skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But to a certain extent it is zero-sum.

It is not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in either the US economy nor the global economy. If we educated everyone, and everyone with potential reached their potential and contributed to the economy, we can all have more wealth. It’s not a requirement that someone lose, and this is what I meant by a return of two dollars for every dollar spent.

> The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. ... how much redistribution is appropriate...

In practice, we could fund university education for all in the margins of what we willingly spend on the military or several other programs, people have been pointing this out for decades. It doesn’t have to be a change in taxation for anyone, nor does it need to come from “non-poor” disproportionately.

But, larger picture, I find it ironic that you use the word redistribution with respect to the rich, but not with respect to the poor. Where does rich people’s money come from? And if you’re going to worry about rich people funding social programs, how about also tallying the benefits they get from national infrastructure that poor people also have to pay for?
The link seems to be broken?
Quick tip: this is about relational algebra's select operation (which is basically row filtering; choosing columns is called 'project' there).
This hurts how relatable this is.
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiffgiRAYUI
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFUsYXZSMqs
For my own account, I pay a similar marginal rate (my state tax is slightly lower than yours, but all in I’m at 50-ish percent).

That distorts my willingness to employ lower skilled help. I change my own brakes because the $250 in labor/markup that I might have to pay costs me $500 to earn. If I don’t have a productive way to earn more than $500 in exchange for the small time savings, my family is better off with my changing brakes than working on something else and a mechanic doesn’t get 2.5 hours of pay and some shop loses out on their cut. Same story for lawn care and other tasks that could easily help support employment of some workers.
There is an option to require looking or not.
It's still very much improved, maintained, and used today. Electron 'apps' are now the gold standard? lol.
and now every thing is good
Wouldn’t that be not the best fit you can imagine with the holographic principle?
Remove a wall that separates them. In college, I rented in a house with a toilet in the hallway. Because the landlord took the bathroom door away, and cut a hole in the wall to the other bedroom, so the bathroom became a hallway.
Nah. Rich farmers deserve little sympathy. The traditional farm evokes by pictures on milk cartons and politicians has been dead since the 80s.

Pick a number around the 80th percentile of 401k balance at age 70 and tax it at 50%, then go up to 95%.

The kickback to this modern gilded age is going to be brutal.
Ha ha I thought it was a Washington DC thing, where politicians and important people are constantly meeting lots of people so it's a good weasel word.
I suspect they wouldn't notice the difference. There are already plenty of click-farming frauds for advertisements one. The targeting seems more like it is a conceit that individual tracking is more useful than responding to what they are currently looking for. I personally find aggregate based data far more useful with suggestions than anything personalized. Like if I am searching for a novel it links to similar ones liked by other people.

If someone is searching for cat toys on Amazon they already know what they want and you can target relevant ads to them.
You can recycle nespresso. Also you can buy some reusable capsules as well.
I don’t meet people with anything near this frequency, but like you, seeing the name spelled out is key to my remembering the name at all. The auditory cue just is not enough.

If I can’t see it, I will almost certainly not remember.
"Should be", "best society", "meritocracy" etc - I used all of these in the sense of my ideal world, not the actual one. Feel free to critique either the concept of meritocracy (in an ideally meritocratic world), or the current society, but please don't combine the two, saying "meritocracy is bad because markets don't reward the best academics" or something similar, that simply a logical fallacy.

This is a frequent criticism that is IMO completely off base. Nobody is saying that this world is particularly meritocratic (although I think Western-style democracy+capitalism+markets is experimentally the most meritocratic system ever realised).
A simple google search for, say, "string" confirms to me that what you say is not true. I program, so it shows me ... well not clothing. Things I would not want to sort through.

So you should realize that even something as simple as search cannot work well without "using my information". And I very much want it to do that.
My observations are that the problems with the public schools in poor neighborhoods are much more neighborhood and family related than money-for-schools related. Sure, more money might help some, but you’re not going to turn a currently terrible school district into a model one with school money alone.

Parents have at least 3x as much time and probably a greater ratio of impact on education than the school does.
Is that the current consensus? Do you happen to have sources for that?
One problem you may be encountering with your phrasing is that you aren't distinguishing between two very different things:

1. A lower tax for everyone, including the super-rich.

2. A lower tax for the poor/middle-class, but a progressive and higher tax for the rich.

The first, lowering the tax-rate for everyone, only really helps the super-rich in the first place. The poor currently pay relatively few taxes. Lowering the tax-rate across the board will result in the rich taking home a larger absolute increase in wealth, so it will shift further spending power to the rich.

