skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/06/the-economics-of-gam...

The final cost of publishing a game that we'll delve into is the distribution of the game, and that's the process of getting the game sold to wholesalers and then to retailers where you'll then have a chance to buy it. Wholesalers typically pay around $30 per game and with the costs of getting the goods to the wholesalers, any co-op advertising or marketing, and return of good contingencies being roughly $14 per game, the publisher is going to typically get $16 for every unit sold.

This doesn’t include the $3 - $10 per unit that the game maker pays the console manufacturer.

So the typical game maker gets less than 25% of the purchase price of a game. Compared to 70% on the App Store.
Another popular NPM library is identified using malicious package
>"toxic masculinity"

If your breadth/etc contains higher than allowed testosterone you'll be fined and made to take medication in order to control those extremely toxic traits:

mas·cu·lin·i·ty

/ˌmaskyəˈlinədē/

noun

noun: masculinity; plural noun: masculinities

possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men.

"handsome, muscled, and driven, he's a prime example of masculinity"

synonyms:	virility, manliness, maleness, machismo, vigor, strength, muscularity, ruggedness, robustness; [informal] testosterone
The biggest thing for me is that cryptocurrency improves every non-cash payment that you make.

To pay for something without cash, you have to use a service: whether it's a credit card, Paypal, Square, Stripe, Google Wallet, Apple Pay, etc. (if you're not using cryptocurrency). At minimum, there's a bank involved. That means every transaction goes through a payment processor who collects their share of the transaction value, whether it's taken from the end-customer or the merchant. Generally the merchant "eats" the cost which is then in turn reflected in higher prices.

Cryptocurrency is decentralized, meaning that there is no middleman company that profits off of every transaction, and that's better for consumers and business. It's more efficient. And I dislike bank and credit card executives. They're pretty scummy.

The problem with cryptocurrency is that many early adopters hoarded their coin collections rather than spend them, thereby creating artificial scarcity, which in turn raised the price beyond any semblance of reason.

The market determines the value of the coin, and investors don't have a good sense of what the real value should be - assuming that we aren't witnessing the demise of Bitcoin et al. right now.
Could you tell us the difference between this and crunchbase?
> Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles.

Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad.

> MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs.

That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same levels of cost as buying a bearcat + maintaining that. Also as more depts get them, the maintenance costs will go down (excluding the OP comment here's area).

> contributes to the military mindset of many police depts

While I generally agree with that notion, I would much rather them buy the cheaper milsurp vehicle with more capability than buy one from Lenco, or not buy one at all and have to wait an hour during an active shooter.
As a non-chess-fan but casual observer, I would say that this is what sports showmanship really looks like. This is Petter Northug jr. (a fellow Norwegian; controversial cross-country skier and Olympic champion) playing chess.

The big fame and sponsor money is not in _merely_ being the best in the world, it's in winning while pushing the creative limits of the sport and causing a fair amount of drama and controversy.

Carlsen gets more out of this than winning in the 12th game, both on a personal level and in terms of notoriety and sponsorship interest.

This does not conflict with being bored, or with pushing the boundaries of the format! Like trying to re-play your favorite computer game, but placing artificial limitations on yourself to make it more interesting. If it gets all the fans and observers riled up, all the better! It's well within the rules!

Besides, what if he screws up in the later matches, in spite of the odds? The pressure is still on, which makes the entertainment value even better!0
The problem that it is solving is censorship resistant financial transactions.

Perhaps that is not a problem you have to deal with in your life, and that would make you fortunate.

But there are literally billions of people in the world who live under authoritarian regimes.

And so far, we have yet to see any successful attempt by any government to engage in market wide censorship of these financial transactions.

Someone will inevitably claim that shutting all this down is easy, and yet it hasn't happened yet, so the real life facts prove them wrong.
I think it's always a combination of factors. Unless you subscribe to the theory that every CEO is 100% sociopath.

There's the consideration of true values. Then there's the consideration of lost opportunities from following those values. Then there's the cold consideration of the money gained from PR boost due to following the values. Then there's the "game theory" consideration of altogether dying in the marketplace if your competition don't act on those values.

I think the best thing for all of us to do on the outside is to create a culture where every company benefits from the PR boost. Google executives are one concentrated interest, separate from Microsoft, etc. The employees, I reckon, are not as financially motivated (i.e. don't stand to lose _as_ much individually) and can afford to advocate their values. It seems to me (I'll phrase it conservatively, since I'm just throwing out ideas here) that Google employees should make friends with Microsoft employees to make sure they raise the same noise on their end as well. Make it okay for each company to gain (monetarily or otherwise) from good PR, and make it less profitable for all of their competitors to sell out.
> the positive corporate culture that small companies tend to lose as they grow.

