidence that data came from mean who didn't want to hire women.

These interview processes exist sure, and I personally find them idiotic, but is there evidence that they disqualify women more than men?
You should check out Linus Sebastian's experience with his broken iMac Pro screen.

He wanted to pay for the repairs, and Apple refused.

He then tried to buy the parts separately, and apparently if you got them from Apple, it would cost more than the computer was worth.

He eventually managed to source the parts through various people at a reasonable cost and repair his broken iMac with Louis Rossman.

Here are some of the videos (I'm sure I missed a couple, but it's a very interesting series of videos)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwEInwvFbwk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdwDvz47lNw
I used to think this. Then I deployed on windows. Virtual memory can’t exceed total physical memory (+pagefile) or else malloc() will fail. I am currently having an issue where memory is “allocated” but not used causing software crashes. Actual used memory is 60% of that.
> One issue that keeps happening is an over-emphasis on CS-related questions

No. If you go down that path, then you are implying that women do in fact perform worse at CS-related questions. That's a much bigger can of worms than the bias being implicated here.
This is a bit puzzling for me:

1. A React app is still DOM-based. Normal accessibility practices still apply, as they do for any other SPAs

2. It takes maybe a week to learn enough of JSX and React to get started on accessibility tasks

This sounds like refusing to work on a new codebase without actually being invested into it. Also got a combative feeling from reading a few PRs, where simple style issues are discussed at length vs just fixed with one variable change. Am I reading it wrong?

All the best luck for Matthew.
Downvote fading. It hints at the current practice in some quarters of reversing Voltaire's maxim to the effect “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” which becomes I don't like what you say so I'll make it difficult for others (especially those with poor eye sight) to read it.
Open Sourcing Active Question Reformulation with Reinforcement Learning
"they could be unbiased while still amassing a data set that skewed heavily male" - this sounds like a self contradiction
Or pick none at all, because they should sort their exclusivity problems, meanwhile piracy proves a better service. And also, pay the artist so they get onto the platform, because mine (JJGoldman, quite big in France) doesn’t like online platforms because they don’t pay enough.
Absolutely, and we should have a lot of skepticism to conclusions from those branches of research as well.
If your "trick" does not actually work, you're wasting time and resources.

Most of behavioral economy is not seriously tested, because the endpoint is not "tricking the mouse" but positioning yourself as a trickster educator, a place that cannot be blamed.

One of classic cons.
Just because a single instance of the good has a near zero price, it doesn't mean the creation of the initial product cost nothing. Even though everyone in the universe could potentially consume a copy, the item still needs to be able to at least recoup its cost with the consumers that are actually going to consume it.
That's awesome, looking forward to seeing your solution!
The way I think about it: you have lots of problems in society which are prisoners dilemma in nature.

The only way for the prisoners to escape their fate is to have some external authority fix the incentives and that's basically the law.

Three ways to use the law:
Regulation
Sueing people for damages
Complex contracts

There are situations where some of these work better than others and we just need to pick.

It's really hard to imagine sueing for damages working precisely for something like preventing air pollution, the chain of causation is too long. You have no choice other than regulation.

There's this libertatian politics common on HN but I've never seen a convincing argument of how you solve air pollution using 2. or 3. Imo you will always need regulation.
If we could get fusion rolled out faster, or really try to invest in something like Thorium reactors and then drastically improve battery technology, we could substantially reduce the need for fossil fuels.

It would also help if certain countries would not use CFCs that were banned due to the way they destroy the ozone.
>What about empirically proving that something works instead? Like in serious professions.

Imagine going to a doctor and the doctor saying: "The cure to your illness is eating a big warm turd every morning. I know you will object but turn it into a goal and you'll see its value".

What the doctor says is exactly "empirically proving that something works" -- that's what "you'll see its value" means.

And one can only suppose that the doctor has already proved it in other tries, which is why they suggest it.

>Better to use guru status and force people to use an objectionable idea (turn objections into goals) until they are invested in it and hence start to find value in it. This is Machiavellism 101. Once you get invested you get emotional and you will defend it, no matter if its shit.

That's a jump to conclusions there.

First, where it's written that they'll "defend it no matter if its shit"? How about empirically proving that that they will do that?

Second, it's merely asking (nobody's "forcing" anybody).