The second is a common enough socialist talking point, and if that's what you mean to talk about, saying "lower taxes" is a terrible way to do it and will put socialists against you.

I don't really see how you think lowering the tax rate will increase individual wealth for anyone not already doing well. If we reduce the tax rate, that means public transit, healthcare, and schools (all heavily tax subsidized) will suffer, and any change in those disproportionally impacts the poor.

I know you're not literally saying "fuck the poor, they pay negligible taxes now, so let's cut taxes and raise their healthcare costs by crippling the government", but talking about cutting taxes across the board really isn't far from saying "give the wealthy lots more money, the poor a tiny bit more money, and cut funding on social safety nets that only help the poor."
FWIW, everybody from his forum eventually made their way to 4hv.org.
I see a lot of comments on mass, but I thought not too long ago there wasn’t even consensus this mass existed.

For example the guy who tried to modify or extend gravitational theories to account for it.

Maybe this was a fringe idea or has lost momentum.
No? Good to know. I'll do that. Thanks.
"Permanent power disparity", "best society" - that's completely orthogonal to meritocracy. You could implement meritocracy (i.e. most skilled people in temporary position of most power) even in a system that has a "reset" every generation (e.g. by eliminating breeding and growing people Matrix-style). Like markets, meritocracy should be used to "optimize" the outcome towards whatever the society deems beneficial - e.g. these days we consider renewable energy beneficial, so policy is guiding markets to force investment into renewable energy (by taxes etc - despite renewable energy not being competitive on its own) - just a simple example of markets adapting to the values of society.

Yes, the current system (Western-style democracy, capitalism, freedom, markets) is the most meritocratic of all systems realised so far (AFAIK), but that doesn't mean we can't do better still.
Low Latency Routing in Space
So the degree of success of your career may be entirely due to your luck in meeting a person like that. It doesn't seem very efficient, from the point of view of getting the right people into the right positions.
Do you really think underdeveloped is the same as cave-people? That Africans have no education and expertise to do their absolute best looking after mothers and babies? I have to disagree strongly there...

As ever more money would probably lead to better outcomes still. Poor Africa is unbelievably wealth compared to pre-history.
https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/health/africa-200-000-women-...

Is the rate of non-intervention childbirth in pre-history 50% or 1%? This is not really even an interesting question. With absolute certainty you can say it was more than 1%. In modern times we've made that massively lower. /Even/ in very poor parts of Africa interventions of many different kinds happen to get that natural rate down.

It's not "natural" to take antibiotics for infection either. Get natural out of this discussion. Childbirth is dangerous, we have made huge progress as a species so that it really shouldn't be anymore. That progress is not "natural" what it is, is actually morally good.

Prosletysation in evidence based medicine should require peer-reviewed studies with data available cited as evidence. Where is that when all these people say "natural" is better? Evidence would convince me. Really.
I don't see what fairness and equality have to do with one another. Consider a poor person and a rich person. The poor person gives $100 to charity and the rich person gives nothing. They're not economic equals, but which would be more fair? A tax deduction for the poor guy or the rich guy? Extrapolate.
DM usually forms a halo as it orbits the center of mass of whatever it orbits (galaxy, globular cluster), and because it doesn't interact otherwise, it cannot slow down, cannot shed momentum, so it is likely mostly not a disk, but a big sphere, and probably a shell around galaxies.
What about Google censoring so called alt-right videos, closing the accounts of vloggers, restricting ad revenue, and suppressing other politically charged content because it doesn't sit well with their company political views, or that of some their employees, eg cancelling the domain name sevice of the Daily Stormer?

It seems that so described liberals are happy with Google censorship if it is in line with their views, but are not if it is in alignment with the Chinese states policies.

To those Google staff members who object to Google's reentering of China's search engine market, charity begins at home.
How to stop watching TV and have more quality downtime
I'm not so much bad at names as I am bad at catching them when they're slightly unusual in pronunciation. The trick to getting around that for me has just been to make a big deal as to how you say it right upfront which gives me a chance to say it a few times in a row to get it to stick (also I think adds more events to the memory which also helps).
You mentioned industrial farming and fridges, yet the combine harvester is just a better scythe, right? I mean both are used to harvest fields. The fridge is an icebox that can make its own ice.

Business people may use phone calls over video conferencing, but I am willing to bet that they schedule those calls with computers, with telephone numbers they get through a computer system, which also keeps track of their notes, documents, needs and other information.

Video calls are probably simply not a good idea, but I have been in many online many-to-many meetings. Not only is it far more flexible, but it is plain easier to see shared documents and presentations when you can see it on your own screen than on some projector partly obscured by some coworkers head.