It's more like regression to the mean; it gets harder to be different as you grow. Good companies get worse, bad companies better (just look at Uber's internal culture).
I love how we are kvetching about the legality of rehosting/profiteering/copyright etc and not a single concern for the cancer that ads truly are...

I understand the economic lubricant that ads provide to keep many things connected and operating, but its such a one way flow that ads are a syphon more that they are a grout.
Quite a naive defense there. If they truly we're a good company they would had modified their corporate behavior long before they got caught. The fact they didn't do anything until they got caught just shows they never had an intention of doing a damn thing about it until they were forced to and they will most likely continue that pattern in the future.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Have a great day!
GP here. You nailed it.
Great news. It is very important that we have as much competition as possible in science. And China, being a rising power, can force western countries to invest more in technology.
Would you agree that talking about unavailable code or libraries is "irritating to talk attendees" and "even more disrespectful towards organizers"?
I think its possible to bring the ecosystems back - but you have to start at the top of the chain, and work backwards. Not at the bottom up - make a price competitive business with foreign made bits, and eventually thru protectionist trade policy, bring back lower and lower parts of the supply chain - we may find it makes sense to stop half way down, and not try to bring it all back - we may not.
Can you name a single example of something that you seem problematic?
But now I can watch a correctly titled "John Carmack tech talk", send the link to a friend, and they'll wonder why I'm trying to recruit them to Amway.
A. Wireless security doesn't improve if everyone continues using wired accessories
B. So you replace your accessories as many times as their cables?
C. So you have one phone, headphone, etc for each cable you own? The reason people have backups or multiple cables is because of all the other issues: they get lost, cumbersome to carry around, etc

Sounds like your list is a desperate one too.
Just one question: Why?
Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18539539
The owner of a Bitcoin node could rewrite the history of their chain, too. (After all, it's just a file on a hard disk.)

This would, however, make their node incompatible with everyone else's, in exactly the same way that rewriting the history of a Git repository makes that repository not able to automatically pull from or push to any other non-rewritten repos.

You seem to be thinking of 'git' as a thing which gets stored on GitHub, but it's entirely possible to run a repository with no central copy, based only on consensus. (I've actually done this--in an area without an internet connection, we spent a day coding and passing around copies on flash drives and merging until everyone had the same code. I don't recommend doing this on a regular basis, but there's no technical differences preventing it.)
what do you do with insurance if your employer doesn't cover it while you are on sabbatical.
Whatever, I am way past Google and will not touch their products with 10 foot pole...
Alright, that's just super cool.
Meh, there's risk involved, but saying it's a "recipe for disaster" implies that you think the outcome is nearly set or that the odds are against you. I challenge that line of thinking.

You don't necessarily "got 6-12 months to make your company profitable or it either fails or you get into massive debt." A counter example could be that if your company's net begins to converge towards profitability, your burn rate would decrease and it's entirely possible that your 6-12 months becomes 18-24 months. Bail if you don't see that convergence and you'll still be able to re-enter the workforce without wiping out your savings. It's not an all or nothing game.

Alternatively, just get to profitability in 6-12 months :)
That's not completely accurate.

- If we're talking about a business that provides a service to local companies, there are quite a few hours during the week where everyone is either asleep or enjoying their weekend. Not every company has millions of users spread across every time zone; some companies provide a niche service to a small number of high paying users.

- Lots of developers have small hobby projects that are inactive for most of the day/week.

Scale to zero can be convenient, but it's not usually a make-or-break thing.
> What about it? Life isn't fair.

Right, which means we shouldn't cry when it turns out to be unfair as you are here.

> There are trillions of decisions and situations in your life that accumulate, and there is absolutely no way you or anyone else can judge that to engineer some kind of fair outcome.

When have I even once said there should be "fair outcomes"? I don't believe in equal outcomes. I do believe in equal opportunities.

> It is good intentioned but not realistic, and it ends up causing far more bias because you think you're doing the right thing, while basing it on a faulty perception

What is the "faulty perception"? I'm simply stating that if the goal is to have a diverse workforce then removing the heuristics we are told make us diverse from the recruiting process makes it difficult to achieve this goal. If I want to fill a position and my company has given us a goal of eventually having the ideal diverse workplace without sacrificing the quality of our people then I need tools to do this. I will use the, possibly arbitrary and political, heuristics they give me (age, gender, race, etc) and ask my recruiting staff to give me a group of 12 candidate for in-person interviews.

