skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The field for programming jobs is at least highly competitive- and the OSS field is very winner takes all.

Bad analogies suggest different mental models being discussed - what would you suggest is a better analogy - I would be interested in your mental model.
Because the r2 rule does hold, and it comes from something very fundamental about nature, the principle of least time. R2 comes directly out of the Lagrangian when you minimize the action. Its very fundamental to the universe and all observed phenomena. It has nothing to do with “introducing physical objects that we aren’t actually seeing.”

Why do people on HN so like to make arrogant, spectator judgments on physics like this? The HN crowd is generally contrarian and likes to speak authoritatively on all topics regardless of actual knowledge, but it really seems to take a step up in physics threads. Everyone except the physicists seems like they have thought something original and obvious that the physicists have missed.

The hubris, my god.
A large number of free VPN users seem to be students, using them to get around their schools blocking access to Facebook etc.
Why honesty is the best policy always
Yeah but no one's goal should be to overtake the current best programmer in the world in whatever ranking. Your goal should be to excel at solving the problems you're facing.

A spouse is capable of a tremendous amount of good or harm, but that doesn't mean marriage is a competition.
O/T but I find the first link absolutely hilarious as a non-Brit. The stereotypes about binning that knife are real.
Charming bookstores all over the world for the bookworm in you
wow man thanks.
I'm reading your Privacy Guides and they're quite quality materials!
Not to mention Uber!

Anyway, there are a few things anyone can do against human stupidity.

The most important thing is to have a decent backbone as an engineer. Do not take shortcuts in safety even if your stupid or arrogant boss tells you to do so.
It's ethical, because as a society we need to look at the long term rather than any specific treatment. It's better for us if private investors invest money into lifesaving treatments, because it means that more of them will be available earlier to people. If investors go and invest in something else then nobody's getting the benefit of the medicine.

Let's say we have a disease that kills 1000 people per year. Let's look at a 40 year period.

1. No cure is researched or found in 40 years. Total death count: 40,000.

2. For the first 10 years no cure is found. After 10 years a company comes along and creates a lifesaving cure, however it's expensive - only 500 people per year can afford it. The patent on it lasts 20 years. After 20 years another company creates a generic version of it that 990 people can afford. In the first 10 years 10,000 people die, in the following 20 years another 10,000 people die, in the last 10 years 100 people die. Total death count: 20,100.

3. No cure is found in the first 20 years, then a government funded research team finds a cure. A company picks it up and creates a generic, where 99% people can afford it. In the first 20 years 20,000 people die. In the latter 20 years 200 people die. Total death count: 20,200.

Being early matters in medicine. It's always easy to look at an expensive treatment and say that this should be much cheaper, but we usually don't consider that forcing investors out of healthcare means that less research will be done. This means fewer treatments and a longer time before a treatment is found.
The thing is that there's no conceivable mechanism we know of for a non-primordial black hole to form and be as small and common as would be required to explain away dark matter.
Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.
> Don’t you think they would, for example, be able to prioritize content based on reputation/hidden metrics?

Like rank/derank the feed based on contextual clues? No way this wasn't the first thing done.

> Don’t you think, for example, that a fair amount of videos categories can be auto filtered with extremely high accuracy?

They've touted high accuracy in "using AI" for content moderation, like 95% or 99% or something. i.e. using machine learning to automatically tag content.

> Don’t you think, for example, that if they had enough content moderators they would have been able to stop the stream and to take down this video faster?

So your proposal boils down to "hire more people so more content can be filtered faster". GP perhaps didn't steelman your argument for you but if your proposal were to be applied the only real delta would be workforce size. It follows that your proposal in effect reduces to "hire more people".
"..but at the same time, I would like to nudge him in the right direction"

Who are you to know the right direction? Only because of blockchain is just another database? Uber is just another taxi service, amazon is just another online shop. This point of view is pretty naive.

You have no idea what he will create, what if he creates something people want? As long as he doesn't do something illegal everything is alright, he should explore.

“No-one ever built a statue of a critic.” - David Nicholls
If you found typos or issues with the docs, why not open a PR and fix it?

https://github.com/SpaceVim/SpaceVim/blob/master/docs/_posts...
They just asked a question and put some context of the basis for the question. I think you read something that isn't there.
It cannot be better but it is a matter of blind faith to trust they are better?
Another important factor is that it's not just a matter of funding but a matter of motivation. So for instance imagine we just do away with market economics and decide 'Okay, from now on the government will distribute $x billion per year to fund research and development of new drugs. In exchange, prices will also be government controlled to ensure equitable access for all to life saving treatment.'