Third, the whole "once they've tried it and are invested in it it's too late for them to see it's not good", is your addition, not some logical deduction. And it's surely not some ...machiavellian plan from the author.

I'd put what the author says thusly:

"yeah, you might find what I say objectionable, but try it and give it a try and you'll see that it has value".

Whether someone will try it, see it doesn't works, and still continue to support it, is not something I expect to happen, unless that someone is stupid to begin with. But then again, the same can be said for any suggestion to try something.
A trip to the moon would need more like a hundred billion dollars
Major US Telecom Hacked by Tampered Chinese Ethernet Port
And by "tightens the noose", they mean, "Advise to follow existing securities law, like everyone else".
On teh other hand, priming is a real effect.
He got his account back, with a few purchases from the attacker.
Their leadership has this notion that people just don't like change, and that's why they use old. To me, I just don't like the new design. It's painful, old is simple, clear, and quick.
Agreed. There is no story here.
Great. They're still persecuting people in a way that might legitimately be described as genocidal, but now they're doing it with the support of Chinese law. If we're going to oppress people and stomp all over human rights, let's be sure that we do it legally.

/s
At that time only the rich and upper middle class travelled widely - daily mail readers went to Blackpool.
The regulation is fine. It's just that it's not always easy to predict how it will be applied since the SEC behaves in some very strange ways when it comes to ICOs.

A lack of precedent makes this the biggest challenge. New regulation would have the same problems.
BlazingSQL – A GPU SQL Engine for RAPIDS Open-Source Software from Nvidia
They don't need to be currently unemployed. There are certainly enough women currently employed as programmers in the US to fill all the currently open Amazon positions, it's just it would be positively insane for Amazon to offer twice the salary and work-from-home to female candidates just to have prettier numbers.

Amazon (and a lot of other big non-diverse companies) are therefore hoping what is actually happening is that they are the women's first choice already, but turn them down for some reason, and that they would not have to change a thing about their work process to attract more women, except to start seeing them.

It's obvious why companies like thinking that way, and it's possible to some extent it's true. However, the fact is, if they're playing like this it's a zero-sum game and it is not actually going to improve the diversity numbers.

On my part, I've been wondering. If all these companies want to know where the women who can code are... why not just ask them? Why do you never see a "Female Programmer's Career Survey" with questions such as "On average, over the last ten years, how long have you been looking for a job?" "Would you accept a new job for a $5k raise?" "Have you ever dropped out of a hiring process because of sexism?" Take it out there in the open. Ask the real questions.
Did.... Did you just use links from 2001 and 2003 to pretend they haven't changed? News flash 2003 was 15 years ago.
Looking at the incredibly long and in-depth process Uber went through on their past branding, and how quickly they jettisoned it with their new branding after they changed CEOs, it just makes me realize how insane it must be to work at a company that would be so bipolar in their design and branding efforts.
...starting in the 80s, which is also when the percentage of women going into computer fields started dropping like a rock.
It gets even weirder than that. For example, he sold the Kenmore brand to his own hedge fund (ESL). https://searsholdings.com/press-releases/pr/2091
Political systems depend on power exercised by people to enforce law. When the real power transfers to the wealthy, which in peacetime happens as surely as large masses draw objects into orbit through gravity, they will use that power to draw in even more power and wealth. The only protection is politicians, and other democratic counterbalances like the justice system and the media, acting in good faith. History has shown repeatedly that that cannot be depended on. All it takes is for one generation's politicians to defect for personal gain and the avalanche of corruption starts. Wealth is power, capitalism amasses wealth, and wealth will blindly hoard itself to death. If one wealthy entity abstains, other wealthy entities will grab that power instead, because that power will insulate them from any consequences of doing so. Believing that politicians will ever extricate themselves from the influence of wealth and power by their own volition is ridiculously utopic.
I'm not sure I get your point about theft. When I had some tools stolen earlier this year the cost of the damage was the replacement cost of the tools, not the price on the sticker. The (legal) replacement cost of a stolen song is about $0, which would seem to make this a victimless crime again.
4 ELEMENTS OF a CHRONOLOGICAL RESUME
> For many years we thought the aggressive Soviet behavior during the war was a ploy to undercut American influence, or gain access to oil or warm-water ports. The new evidence suggests it was simply a case of bad crisis management.

