skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>if you need 25,000 employees in a sector...

Let’s be clear. They don’t need this, and no society owes it to them. We live in the age of corporate rule and talking about corporation’s “needs” like this, in such a way that effectively justifies a priority of their needs over the needs of actually living people is outrageous.
Here you go: https://developer.apple.com/app-store-connect/analytics/
I think the best way for you to be able to understand them better is to remember while they are a country with a population of 120 million. There is going to be contradictions in their culture.
Amazon certainly doesn't shy away from diagrams for right time and place. A good example being Bezos' famous napkin diagram. https://i.imgur.com/asNNqOn.jpg
A huge reason a lot of people take these jobs is the insane TC (total compensation) complete with eye popping bonuses/RSUs that non FAANG can't touch considering they expect you to be grateful for their 1-4% annual increase at your typical Fortune 500.
The interesting thing that isn’t usually an issue with tox screens is the they are limited. You can search whole classes or drugs, but ultimately a truly novel poison would be detectable in principle, but likely to go unnoticed. Now for you and me that’s enough, because we have the resources of individuals, but a large lab and especially a government can afford to engineer toxins that are not tested yet.

Having said that, such a toxin that could also be frozen and the resulting “dart” being strong enough to survive being fired into someone, is not perfect. Like the poison umbrella, you’d expect traces of toxin to be found around the wound, and even small wounds become evident under ALS.
I just hit Mute as soon as an ad comes on, and unmute when the ads are done... joke's on you, Spotify.
You have provided a lot of detail here, but it seems you aren't addressing the concerns about patents.
I would love this rule. Love it.
Right now I'm looking for a job, and I consciously reject interview requests with adtech companies.

I don't want to work for a company products of which I would rather not use, and help others to avoid using.
Terence McKenna's suggestion was "if a book is less than 100 years old, don't read it".

I think it's a combination of "contemporary books will be from the swirl of life around you that already know, old books will be from a different culture and time and that difference is important" and "knowledge lost, from people who are no longer living".

It would also have the test of time - Darwinian natural selection of information. Something we're missing when we want the internet to keep data forever, we should be letting data rot and be lost, taking ongoing action to keep it in the present is a vote for its importance, setting up a system which preserves information without effort is cheating the system and leaving us swimming in e-waste.
If humanity lived at the density of Wyoming (5.97/mi^2), we would have to get rid of 50% of the U.S. population or 98% of the world population, because only 147M people could fit on the habitable land on earth.

So yes, it is and it isn't. The question is how many people want to live in Wyoming-level densities vs. Paris-level densities, given the elimination of any cost constraints.
There is always a market for a lawyer that will say "Sure, I'll do that."
The user wins in that they retain control of their device which is slightly more significant than the ability to listen to some tunes.
Rust is cool...I question the feasibility of suggesting Rust in a list of things for a beginning web developer to try to learn.
What book reporting on economics that wasn't written or co-written by an economist are you concerned is too influential or widely read?

As we can obviously see, even professionals in medical sciences were wrong about Theranos. How did John Carreyrou, a WSJ reporter, do such a good job reporting on them?
Saudi arabian people are just like everyone else in the world.

The saudi government is horrible and is being supported by the US government (and financially by EU countries)

Start THERE!
The post is about judging people's character simply by where they work and in the most ungracious terms. Doing that actually is poor character.
You need a plugin? I thought you just past the URL into translate.google.com

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ja&tl=en&u=htt...

Seems pretty straight forward to make a plugin that generates those URLs if you want one.
Six principles for making new things
>Liberal Arts majors should be required to take more science courses

They are, that's the point of a liberal arts education:

https://college.harvard.edu/what-liberal-arts-education

>In our liberal arts program, students are broadly educated in the social sciences, the natural sciences and the humanities, as well as trained in a particular academic field of specialization called a concentration.

https://admission.princeton.edu/academics/what-does-liberal-...

>By exploring issues, ideas and methods across the humanities and the arts, and the natural and social sciences

https://www.aacu.org/leap/what-is-a-liberal-education

>It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society)
It blows my mind that an advertiser would present their product on Spotify’s ad network. The audience selects for people unwilling to spend even very little money on high-quality goods.

(In my social circles, avid consumers subscribe to Spotify by default. Several even subscribe to both Spotify and Apple Music.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19075325
Title is missing a word: "Why the Grammys sound amazing and sometimes go wrong"
> healthcare becomes the most expensive or second most expensive thing on the government budget.

Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance.

> It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills.

First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right?

Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.
How to Survive Being the Only Woman in the Workplace?
I hesitate before changing my hair or clothing style for fear that my colleagues will offer unsolicited opinions.
Boo. Anti consumer practices like this are a slippery slope.
Less painful but it's hard to see how this would be as reliable as a standard dermal injection. Pumps definitely have reliability issues but they tend to alert in most cases.
There's no language called Delphi. There's an IDE named Delphi for creating applications in Object Pascal.
He did spark a different conversation. So many of them, in fact, that you know his name as a consequence of people having those very conversations.

>Being famous doesn't really indicate on its own that you've sparked any particular conversation, so I don't see how it's evidence of that.

That's funny. Edward Snowden's name doesn't seem to be brought up in random-ass conversations. He seems to always come up when people are talking about security and surveillance. I wonder if that's a spurious correlation, or if it is evidence of something? Perhaps some kind of impact that he's had on conversations about those very subjects?

Perhaps you have a better explanation of this correlation?
I'm not arguing that solipsism is inconsistent with science. I'm arguing it's unproductive. Solipsism, the brain-in-a-vat, philosophical zombies, etc, are all rejected by science as a human activity because they are useless as starting points.

The starting point of all science is "something can be known about the universe beyond my own mind". Without it, there can be no science, nothing to be known or understood. Therefore, science can safely assume that whatever consciousness is (as perceived by the scientist), it's likely shared by other healthy human beings that behave similarly to the observing scientist. It can also make educated guesses about other organisms (or even unhealthy human beings).

> Traditional science (rolling balls down inclines, etc.) would all remain perfectly valid even if I'm the only conscious being and the whole world is in my mind.

I don't think so. If the external universe is a completely whimsical figment of your imagination, you can infer nothing from it, and no experiment is meaningful. Your starting point must be to assume the universe outside your mind is real.
We are now facing the consequences of many decades of inaction to deal with the looming healthcare catastrophe. Now that a majority see a serious need for action, we will get an avalanche of progress.

If the Clintons had been a little less ambitious back in the early 1990's and proposed lowering the age for Medicare coverage by 1 year each year, we could have learned gradually how good an idea this is. If that had worked well, everyone over 40 would now be in (way more than 50% of the health care money), and we could have some confidence that Medicare covering everyone would be a good idea.

The course of urgent progress is seldom smooth.
I'd have every echo on earth fire up at 6am and blare the message loud and clear, so as not to have any confusion.
We used to use Intercom and were frustrated that they charged us a random amount every month.

They also don't have tools for lead gen or making calls to customers. It was a big pain having our calls go through skype. We'd have to take manual notes on the call and there was no good way to schedule follow ups so we ended up using a mish-mash of systems to do this.

Shameless plug: In the end, we started a competing product, MomentCRM, which has simple, predictable pricing, and spans the entire lifecycle of your user. No more data silos or "integration engineers"! I'm one of the founders, and I will move mountains to make sure you're happy if you decide to try it :)
No it doesn't. Spam doesn't necessarily generate revenue traffic, and it can drive actual consumers off the platform.

This is the same issue as the naive attempts at driving web page hits during the early web. "Look at how many pages people are looking at!"

Then people realized that people were going from page to page because they couldn't find their damned answer anywhere.

And so now more sophisticated metrics are used: time on page. Customer sat metrics — were people actually happy using your website?

While total weekly/monthly active user counts are important what is also important is churn — are people abandoning the platform because of spam, trolls, etc.

Who cares if you create a million fake accounts if you lose a half-million real human users?
Well, bye
...ok so then we're back at "you do not have the right to use the service in any way you like."

Glad we agree.
Enough with the lecturing
There is a very specific reason housing, healthcare and education costs are so high -- the government keeps subsidizing them in particular. Mortgage interest tax deduction, exclusion from capital gains tax, employer health insurance deduction, ACA subsidies, federal student loan interest deduction and subsidies, etc.

The problem with all of this is that it doesn't cause general inflation, it only raises the cost of those specific things. Which means in particular that it doesn't raise general wages, so the cost of those things increase relative to wages. On top of that most of those subsidies are to loan interest rather than principal, so the incentive is to take out a huge loan, which multiplies the effect on overall price. They really are very poorly designed policies. Unless you're a bank or an insurance company or an existing landlord.

A UBI is the opposite of that. It doesn't require you to do anything in particular, so it doesn't raise the price of anything in particular relative to everything else.

It also helps you out of the megopolis treadmill. The job in Pittsburgh pays $50,000, but the job in SF pays $150,000, so you take that one. Then you learn it costs $100,000 more to live in SF at the same quality of life, so you're really only just breaking even.