From these 12 there must be at least 1 attribute from each heuristic across the group. So maybe we say there are 3 races we optimize for, 3 age bands and 2 genders. This means that my set of 12 could have a black woman who is 41, for instance, and a white male who is 25, and an Asian male who is 55. This has all of these covered and the remaining 9 candidates can be any combination. But at least I have committed to creating an equal opportunity in the way the company and a large part of society see as "diverse". Even if I don't agree with it 100%.

Does this create far more bias when the goal is to create the ideal, diverse workforce? By systematically including certain biological features of people in the candidate pool are we at least ensuring we gave a diverse group of individuals an equal opportunity?
Yeah, sadly 5am is when my kids like to wake up :(
hey I am considering doing this for the same reason. What did you do about health insurance?
4) after extended meditation
I do not think this is the case at all. The games were all very close, with no side gaining more than a +2 ( a 2 pawn equivalent ) advantage. He actually seemed extremely nervous of losing during game 10.

It's hard to say why he called off game 12 earlier than usual but in his words he was basically rattled, and proceeding any further may open him up to defeat so he just chose to take the safer route of heading to the blitz match where is the favorite.
It's Helsinki. It's impossible for the majority not to be white, whether they're male is another matter though.
Not sure if supposed to feel bad about this or not, but ...

10 years ago, when my wife and I had been married less than a month, there was an occasion when the dishes piled up in the sink, and my wife got upset, and asked why had hadn't I noticed them, and why hadn't it bother me enough to clean them up without her having to ask me.

The reality was, I'm not sure I had noticed it, sometimes I get lost in my own world, I have a different perception of what parts of the world need my attention than my wife does, not that my perception is better (its often worse),

anyway, we had a discussion where I stated that if she would like my help with something, a polite "hey, would you mind [cleaning the dishes, some other X, etc]" will almost always elicit a "sure", then me doing it, unless there is an extremely specific reason I'm unable to help her at that exact moment, I'm not going to refuse a request for help

I'm happy we had that talk, I think it significantly improved the communication in our marriage

I don't want her strewing over me not doing something that I'm oblivious to, (and sometimes I am oblivious to stuff)

after a few requests for the same type of help, I do get in the habit of anticipating that a particular help is needed, and try to do it before that help is formally requested (the sink rarely fills up with dishes these days)
REALLY GOOD FORTNITE MONTAGE
With you 100%
Dongles? I'm talking wireless headphones. Dongles to continue using a wired headphone is supposed to be worse experience so you come off it. Think of it as a transition period.
Activision Alums Raise $16M to Build EOS-Focused Blockchain Game Studio
Very cool! Now if only I had a satellite to use it with...

How much demand would there be for this type of offering?
In the 80s they had cocaine. One is forced to wonder if modern "hustlers" are omitting something in their advice.
Too much effort, won't happen. When you care only about view count and not the content, it's easier to just deprecate and delete.
> Critics are appalled that he didn't fight for the win out of sense of honor. I don't see how this is different than, for instance, fouling at the end of a basketball game.

Not really. The consensus was that Carlsen really cost himself winning chances by taking a draw. In the basketball analogy, it's more like holding onto the ball to force overtime instead of shooting in the last few seconds and risking a turnover. That might be a good strategy in some circumstances, but it's rare.

Carlsen has said he didn't think it was as easy or risk free as the commentators and spectators thought, and despite the fact that they had computer assistance he's as good a judge of that as anyone in the world. Personally I think he got a little nervous here and doesn't like to have everything on the line in one game - which is consistent with his approach in game 12 two years ago where he appeared to intentionally draw with the white pieces.
That really seems to favor black by a rather large margin. Wonder if there are any stats on the win ratios for each color in this format. And how do they decide who get's each color?
I would look at it a different way: this is akin to Hitler Germany hiring nuclear scientists and eugenics specialists from US.

Except this time, China is hiring for genetic specialists to experiment on Uighur babies in concentration camps, AI scientists to experiment with computer-only surveillance and AI guided trans-pacific nuclear missiles, and biologists to experiment with AQI resistant humans. (incidently, AQI is around 800 in Shangdong, China today)
A lawn is very different to a grazed field.

Here in the UK, in an average garden, you'll have no issues you want to keep a lawn - simply mow once a month at most, and maybe water in the middle of summer. Really isn't hard to look after here - my parents even leave the cuttings where they fall as the worms will pull them into the soil pretty fast if you let them.
Linguists do refer to "gender" as "noun class". In languages where noun classes happen to align with gender, reffering to them as gender has stuck around.