Never attribute to malice what you attribute to incompetence....
For anyone new to SAFT, there's a decent resource here https://litepaper.com/resources/saft

I think SAFT was inevitable. The sheer volume of cash dumped into crypto in 2017 - taking the total to what $6 billion - meant that this Wild West environment was due a regulatory shock. It's good to see that at least people had already preempted and created an elegant solution.
The Pentagon’s Push to Program Soldiers’ Brains
> The HoloLens has been underwhelming for a lot of people, but I think even today at basically 5 years old, it still has a lot of untapped potential.

I was able to play with a Hololens a few years back and although very impressive, the field of view was the showstopper. On the plus side, its spatial tracking is impressive.

The Hololens viewport is equivalent to a 27 inch monitor held at arm's length whose position is locked to your head and not your eyes which move far more than your head. So you wind up moving your head around a bunch with this heavy headset. Talk about fatigue. Then add to that you can't walk up to something to get in close for a look because the viewport is at arm's length, anything in virtual space between your eyes and the viewport is out of frame and invisible. So you can't lean in for a closer look. After a while of wandering about while gyrating your weighted head around, you quickly tire of it.

AR devices like these are pretty damn impressive and quite useful beyond entertainment. But they need to shed some weight, increase the viewport and therefore the immersiveness. Though, the holy grail and killer feature they really need is eye tracking. The key is to eliminate that awkward disconnect between the virtual world and reality by keeping things in line with your eyes and not your head.
Big-fat "So what?" to all of that.

Their primary product is still proprietary, and if that's not bad enough, it's essentially completely spyware at this point.

I don't want to use their crap open source products so I can integrate with their crap proprietary SaaS ecosystem.

Just because they're finally deciding to release some token software with some level of open source, and buying political influence via the linux foundation, doesn't make them a friend of free software. There is more to free software than just the license: their strategy of vendor-lockin via Terms of Service instead of EULA, they are merely seeking to 'vendorize' free software projects to integrate with their paid products.
>But enough about Silicon Valley...

Not just Silicon Valley. That sounds like every nook and cranny of the United States. From Florida to the northernmost acre of Alaska, from Maine to Hawaii to Guam, and from Minnesota to Puerto Rico.

Right wingers and left wingers are generally not interested in having a reasonable discussion with you. With a lot of those more extreme people it's not so much data and ethics they come armed with, but tiki torches and baseball bats.
We Need Massive Change to Avoid Climate Hell
Why do they? There's nothing special about an ICO, other than it's "on a computer". When it comes to the concept of investing, they're not doing anything new.
Hopefully we can at least agree that those questions are limited in effectiveness, and often have no actual relation to how good an engineer is. It varies of course.

Sometimes, they seem more like a secret handshake you need to memorize to get into the boys club than actually useful engineering. Who hasn't had to revise some of these before applying for a job 3 years out of college?

What it does do is effectively exclude applicants who didn't study CS, or who haven't heard of and memorized "cracking the coding interview".

Assuming `fake CS questions == good engineer` is a huge mistake, but one i keep getting downvoted for everytime i mention it. Most rebuttals are usually something like "it's the best system we have", something i find unsatisfying.
Sometimes this (https://zeroturnaround.github.io/sql-formatter/) does a better job for me. Doesn't support Postgres explicitly but works most of the time.
Remote IT jobs: 4 downsides and how to beat them
What Is Linux Nfsd Process?
Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam
Absolutely.

Another idea here would also be to require more than just a majority to pass a law, or 'refresh' it. It never made any sense to me that laws, treaties, and other decisions that seriously affect 100% of people end up getting passed by 51/49 majorities. If laws required e.g. a 75% vote, then we would need to work with one another to create ideas that are globally beneficial, ideally helping to mitigate some of the increasing partisanship today.

Given that we're split just about down the line it means both parties will invariably have their time in control which removes the necessity of working together. So people are just increasingly radicalizing on one side or the other and then hoping for 'their side' to force whatever they want done, through. It doesn't feel like this is really in the spirit of democracy.