As for Netflix, it is fundamentally different compared to TV in that it puts you in control of what you want to see and when. I realize there are cable boxes now that allow you to do the same in a limited fashion, but those wouldn't have been developed without netflix, and most of them require the internet to deliver those features.
> To me, this question is asking, "Is there a difference between a data collection algorithm whose primary goal is to help me, and a data collection algorithm whose primary goal is to profit off of me?"

Unfortunately you are describing a choice between A and B. And B does not exist. It would not make a profit, and therefore nothing short of the government providing better search can make it happen, paid for by taxes (Google's operating budget is ~$80 billion dollars, which would have to come out of your taxes). We both know we don't want that to happen, so ...

Given that you're describing a choice between A (for profit recommendations) and nothing, there is but one choice.

Well, there's 2: data collection algorithms that profit "off of you" or no data collection algorithms at all. No context sensitive search, regular lingerie of the wrong gender on your amazon frontpage, baby diapers on the front page of walmart.com when you've long since retired, ...
I don't think legalization would be a bad thing. Our current opioid epidemic is pretty equally driven by legal and illegal abuse.

Acceptance and wide use seems unrelated to legal status.
I learnt a trick with the "Schindler's List", that tended to mention characters with full name - get to know the surname, which helps to memorize the first name, perhaps because it creates a hash list of ethnic origin inside the brain?
Waterfall blown backwards by Storm Callum [video]
You say that as if, economically speaking, it is a realistic option to go back to the past. It isn't.

In theory we could go back to heating with open fires. Steam engines. And so forth and so on. We can't. It wouldn't work, and with steam engines it's blatantly obvious why, and I get that with search engines it's not that obvious, but it's the same reason.
I think it's a learned skill. Reading academic papers is impossible without it. Perhaps a happy medium would be two or three letter acronyms.
If that were true, people would not be able to find anything useful on DuckDuckGo.com and similar sites. Tracking is definitely not a prerequisite for quality search.
The best approach to credit cards, imho, is the Heroku one: you get a little bit of stuff no questions asked, but you get twice the free stuff if you validate a CC. This way, the user has an incentive to put a CC down even if she’s not going to pay right away, which is good in itself (because you can then leverage it by making it extra-easy to impulse-buy later, as well as improving the quality of your db).

For the record, I am one of those people using + as a tag, just so my username a bit different site by site but still easy enough to remember (yeah I use a password manager, but a little bit extra hygiene never hurt anyone). I’d be incredibly pissed off if sites started trying to be clever with it; I guess I could tolerate a duplicate detector, as long as it doesn’t stop me from signing up as soon as a + is detected.

If you see people abusing it, I would have a “hunting” routine and gently ask the worst offenders to shape up lest they get banned.
jasa Rias pengantin tasikmalaya
thank you visit my site
It's a rough estimate to help you grok the concept, and is widely taught in law school. It is best viewed in comparison to another standard like "preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not" (51%)
I don't think the cutoff is artificial. It comes down to conflicts of interest. If you give your friend a ride to the airport, he benefits, you choose to do it, and that’s the end of it. If you hire your friend preferentially, you’re compromising your duty to your superiors to hire the best candidate.

In your example, your CIO friend has a responsibility to the company to make the best acquisition on the best possible terms. If he’s treating you preferentially because you’re friends, he’s not doing that.
The irony of this is fairly delicious.
We're tired of debating double-linked lists versus hashed sets.
> Fascinatingly, it is known that the interaction of the dark matter with the Earth is so weak that there would be no "clumping" of it around the Earth at all!

Would I be right in thinking that also puts severe limits on how much it interacts with itself? Because my intuition would be, if you loose normal matter into a gravity well, it will clump, even if it doesn't interact with the source of the gravity.

Am I inferring correctly?
That approach requires learning to make friends in the first place. I don't naturally tend to talk to people in that mode. I find most "social" spaces disorienting and exhausting to be in for more than a few minutes; when I do convince myself to go to a party or other social gathering, I tend to get conversation-starters along the lines of "are you okay?". The very few actual friends I've had in my life have mostly been others who are socially awkward, and none of those relationships are still active because either my family moved or theirs did.