It is true that noun classes tend to make a gender distinction, so there is likely something innate in human language about that.
Is there a good English translation service for Chinese research?
Behind the Scenes of Recovering NASA's Hubble
I live in Chicago and get my insurance through the health insurance marketplace. If you have a qualifying life event you can get insurance even if it isn't the open enrollment period, which is usually the end of the calendar year.

I haven't had any troubles with it so far. I paid about $350 a month for a silver plan and this year am upgrading to a gold plan that is about $500 a month. I don't know if this is a lot but it seems reasonable for just me (a single 31 year old non-smoker male).
Looks very interesting. Looks like they use the NORAD ID to get frequency information for the various channels? I wonder what frequencies/bands they will support (since this gets down to the RF hardware on the groundstations)?
Geno-Economist is an interesting way to spell eugenicist.
i would like to give my users the option to do microtransactions that they won't have to think twice, and it won't take them 20 minutes to sign up to some payment service with all their personal info disclosed . I would even like them to give each other small tips for their effort in a way that can be cashed-out. basically the equivalent of cash. that is impossible in today's web without becoming a major accounting hassle.

apart from solving some of today's problems, bitcoin (OK, not bitcoin, some better cryptocoin) is creating new markets and opportunities
It's on the blockchain mannnnn; the Illuminati can't censor us now!
I am conflicted.
Why this city is paying people to move there
There's also a cost to putting yourself 100% in to things, that's why they have this whole "moderation" concept.
Yup. If I can't then I'm treating the equity as $0 as I don't have a realistic view of what's happening.

Which _can_ be ok... if salary plus bonuses are high enough... then you're not betting on your horse to come in anyways, you're betting on putting your nose down and getting things done.
"Everyone knows to look at the ratio of comments + likes to followers"

If likes can be fake then so can comments, right?
Analyzing Yield Curves to Position Your Clients' Portfolios
I would add the question of, can a civilian buy it and use it on the streets? Just owning one in a garage doesn't really mean anything.
It is far more effective for them to organize for change than for individuals to quit. Even if they reach the conclusion that quitting is the only option, if it's not organized, it will achieve nothing. The power an individual has is absolutely insignificant compared to the power of a company.

To be honest, Google might even prefer they quit. They could then just be sure to hire more amenable people in the future.
That's cool, congrats. In my field, computer science, it's far from your experience. Over and over I've experienced PhD students being pushed away from more radical ideas (opening "risky" but potentially really promising new areas of inquiry) toward incremental work on what's currently "hot" in the field. Yes I concur that I used "incremental" in an unnecessarily disparaging way. Some incremental work can be revolutionary, but in my experience in my field, most of it is humdrum.
It would be really interesting stat to know how well heeled the 139 are vs the 88k who can afford to financially bacjk up their principles...

Out of the 88k how many dont care, how many cant afford to care, how many are looking to profit off not caring.
Announcing the HelloSign Dropbox Extension
I get the feeling that Google and Alphabet as a whole is pretty broken on the inside. I will admit that even though I support what Google is doing to make YouTube's platform more scalable, they do plenty of other things to screw things up for not just themselves but loyal content makers and users — the suggestions algorithm, subscriptions that aren't really subscriptions, etc.

To borrow a famous quote, Google is like an ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water, and they seem to be trying to get the ship pointed in the right direction.

Still, whilst the ship's not yet overrun, I can't blame the individual teams for trying to throw as much water back overboard as they can muster.
Finally true cloud computing /ducks/
you can say that about money supply or credit cards or paypal etc. it doesn't matter. what matters is that other people trust it too.
> would you oppose an NGO whose mission statement would be to administer this test to low income inner city kids, and offer scholarships or vouchers to good schools to those exhibiting the highest "genetic IQ"?

I'd think it was flawed even before any ethical considerations, since the environmental factors that the poor tend to be more exposed to that lead to downward deviations from genetic potential have had significant impact before schooling starts (in many cases even in utero), and school performance numbers today basically just reflect the student body (and in very large part the engagement and socioeconomic background of the parents) they are dealt more than outcome differences produced by the school. So, mostly, you'd be spending money to give kids a longer commute.
My main problem with 16:9 is how obscenely long they are. I use my monitors to do work, not watch movies, so I have a lot more need for vertical real-estate.

Tilting them on their side doesn't help, because they're far too narrow that way.
So 200 people signed, 50,000+ didn't sign...
so pledge but for node only?