skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Arguing about which company's name looks better on a resume is an irrelevant distraction that avoids addressing the actual problem: standing up to fight against something may require personal sacrifices. In general, anybody with salary has the opportunity to quit. This is certainly true for most tech jobs.

I understand if someone working variable part time[1] hours for minimum wage cannot afford to lose their job. There isn't any room for sacrifices when you already have to e.g. decide each month if you can afford to pay for both food and utilities, or if you aren't going to have hot water for a while[2]. Yet even though they face far higher risks than the average tech worker, sometimes they still choose to make sacrifices[3].

Yes, you might get fired. You might have to adjust your standard of living. Banding together into larger groups can help to mitigate some of these costs, but regardless, the average tech worker is fortunate enough to be able to make a significant sacrifice.

[ This is why some of us try to warn about growing problems early, when the cost of counteraction is low. Unfortunately, most people decide to ignore the problem because it isn't an obvious, widespread, damaging problem. ~sigh~ ]

[1] different, computer-optimized schedule each week, could be anything that still counts as part time (including 0)

[2] https://medium.com/@sarahkendzior/the-minimum-wage-worker-st...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_for_$15
Ransomware authors, heroin dealers and money launderers don't care how much BTC is worth - they only use it to cash out into USD. For them, the spot price is largely irrelevant.

All their prices are denominated in USD, all they care about is that the exchange rate is stable. As for the launderers, you can launder money with BTC just as well when it is $3/coin, as you can when it is $3 million/coin.
Hey buddy, if you feel that investing in cryptocurrencies is too risky, and it may harm you finances and future, you should really find safer investments to consider. I would talk to a professional about it, perhaps with your local bank.

Investments aside, you should really try to get your hands on some Bitcoin testnet coins and play around. Alternatively, something like Defcoin (http://defcoin-ng.org/) is intentionally worthless and great for experimenting. It's neat stuff and helps you appreciate the technology, as well as appreciate the currency shortcomings that require smart people to try and fix.

Many of us talk about how this has happened and will happened again not because we want you to invest, but because it's old news and articles like this are super boring. We have spent time working with the technology and community and see value in it. Value you may not see without wanting to go deeper, but value that is real and exciting.
Perhaps it is instructive to note what votes do. Voting something up incentives the person submitting / commenting to do so more often in the way they did when they earned the upvote and it also makes the content visible to more users. Voting something down does the opposite. It disincentives contributing more in the same fashion and it makes the content visible to fewer users.

So...

upvote == more of this please / more people should see this

downvote == less of this please / no one needs to see this

(And incidentally, flag == this is vastly inappropriate and not even worthy of a vote)
Exactly. We've seen countless examples of "I thought he had a gun" and "I feared for my life" from cops. Can I shoot someone if I think they have a gun but, oops, it turns out I was wrong? I'd be fine, right? I'm sure I wouldn't face any serious consequences.

And therein lies the problem. There's a separate set of (lower) standards applied to the very people who are trained for this sort of thing and who are allegedly held to a higher standard.
blame it on rich, I'm addicted to revolutionary talks about collections that brings speed and expressiveness enhancement for free :p
Out of curiosity, what is your profession?
I don't program in assembler professionally, but I understand that MIPS has some ugly, ugly aspects:

https://www.jwhitham.org/2016/02/risc-instruction-sets-i-hav...

Sun opened the SPARC T2 a decade ago, and it certainly has not become popular:

https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/systems/opensparc/openspa...

It does seem that RISC-V corrects a number of these design eccentricities. SPARC did not move the market an inch with an open release - perhaps MIPS will fail just as spectacularly.
Cryptocoin speculation will likely be remembered closer to beanie babies or baseball cards as opposed to the dot com bubble etc.

This was just the first time we saw this happen globally and with digital goods. Which, possibly coincidentally, happened to baby boomers right when they were around the same age/point in life as the millennial generation is now.
I'm really stoked about the Librem 5 project[1], which if you're not aware, is a privacy-centric cell phone based on Linux. It obviously doesn't solve the carrier issue, but it at least gets you away from Google and Apple.

I actually rarely use my phone for calls or texts, so I'm considering getting an independent VoIP service that offers a phone number and just use data for everything. That way I only need a data contract and everything can go over a VPN, with the added convenience that I can get it to work on my computer as well.