That is to say: I think there's a lot more variation in this space than most people are prepared to acknowledge.
Yeah, it's very difficult to win cases when you only use tools like raids or wiretaps against people unlikely to mount any sort of legal challenge.
Donating $5 million to get one kid into an university allows a new lab to be built. Or more scholarships to be offered for lower income students. Or better quality of life overall for the students on the campus. It feels slimy and unfair in that someone can just buy their way into college, but unless we start funding colleges in a much more sustainable way in the US, I'm okay with donation based admissions.
Even our not-for-profit prisons have massive financial motivations. Contractors specializing in the industry specifically.
Here’s Richard Branson’s blog post announcing this: https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/my-statement-kingdom-...
To be precise, this is about the bitlevel SDS rank and select operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succinct_data_structure
well the initial interview is do I goto the interview or even let my cv go forward
Nepotism is generally bad but there is one small perk to it within reason - they know the person they are hiring more already. It is a form of risk aversion in that sense if they already know that a person is adequate - assuming they don't appoint someone regardless of being qualified.

I know of one case of using it productively involves incentives. If you have sensitive data to process that is resistant to automation but fundamentally simple and know a son of a high level partner who is receive considerable support from him with things like paying for college or apartments then that sort of nepotism makes some objective sense even if it is unfair. Betrayal on their part would also be betraying their family and harm their means of support.
Neither of the articles you linked to argue that. The NRO article puts faith in the military to ignore an order, which is a pretty big assumption.

The second link explicitly says:

"""The president holds the constitutional position of commander in chief and is obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats. The Constitution does grant to Congress the power to declare war, but it is unclear whether a law that significantly constrained the president’s nuclear command authority — particularly when the United States or it allies are under attack or in imminent danger of attack — would be constitutional. """

Instead, I'll point you to this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump...
The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point.

Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted, educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages.

It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of people in the latter category.
I think you are mistaken here.

Photons couple with charged particles due to their spin, this interaction can be seen through Compton scattering.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

However we have for example Neutrinos which are weakly interactive even more so than the photon and are not baryons (the real reason why neutrinos are not a baryonic DM candidate ;)).

A neutrino will not interact with a photon at all since photons do not have an interaction through W and Z bosons (both W, Z and Photons are electroweeak gauge bosons) and neutrinos are not charged.

There are a lot of reasons why you wouldn’t fall through the earth electromagnetism is just one of them, however even non charged baryonic matter can be “solid” and resist gravity for example neutrons will resist gravity through degeneracy it’s all a question of which type of interactions are possible.

There is much more to particle interactions than charge.

As far as photons interacting with neutrons, neutrons while being neutral in charge have a magnetic diepole which is why the photon can couple with them.

You can make baryonic matter that is massive and does not interact well with photons, the LHC has been making some new baryonic matter but none of it is a good candidate for dark matter so far.

But overall yes currently it looks like baryonic matter at least the one of the standard model without any extensions produces isn’t a good candidate for DM.

:)
Sure it's legal. It's called a preemptive attack.
I struggle with that because I can't recognize people well. I don't forget them, once I recognize them or they tell me their name, I usually remember quite well what they've told me but without context and if they're not wearing similar clothes to what they usually wear, I just can't recognize friends in the street.

This has caused me repeated embarrassment and really annoys people.
Exactly. How many friends have you helped move for free? How many total strangers?

We do a lot more for people we know and like and trust than for randoms; I don’t believe this is restricted to just a few cultures. It shows in nature as well, unless there’s a massive amount of anthropomorphism going on in those studies. Rather more likely, it seems there would be selection pressure in favor of helping your offspring and those close to you.
I have used pure cocaine (presumably, as I was in colombia) and I disagree. It probably depends on the individual and dosage. For me, the main effect of cocaine is wanting more cocaine. It's not even an enjoyable high outside of a purely how-much-dopamine-is-in-my-brain definition.
They do have WiFi and it will connect to any nearby network the phone has previously paired with, but I think you’re onto something more likely.

It’s also possible his body was moved with the watch still on and it connected at that point to some network.
I paid like 3 dollars for a single gram in Medellin and I'm a dumb foreigner who speaks no spanish so the field price should be like 1000 dollars a kilo or less
Gb != GB.
And a tragedy of telepaths.
Was the crack epidemic in the 90s caused by legal cocaine?
I'm with you 100%. Makes me feel more connected to local businesses. Also, I know they get more when I pay cash.

I've carried thousands of dollars around and no one was none the wiser. So while the security argument is true. It's overblown. At most someone will probably steal $100 from me. And that's never happened, thankfully. (I live in a dodgy part of SF)
This is an ongoing issue in companies, and I think one reason is to shift the blame. What if they did ask the employees, and got either contradictory or terrible ideas? Who do you listen to? Either way someone is going to be upset and possibly feel more disenfranchised than before. If a 3rd party does it, they can just blame them.