Of course this is all mental masturbation since none of this will ever happen. But for the next nation starting from scratch, we will have an even greater base of knowledge to grow from. I think there's no doubt that the United States went from backwoods outpost to most powerful nation, in the blink of an eye, largely because we were able to learn from and avoid the mistakes of other nations that had become so entrenched in their ways that change became unreasonably difficult -- similar to the state we are in today.
> There are no concentration camps in the United States.

I don’t know what else to call the tent camps full of kids in the desert. They even move the kids around at night in the classic “Nacht und Nebel” fashion. They use the classic vocabulary (“vermin”, “animals”) and even call the children “criminals” and subject them to bureaucratic nonsense like dressed-up court appearances for two year olds.

Yes, I would call that right out of the 1930s playbooks.
This Is How Amazon Loses
Its never too late, I didn't graduate with a degree until I was 33 and had no problems getting a job. You may find you are one of the oldest at college but that can be a plus.
> keep them from having a voice in government

Vote suppression/manipulation is very common in the US. Things like making registration harder on people that move regularly are very common and are considered in political terms.

The most insidious cas relates to defining things as Felony convictions based on which groups will lose voters.

PS: Gerrymandering of course increases the impact of such things while directly marginalizing the opposition. Really though it's just part of a wider pattern of seeking power at the expense of others which is the true core of Fascism.
There are no 'concentration' camps, but there is a campaign of dehumanization and abuse against undocumented immigrants, making a mockery of the legal process, as well as another campaign, that is trying it's hardest to strip citizens/permanent residents of their status.

There is absolutely an other, upon whom all the country's problems are blamed.
Perhaps paradoxically it is easier to maintain a gigantic Python code base than it is to maintain one that is small or medium sized.

The reasoning, a gigantic code base means infrastructure and tooling investment will obviously pay off. It probably even means you get one or more dedicated resources of this sort. Whereas a small to medium sized codebase might bump into some of the same issues as a larger code base but not justify such investments.
I'm not a fan of fragmentation, but you have this reversed. Fragmentation exists because it allows content producers / owners to get every possible benefit out of that content before it is generally available. This happens with books (hardcover vs. paperback), medicines (years before generics are available), video game platforms etc.

The producers are merging with content providers precisely because it allows for this maximization of revenue. It's no accident. Apple ruined it by taking 30% of most digital activity on the planet - that's where the money is at scale and you won't see a reversal until those margins start to approach zero.

If a content producer wants the most amount of profit for a known good, say a famous band, (meaning they don't need to give it away to get discovered) then you'll make sure to fragment your customers and make the people that want it most "pay" the most. It makes all kinds of sense as a producer, and it happens in every industry.

Piracy is consumers saying "this is BS" and stealing the content so they don't have to pay more - because they feel entitled to do so. Sure, "let everything be free" is a wonderful goal culturally and for consumers but the model won't win out for things in extremely high demand.
This reply is quite clever, but at the current nesting level, nobody will notice.
I am guessing he was already in the queue to be rejected, but they wanted to capture the demographic data first.
> First, if we have clean energy, are we going to shut down fossil fuel plants that have already been built? If not, then fossil fuel will just become cheaper as demand drops

This is untrue. If cost to extract >> market price, then existing operations may well just be shut down. To quote Hemmingway it would likely happen "gradually then suddenly".
- Open source GitHub like GitLab has

- GitLab SaaS actually provides CI as well and doesn't limit Pages to just Jekyll

- Open source their web browser like Chromium & Firefox

- Provide virtio support for KVM/Linux, especially for graphics acceleration

- Open source DirectX 12 like Vulkan

- The list goes on and on
The subtitle is entertaining: "The recent vogue for this academic field is in part a triumph of marketing."

and in the article:
"It reflects the widespread perception that behavioral economics combines the cleverness and fun of pop psychology with the rigor and relevance of economics."

The author is using behavioral economics to argue against behavioral economics.
Oh, there are a bunch of us, even here in the SF Bay Area. Trouble is, we're older than 35, or don't have degrees from "top" schools, and/or don't have the "passion" for bizarre extended hiring rituals. I could staff an entire dev team with non-male people within a week.
Who on Earth approved this trailer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ZHNq9_7eY

"Ha ha, you'll be such a dork with our product on your face!"

That does not seem a wise marketing line.
What kinds of regulation can the government pass to make it illegal for vulture capitalists to raid companies like this?