Add $12,000 worth of UBI and it becomes more advantageous to live in the median city than the huge megopolis, because the extra $12,000 goes further there and unlike the salary it's the same amount in both places. So more people do, and prices fall everywhere, because that's also more efficient. You increase economies of scale by increasing population in the smaller cities while reducing resource contention in the huge cities where economies of scale are already maxed out.

And likewise if you replace student loans and healthcare subsidies with the UBI, the cost of education and healthcare comes down, because then people don't lose any part of the subsidy if they choose a less expensive school or a higher deductible insurance policy, they just get to use it for something else. Like for patronizing service workers, which increases their wages relative to housing/healthcare/education.
Anchorite
Senator introduces a bill to legalize marijuana and it’s called S.420
Yeah, you should probably report that somewhere, probably to your distribution maintainer (assuming you're talking about a distro Chromium build, and not Google's Chrome blob).

Google distributes Chrome on Linux on tens of millions of devices every year, it displays fonts just fine for almost everyone.
for impatients,

excerpt from essay

Here it is: I like to find (a) simple solutions (b) to overlooked problems (c) that actually need to be solved, and (d) deliver them as informally as possible, (e) starting with a very crude version 1, then (f) iterating rapidly.
I disagree, 25,000 employees being taxed on avg. pay of 150k/year will most certainly be "building public schools, roads, or transportation"
As far as companies go, Apple has enough money to basically be a deity. I think more of it should be in the hands of their employees and the American taxpayer.
There are few topics that provide a better intellectual Rorschach test than the economy.

Communism is the most appealing if only because it's the natural system of families and of hunter gatherers. Sadly, the 20th century emphatically demonstrated that this system doesn't scale into anything other than a complete disaster.

On the other hand, capitalism is brutally horrible. But it's one saving grace is that it does scale. You can run a 2 billion person economy on it and things will work out overall and through time. That is, if you overlook the long time constant, positive feedback loop of the concentration of capital. Eventually just a few guys own all the stuff which is sub optimal.

Raw capitalism guarantees winners and losers, and a whole spectrum of outcomes in between. This can be fixed up a bit by first, having government regulation of clear market failure zones, like food, construction and finance etc. And second, having the government collect a reasonable percentage off the top of the economy to subsidize those being squished to death at the bottom.

Scandinavia does this best. Sure, they're not perfect, there is no actual perfect solution.

The result is an elephant of a system that few people can view in its entirety but most people think they can.

Given such a messy, devisive, inscrutable system you have to believe there must be a better way.
But there's probably not.
"The idea that changed Hofstadter’s existence, as he has explained over the years, came to him on the road, on a break from graduate school in particle physics. Discouraged by the way his doctoral thesis was going at the University of Oregon, feeling “profoundly lost,” he decided in the summer of 1972 to pack his things into a car he called Quicksilver and drive eastward across the continent. Each night he pitched his tent somewhere new (“sometimes in a forest, sometimes by a lake”) and read by flashlight. He was free to think about whatever he wanted; he chose to think about thinking itself. Ever since he was about 14, when he found out that his youngest sister, Molly, couldn’t understand language, because she “had something deeply wrong with her brain” (her neurological condition probably dated from birth, and was never diagnosed), he had been quietly obsessed by the relation of mind to matter. The father of psychology, William James, described this in 1890 as “the most mysterious thing in the world”: How could consciousness be physical? How could a few pounds of gray gelatin give rise to our very thoughts and selves?

Roaming in his 1956 Mercury, Hofstadter thought he had found the answer—that it lived, of all places, in the kernel of a mathematical proof. In 1931, the Austrian-born logician Kurt Gödel had famously shown how a mathematical system could make statements not just about numbers but about the system itself. Consciousness, Hofstadter wanted to say, emerged via just the same kind of “level-crossing feedback loop.” He sat down one afternoon to sketch his thinking in a letter to a friend. But after 30 handwritten pages, he decided not to send it; instead he’d let the ideas germinate a while. Seven years later, they had not so much germinated as metastasized into a 2.9‑pound, 777-page book called Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, which would earn for Hofstadter—only 35 years old, and a first-time author—the 1980 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction."

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-man...
I can't seem to find any data which suggests that Liberal Arts majors are significantly more likely to fall for climate change denial or the anti-vax movement. I find that most studies correlate political leaning with these beliefs, not area of study. Given that the Liberal Arts are overwhelmingly liberal in the US, I'd say your claim is probably wrong.