However, I have little room to talk since I'm all in with a big data collection company (I use Google Fi), but that's mostly because I figure Google already has my data anyway, and figured I might as well save some money vs my old plan if I'm going to be spied on anyway.

I'm moving away from Google slowly, so as soon as that phone proves viable, I'll consider switching my service and getting that phone.

[1] - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
There of course are many valid opinions ranging from fully totalitarian to fully free/anarchist. Laws have absolutely nothing to do with validity of opinions. Remember slavery?
- Practice the commute.
Lack of punctuality sets the wrong expectations.

- Find good places to eat healthy food.
Bad food affects capacity to make use of correct judgment.
Check on Alibaba for something similar and contact the seller.
It's hard to find an alternative that's discoverable. Planning happens through Facebook groups and demonstrations are events. The friction is low - it's easy to invite people and everyone already has accounts - and events are discoverable and even suggested.

What's my alternative? Convincing all my friends to switch to Mastodon and check it regularly? and getting them to convince their friends? Does Mastodon even have events? Some of them only have have phones; is it simple to get them registered and using the app? Facebook is simply too entrenched.
Which is why I realize it's a political nonstarter. I think we're in agreement.
>The Bitcoin hype cycle is driven by the mass media.

It’s much more nefarious...the boom and bust articles are essentially ordered by individuals/groups with the influence as part of the market manipulations. It’s not entirely unlike what people refer to as submarine articles, what’s lurking underneath these publishing’s are attempts to move the markets (the first wall street movie actually does a decent job of demonstrating this practice in the 80’s for the stock market).

These details will be exposed now that the SEC is beginning to target manipulations in these markets.
"Everyone said Bob was an idiot for playing the lottery, but look at him now!"

"<X> is a $10 Billion/year industry! If we could just capture 1%..."

Just because some other thing was successful doesn't mean your pet thing will be successful too.
Upvote and downvote are defined by their operational semantics. There are no formally defined denotational semantics as you're asking for.

The operational semantics are simply that comments are sorted by (upvotes - downvotes), and grayed out if that goes negative. (It's slightly more complicated, but that's the dominant factor.)

Most people read comments starting at the top, and give up when the comments devolve into crap. So the important thing is to upvote comments worth reading.

I upvote things I disagree with if they make an interesting and coherent argument. Perhaps most people would say the same, although people have widely varying inclinations to find things they disagree with interesting.
It seems Google has now strayed far from the "don't be evil" path. First came the illegal agreement not to hire from other tech companies, then the "say nothing to no one" employment agreement all employees have to sign and now this product the help Mr. Xi put the jack boot to every neck in China. I've probably missed a few, please fill in the blanks if you can.

To a large extent Google's business, like Enron's before it, depends largely on the trust of its users. Once it begins to wobble, head for the hills.
Plus you can directly control the access to the account yourself. One fewer middleman to possibly scam you.
> Bitcoin's natural customer base -- tax cheats, money launderers, drug dealers, etc, and will probably in fact over correct.

Funny I should read your comment about Bitcoin's use for criminal enterprise after I read about Goldman Sach's alleged hand in a multi-billion dollar fraud in Malaysia, or Deutche Bank's multi-billion dollar money laundering. Or going back a few years the Panama Papers and that entire underground financial apparatus that drummed up exactly zero long term outrage or changes. I'll be more inclined to believe crypto is only for thieves when you convince me that the existing financial system isn't also completely rife with thievery and cheats.
This sort of thinking is the exact problem. It works from the point of "what should we do if we think environmental concerns are the biggest priority". IMo the correct lense should be "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment", for different targets.
It would take money and time but it's something they're very able to do. And, yes, they couldn't make this decision and instantly pivot, there are real physical things that would need to be built before they could.
Yes, I have hope that psychology is trying to replicate what they thought were established results. After a few rounds of that we'll have a limited body of knowledge that has been successfully replicated enough that, despite the overall replication rate, we can trust those results.

Once that body of reasonably certain psychological observations is established and starts growing, it will be possible to make some statements about psychology with a high degree of confidence. But whether that coalesces into a paradigm about how to understand people that turns it into a recognizable science is another story.
>If this were the case, Weight Watchers (which is at its core a calorie limiting system) should have a near 100% success rate. It doesn't. A casual perusal of Google shows closer to a 50% success rate for a 5% body weight change.