This sounds great. We'd like to imagine that the companies would now expend all their energy towards developing new treatments, even ones that might not have been economically feasible before (think: the 'problem' of cure vs treat), and everybody would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, there's another way of looking at this. You just changed the company's goal away from market success and onto playing a game of min-maxing on government funding.

We have countless analogs to draw from here. Anytime a complex industry starts getting involved with government funding suddenly the entire game changes. It's not about producing anything, but instead about doing exactly what's necessary to keep, and maximize, the amount of funding received. And sure we'd like to imagine you could just create a million rules and regulations to try to ensure that this means exactly 'producing new amazing treatments' but actually doing that is not really practical. And, that's also ignoring the fact that these systems also rapidly lend themselves towards corruption:

'Well I tell you what Senator Pharmaceutical Commission Chair, we've been looking at building a new pharmaceutical research facility. And [your state] is looking right top notch. And you know what, voters will love those jobs we'll bring, and it'll even be a tax windfall in the longrun. The only thing that's stopping us from this is resources. Just something to keep in mind when you go draw up that next fiscal allotment. And ya know, you also might want to consider retirement. Once you leave office - we'd be mighty grateful for some of those great insights you have. We're always looking for consultants with the right sort of experience, if you know what I mean.'
It's not like physicists didn't try.

Nobody really likes the idea of particles or other stuff that is impossible to measure.

But until now, General Relativity has passed every experimental test and most alternative approaches to dark matter other than "Some heavy stuff not interacting electricly" is basically ruled out by one or another observation.

There are solutions that fit the large scales pretty well (Cosmic Microwave Background, Galaxy Formation) but fail at the smaller scales (Orbital speeds) and vice versa.
Have any of the big players in travel innovated in any way? I'm talking about Booking.com, Priceline etc. Hard to see how poaching Expedia execs is a signal.

From the article it sounds like their innovation will be to be another aggregator?
That’s very valid reasoning to support change!
I disagree! Cool kids have always made their own RPGs in high school!
> Also I think you're referring to the trap of the law of averages incorrectly.

True, sorry, I was referring to the typical "3 chickens were eaten by 3 people, 1 chicken per person on average; in reality one man ate 3 chickens and the other zero"
Main problem is Watson its like a million different things all with the same name. So no one actually knows what they are selling when they talk to you about Watson. Literally I had one IBM guy ask to check out their Watson and it took 5 minutes of them showing me the demo before I figured out what it was (cloud based Nvidia Digits alternative). If that particular Watson had an actual name, I probably would've heard about it before and I'd actually be able to recommend it to someone.
If you are a New Zealander, then you should know better. Freedom of speech is NOT an unalienable right in NZ, nor has it ever been.

The ridiculous scare-mongering by some of the sibling comments on this post about this being "the start of the end for NZ" is not representative of:
A) New Zealand
B) Most countries outside of the US.

(Because it's a continuation of existing policy; That not all speech is protected).

As a society, at some point we have to make the decision: Where do we draw the line with speech designed to incite hate and violence; and where do we draw the line on those that enable that speech to reach the masses?

In the US, the answer has been "We don't". In NZ, the answer has been "some speech is reprehensible and we will not tolerate it." This means there's an expectation that anyone of the scale and influence of Facebook should be able to moderate violent speech as it pertains to NZ (Keep in mind that something like 80% of the countries population is on FaceBook. That's an enormous amount of influence they have on the nation).

I'm also a New Zealander, and I work in tech; I agree with the Government here. Facebook will effectively benefit from this event in multiple instances:

1) It drives engagement with there platform (outrage -> views -> engagement)
2) It's more data for there technical god, which will in turn use it to better sell the people (political/fear-mongering?) adverts.

The easiest solution, and one that I think is entirely reasonable, is to not offer live videos in New Zealand. If they're unable or unwilling to moderate the content with regards to NZ law, and given the scale of there operations in NZ (even if that's small fry compared to facebook's scale in other nations) then it's reasonable for the government to impose restrictions on them.

(More generally, I feel government exists to ensure the collective safety and security of society. NZ's government serves the collective safety/security of the people of NZ; That's their role. If they feel the existence of facebook's live streaming threatens NZ's security, then bringing action against it is the reasonable response.)
Vetting first puts legal responsibility strongly onto Facebook and it's not something they'd accept.
nope, he said something just as absurd in another comment. People get realllly triggered and irrational when confronted with the fact their food is harmful to themselves and the planet.
Wow, that IBM System/360 Model 85 is sexy af.
Those are very good points, thank you. I agree that having more people increases the chances that there will be more different parenting styles. And when the child picks a favorite, there will be more people whose feelings get hurt. And I can totally see how both of those things would negatively impact the parents and child.
FFIV, VI, VII, Chrono Trigger, and Zelda (not JRPG I know) music routinely gets stuck in my head. EVERY DAY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsj5xjoLXtE
PIA. It's cheap and used to be fast but a lot of people have started using it so they are now having to raise price / regulate bandwidth. However, they let you log on 5 or 10 devices simultaneously on different servers all over the globe,
Yes, in fact there are several and I use them all.