If anything, a Liberal Arts educations ought to provide students a higher degree of skepticism towards all expressions of ideology, and seek to find the truth through critical research. Obviously, that's the ideal, note necessarily the reality in all cases, but it seems your notion of Liberal Arts is more akin to "hippy-dippy" nonsense, not critical study.
Shameless self promotion https://vankessel.io

Still have work to do on it, but I would love to hear feedback.
Not really talking about stigma here since, as you correctly pointed out, UBI assumes everyone gets it. It is more of an existential question for the person themselves - "what is exactly is my purpose"?
Ugh this is so true. The high-deductible plans are designed to both reduce costs to employers and also keep employees locked in due to high out of pocket max.

At this point we are just paying to avoid the Obamacare tax penalty.
Business/self-improvement books are the worst for having 3 pages of ideas and expanding it to the publishers 200 pages minimum.
> "Writing is nature's way of letting you know how sloppy your thinking is."

Indeed!

Every so often, I have a coding question and I have an urge to ask that question on StackExchange.

Before I actually post the question, I write a draft question. I usually revise my draft a few times to make it as clear as possible. About 50% of the time, the process of revising my draft makes me realize an obvious solution to my own problem that I had overlooked.
Among his 25+ fiction books plus screenplays, Crichton wrote just two books (Jurassic Park, The Lost World) and one screenplay (Westworld) about theme parks. Not sure how that's an obsession, especially he had to be talked into writing The Lost World by Steven Spielberg, who wanted source material for a sequel movie.
BTT Price Crashes
I like reading non-fiction. I think my rough heuristics for picking books are:

1. Aim for topics I was already interested in before I knew the book existed. There is something to be said for books so good they draw attention to the topic, but that also increases the odds of the book's rating being based on popularity and not quality. I'd rather read a good book about niche topic that is particularly meaningful to me than a better book that just happens to hit the zeitgeist. In other words, I pick a topic and hunt for books.

My most recent non-fiction books were Derek Wu's book on Spelunky, Chapman Piloting & Seamanship, and Thinking with Type. None of those are going to make Oprah's Book Club, but all were very enchriching for me because they aligned with areas that matter to me.

2. Aim for books that are "canonical" according to people in the field. Signals for this are lots of reviews, especially many reviews over a period of years because that shows consistent relevance. When people I respect that I share interests with mention a book, that's a strong signal. When reviews of other similar books mention as a point of reference, that's a strong signal.

3. Read a few pages and judge the quality of writing. I have read very very few books where the underlying concepts were valuable enough to be worth wading through bad writing. On the contrary, my experience is that deep, clear thinkers produce quality at all levels of exposition. They wrap their good ideas in good chapters with good paragraphs full of good sentences. Life is too short for shitty prose.

I also have a simple rule for how to increase the quantity of non-fiction I read: Put it in the bathroom and don't bring my phone in there. You'd be surprised how much text you can get through one poop at a time. This is great for books where reading it is not super engaging but I want to have read it.
Disable the API.
It's true, their cash on hand tops the GDP of many countries.
Patent application was filed for defense reasons. Also, patent sends marketing message that we are serious about the technology we created.
Seriously. They'd get a ton of bad reports like everyone with a bug bounty program, but Apple isn't exactly running lean on resources.
>I mean I would expect you to back up your claim with some kind of scientific study that humans in general opt to produce value for society purely altruistically.

That's not what I claiming at all.

What I'm saying is if you want to produce value then go ahead keep producing value for whatever reason, it could be purely for selfish reason for all i care.

But You still have to pay tax for your income though, thats for allowing you to do business.

Of course if you produce value you will be a lot more richer than people who don't produce value, thats an advantage for you.

And for people who can't or won't produce value, fine, here is basic income for you so that you can still fulfil your basic needs.

So its not one happy person at the expense of someone else.
I remember in the book "Remote: Office Not Required" by Jason Fried and David Heinmeier Hansson, they mentioned finding internationalization issues early on because globally distributed remote teams naturally dogfood for international audiences. This struck me as one of their key selling points for remote work.
Google Brain Research Scientist Quoc Le on AutoML and More
The "cup of coffee" unit of measurement is becoming increasingly popular when comparing digital subscriptions. Generally these things are incredibly cheap. For some reason people are ok spending 5 bucks on a latte for 30 days a month ($150) versus an order of magnitude less for Spotify, Netflix, etc...
I think it's more laughable for fiction books and less laughable for nonfiction books. Nonfiction books are like tools to me: they either perform or they don't.
Not a vegetarian but needless cruelty is repellent.
I don't know any of the authors you've mentioned, but in my own experience, not reading books written by journalists is a good rule of thumb. That doesn't mean, obviously, that it's impossible for a journalist to write a good book. By profession, journalism is both shallow and narrow: it focuses on the surface of events in the given moment. That tends not to equip someone with the knowledge or expertise to write a truly insightful book.