First off - that's an astonishing success rate against a backdrop of an article saying, literally, surgery is the only reliable option.

Second off - You're assuming 100% compliance. I know people with personal trainers who are gaining weight because they don't stick to the program. I halfheartedly went through a weightlifting routine for years and got nowhere because I never really stuck to the program. 100% compliance in the field of weight loss is just not going to happen.
I think Bitcoin would be a good fit for transferring value between large entities (governments, banks, etc.), where having public accountability would be especially valuable. Those entities could then exchange it with other lower-valued cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies, precious metals, seashells, etc. more suitable for day-to-day consumption by the general public.
> It's possible there are other special purpose chips not widely available for sale, or not advertised to English speaking customers, but I haven't found much evidence of them.

Take any established Chinese IT company, there are chances they are working on RISC-V based SoC or two. Alibaba - CK902, Huami - Huangshan No. 1, not talking about less known at the West vendors.

But it seems there are some considerations among established IT companies about not announcing RISC-V products very loud, especially in English.

> The Western executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, told us, “A lot of the biggest companies doing this are being very discrete indeed: perhaps they cannot afford to upset Arm.” He said they fear being told by Arm, “‘Oh, the core for your new smartphone is two weeks late.’”

https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1334...
There's a cognitive bias where bad things stick out more than good things, which is helpful from a problem-solving perspective by helping you focus on problems that need to be solved, but it has a side effect where any job that involves dealing with the public leaves you increasingly convinced that the world is filled with people who are just plain awful at least in some respect. Of course, the world is filled with these people, but not to the proportion it seems. You just remember the bad a lot more easily than the good. Also, police officers tend to disproportionately deal with awful people anyway.
Their ability to obtain and create the best deal flow undermines this.

People want this, and this is greater than arbitrary versions of righteous punishment that people want to happen.
In a stock market, some companies outperform others by being more valuable at one moment than another. The difference in value results from differences in the companies’ expected future cash flows.

Crypto coins, despite ICO promises, have not historically been revenue generating assets, so there is no future cash flows generated by them. Thus they can be considered fungible, retaining the same value despite their different symbols and nominal prices. With the level of distrust in the ecosystem, only “bad” news affects a given ICO, sending its value to zero. Neutral news, or good news, does not increase a given coin’s price, so they all settle around the same “value”, and all their “values” move together.

When anyone or their pet monkey can clone a Git repo, change some variables, and launch their own ICO with zbsolutely zero proprietary innovation, it is to be expected that all crypto coins will approach the same value.

(I put “value” in quotes because different coins have wildly different prices, being a function of some variables in the coin’s software determining e.g. how many were “issued”, but you have to ignore those prices and instead think about the underlying “value” represented by the coin. It’s really not much at all — perhaps only the sunk cost of electricity, but likely less than even that.)

I would also love an analysis on what is moving the market. It has to be more than Tether at this point.
You did, indeed, get off-topic.
This was the home remedy for carsickness my parents used with me when I was a kid. "Look at the horizon" is how they put it. Within a couple of seconds I'd internalize the movement of the car and my gut would stabilize.
Unfortunately, this is an age-old problem. If you don't think they like your hourly rate then charge per milestone.

Milestone A = $2500

Milestone B = $2500

Milestone C = $2500

Milestone D = $2500

Include an exit clause for both parties after each milestone in case the project just isn't working out (i.e. you're spending way more time on it than you expected).
Actually useful things. Established currencies. A sack of beans
One fine spring afternoon, I saw Don Knuth at the Golden Gate Park. I think he and his partner were out bird watching or some such thing. I decided not to approach them and let them be.

Seeing him in person is something I'd never forget and take it with me to my grave. Such is the mastery of their craft that even a glimpse of their presence from a distance leaves a lasting impression.

Don Knuth is simply too precious.
I'm more worried about the United States carrying a 21 trillion dollar debt load and what that will do to our economy more than I'm worried about "past performance not being indicative of future results" in the crypto markets.
The painful reality of internet monetization right now is reading this article to the end only to see horrid clickbait article links right below it. Maybe not as bad as malware, but it really is hard to not be jaded these days.