The network effect has a positive influence on curation but an often profoundly negative effect on conversation. The smaller reddit spinoffs tend to have users that are more passionate about the topic at hand, don't "shit post" as much and the comment threads aren't plagued by low-effort puns. A casual observation of this might have you believe that the engagement is low, but a closer examination often reveals that the conversations are much more on-topic.
Even in the relatively abundant west world today 70% of infertility may be caused by diet (https://www.healthstatus.com/health_blog/ovulation-2/diet-an...). In the past poor people had even worse diets, it was probably even worse for the post famine Irish you used as an example.

> Our knowledge of biology is not innate

It's not,but we've known what the result of "seeding a woman" has been for several thousand years so I have a hard time believing it took that long to come up with the pull out method. For the poor bedrooms are also a recent invention, they probably got a lot more sex-ed passed down directly.
The irony is that if you do this for the purposes of finding a date, then the efficient stay-at-home solution is to essentially just use Tinder, which optimizes the process, so we're full circle.

Unless, of course, using Tinder unevenly weights physical attractiveness and going to community events more evenly weights other forms of attraction (which is probably the case), in which case going out more could be better than using Tinder for some people.
The Hard Work of Translation of Buddhism
Artificial AI-driven-wife (for example "Geminoid F") with artificial womb would solve the problem.
> Gender is a subjective experience of a person. Doping is not. I don't find your comment funny.

Yet performance related to hormones is not a "subjective experience". Nor body composition. E.g. in cycling females are at big disadvantage because their hips are wider, making them less aerodynamic.

> I struggle to believe that a male athlete would accept taking hormones or being castrated to reduce their testosterone so they can "pretend to be a woman" in order to compete.

I see you haven't been in sports scene much. I saw even amateurs in local weekend-warrior league taking doping (the cheap one, with very clear risks later in life) just to win some meaningless local race. People fucking love even tiny slice of glory.

> Not to mention, that would significantly reduce one's athletic prowess.

Those people don't care about absolute prowess. They care about podium. For example, it's not uncommon for amateurs to cheat to qualify for lower-tier group just to singlehandedly win against weaker opponents.

Source: spent many years in local amateurs and semi-pros cycling scene.
Not even close. If anything it'll make things worse, as more immature kids will think this is great and feel less motivated.
I think this is the best advice in the thread so far.
At least a couple of newspaper comment sections, and forums have had pre-moderation for sensitive topics.

Nothing is visible until it's been validated. Guardian comments still do this for some topics.

With all the assorted profiling going on, I'm sure just as some users (like via Tor or VPN) are automatically given harder Google captchas, or some boards make you earn enough karma to perform certain actions, reactionary moderating could be something you have to earn, and sustain. Perhaps certain interests would trigger proactive moderating too.

Not perfect but certainly capable of taking much load off human moderators.
Ask a heterosexual woman in that age range about how many awful conversations she's had with men in that age range via dating apps. She won't say "a few", she'll say "A LOT", and be able to show that the vast majority of messages she gets are either very dry or insanely forward (sexually).

If you're a great-looking guy and you can't start or hold a good conversation, you can still get laid on the basis of looks. But if you don't look good, you don't get those grace points. I've seen guys (who look much better than I do) fail at getting laid on dating apps after LOADS of attempts, and despite being their friend, I must say the messages they've shown me are AWFUL. Not just "this isn't that great", but "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???". When I was single (despite my looks), I found it really easy to get dates and get laid using dating apps, because I could actually hold conversations. And I know others just like me, who've gotten similar results.
>> What's so hard?

Ah the classic HN comment.

The problem is you don't speak for the billions of people use various Facebook and Google services to live their lives without easy alternatives. When someone is using Gmail to run their small business or using Facebook to keep in touch with their distant relatives, I'm sure saying "what's so hard" is all it takes to get them to see the error of their ways.
I always recommend users to pick a VPN service in a country not on friendly terms with domestic agencies. Sure, that country gets your data but have a harder time correlating it with anything.

In my circle, VPN use starts to be requested by non-technical users that just want to minimize their digital footprint.

Seems amazing to me, since people spend 200$+ on a service for a year, so it seems rather important to them.

No reason not to use globalization to your own advantage.
Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. I'm all for people engaging with the community, but enforced?
How about, instead of that, companies that want to moderate content, compete in the free market, and those that prefer to be the dumb pipe, do that as well.