Edit: I just noticed this was Disqus doing that. So the author of the website isn't even responsible for this and probably makes no money from it. Wow... Hard to trust anyone anymore.
We use BlackBerry Works...
not EVERYTHING else is bunk. Running water nearby might not help but cutting your onions submerged in water would definitely help. Another one is just simple good ventilation. Set up a fan near you and the chemicals will be blown away instead of gradually increasing in concentration around your eyes.
Here is one definition of capitalism: Reinvesting the profits in the enterprise, to make it more efficient, larger, or better in some other way. That started in 12th Century Italy, and perhaps also in China's 11th Century Industrial Revolution.

(China could have had an iron-based industrial revolution long before Europe. But the mandarins saw that some lower-class people were getting rich, and so they shut it down by force.)

Also: Colonialism is an evil of capitalism? The Roman Empire did something very like colonialism. The Spanish in the 1500s weren't exactly capitalists, either.
Which is part of why stock buybacks (of one format) have some major upsides: if/when the company decides it wants/needs capital, it can sell shares from its own holdings, and not be issuing new shares
Why would those work?
2 minutes of cooking for reverse sear? In practice, a 3cm steak would probably need 20-25 minutes at 100C before sear. This model seems way off at this temp range, but seems closer for sous vide.
With sous-vide, I'm always wondering a little bit about food safety (BPA and friends). Is there any reason to be concerned or is it just FUD?
Xerox PARC is certainly important to computing and software history, but it was important as a research unit rather than an innovator.

I may be just arguing semantics but my take is that researchers discover and innovators make it useful and bring it to the masses. Xerox PARC may have discovered the GUI but it was APPLE who made it useful and brought it to the masses.

Although monopolies can innovate, there is no denying that monopolies are risk averse and have internal incentive to quash any innovations that may negatively affect their cash cows. Younger and smaller companies are more likely to take chances and be disruptive.
Bubbles only pop once. Bitcoin has spiked and crashed multiple times and it isn't unreasonable to expect it to do so again.

Eventually, we might see the terminology change from "bubble" to "spike." It's already happening... Albeit slowly [0]. Can anyone think of a better term?

[0] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22bitco...
Well the population of the U.S. is still increasing at about 2% per year, and the global population faster than that, so a company staying the same size is actually shrinking as a proportion of its market.
In a series of highly (un)scientific experiments the 'Sous Vide Everything' youtube channel concluded that you arguably improve the texture by cooking meat longer by sous-vide, but the flavor deteriorates. I reproduced this result at home.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpFuaxD-0PKLolFR3gWhrMw
I am also a collector of information. From this I attempt to create a deeper understanding. To identify and spread important information within this time and to future times is i believe the most valuable. To this end I personally am writing books.
Sometimes I slack off and just enjoy learning for its own sake, just remember the worst enemy is entropy.
>For instance the apparent love of conservatives for 'respect for authority' is not actually respect for authority (why would they be so against big government if that were the case?)

Because authority is not the only value they hold, it is just one of six values. Overreaching authority will naturally conflict with those other values, particularly liberty. This is also complicated by the fact that libertarians tend to be lumped into the category of conservatives in the US, when libertarians have little in common with conservatives and overwhelmingly base their moral foundations entirely on liberty. Libertarians don't have respect for authority, conservatives do. But if you call libertarians conservatives, that will make things look weird.

>One can observe that people with liberal views often have tremendous respect for certain types of unstructured authority, in particular, academics.

I can not observe that at all. Quite the contrary, I find overwhelmingly that liberals do not respect authority in any form. Academics are not respected by liberals, they are constantly attacked and vilified for publishing facts that liberals don't like. Liberals will point to an academic that agrees with them to bolster their argument, but they don't actually respect academics, as they have nothing but disdain for an academic that disagrees with them. Look at how James Watson has been treated by liberals, I don't see a lot of respect there. If they had respect for academic authority, they would actually consider what is said, instead of assuming the person saying it is evil and calling them evil.

>The book "A Conflict Of Visions" provides an alternative explanation for this apparent discovery

I'm not sure that's an alternative explanation, it seems like the same explanation. Haidt notes the same thing, that liberals view conservatives as evil because the underlying values conservatives hold are not values to liberals. While conservatives see liberals as ignorant or stupid, because they incorrectly assume liberals are using the same underlying values to come to conclusions about issues and so they must be ignorant of some fact or making an error of reasoning.