That way users can choose which platform they prefer, the more censored version, or the less censored version.
The cpu needs to be able to support it, mediatek smartphone have it I think.
It's interesting that every comment here is now on board with what groups like "incels" and "MRAs" been saying for years. These groups are often called "hate groups", but now more and more stats are coming out it seems more people agree with them (I have always agreed with them, by the way).

Nobody has yet mentioned another potentially large driver, though. That is the abundance of Internet porn that is available from a young age now. There are men who have grown up being able to watch any kind of porn they can imagine. Having sex is a lot of effort and not really worth it if you're already overwhelmed with all the women you could want from the comfort of your own bedroom.
I remember being 10 and seeing my dog Moglee crawl up a 150m driveway to see his family after being hit by a truck. I remember the blood from his mouth and how much he wanted to be with his family. It was 2 days after Christmas.

Recently my old cat Jackie passed away. The moment I saw her not pee in the litter box but instead leave tiny droplets on the floor, I knew it was time to start planning for what the next few hours were going to be like. She was deaf, blind, failed kidney, two times underweight, and a tumor in her mouth. Her inability to eat or relieve herself had peaked. In the next four hours she was euthanized.

There's many instances throughout life that you know there's nothing you can do.

This doctor was right, your everything isn't always to spend moments with doctors. Sometimes it's to make the final moments worth it. I wasn't with Moglee. No one was. I was with Jackie, but the vet talked me out of getting antibiotics so she could eat instead of starving to death.
Very misleading, factually wrong post.

"Log in to your Facebook account. Connect VPN. Did Facebook forget who you are?" He forgot step to open new private window to clear login cookie.

VPN is a must for everybody in there days of data harvesting. We will be sorry tomorrow, seeing many new ways it can be used by global corporations and governments.
I too have a dislike for Medium for pretty much the same reasons. Yet I still read articles on there. There are some things though that medium got right in the beginning in my opinion. A simple, minimalist reader friendly design and a restrictive but user friendly editing experience for instance. Then there is the ease of syndication, sharing and finding interest based content. Especially the latter is not going to be easily replicated by something like Hugo. I have high hopes for https://writefreely.org/ though!
I think it's about having a pickup/dropoff area, not necessarily a queuing system, especially because ridesharing does not use traditional waiting queues.
not efficient in regards that there are many other positive aspects of venturing out and interacting with community. Increased serotonin and feel good emotions of interacting with real people. swiping screens sucks for that. And even if people fail to find a date, which many may do so if were comparing the side conversation of how dating websites have a 80/20 winner take all kind of matching system.... the people who don't find dates may find meaningful friendships and other types or relationships. In the west its sad that 'relationship' is charged with an intimate vibe, there are many other types of relationships humans can create which can be beneficial to ones mental and physical well being.
While you make a good point that pull requests can be made because it is open-source, I've always found the "pull requests welcome" response to a (presumably good faith) piece of constructive criticism as a little dismissive.
Oh please. You think saying something like “i dont understand why they keep saying this, but if it were up to me (as a mathematician not a physicist), I would be doing it this way, not that way...” is innocent? Its pretty much textbook passive aggressive condescension.
Google Terminates AI Ethics Council After One Week
Which unfortunately, is the sort of person who's going to accidentally click on an ad, which is probably an intentional move on their end.
Like he said though, you can have an overlay network on top of what any ISP gives you. Like Tor does with onion services, Ethereum, DHTs, IPFS, etc. You can make peer-to-peer connections regardless of whether or not you're NAT'd. Of course this technology is still not very popular, but it's possible.
This is the worst comment I've ever read. Have fun with your stupid "woke" word. It proves to me that you're useless, and not worth talking to.
There are an even more fundamental questions than "How": Should we censor? And if you should, what should we censor and where is the line?

These are hard questions, and need good answers, not some laws referring vaguely to "abhorrent" content, and some politicians grand standing without really saying anything.

Just to name a few things that I think are utterly abhorrent, but also think should not be censored, because I think the merits of the society being able to see and talk about those things outweigh the downsides:

- The 9/11 footage and the Falling Man in particular: abhorrent

- The dead Syrian refugee kid on the Turkish beach: abhorrent

- Footage from concentration camps and the Holocaust: abhorrent

- The Christchurch shooter and his murder spree: abhorrent

- The footage from the Paris attacks: abhorrent.

- The footage from the Boston Marathon bombing: abhorrent.

- The screaming naked girl, running away from her village in Vietnam: abhorrent
Sometimes I wished I was a baker or a carpenter.
Facebook, Youtube or whichever platform is the broadcaster in this instance.

If they're not, why do we sue the TV station rather than the production company of the programme? CBS can yell "don't look at us, we didn't make Game of Thrones".

It's their exception that is looking increasingly absurd.