skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree that shaming / confronting people is not good for culture, but I disagree with the conclusion. "Y can be done (see below), but if you're actually trying to accomplish X here's a much more convenient way" is the kind of response that I appreciate most–not only has someone answered my question, but they've also helped correct whatever misunderstanding prompted me to ask about Y in the first place, and they've given me an easier way to solve X.

For me, at least, a response that solves both X and Y is (if done politely) far preferable to one that only solves Y.
I do embedded consulting (not supply chain/distribution stuff at all), and I could very readily places my customers into the various boxes. As a technical person who accidentally found himself running a business, articles like this are awesome for helping to shape my thinking.
Material objects cannot be hashed. It is physically impossible.
Pretty sure more than one pilot had unaided visual confirmation.
The upsetting part isn't the presence or absence in media reports of particular actors in school shootings.

It's the fact that the 23 people killed in school shootings in 2018 - tragic as these deaths are - have managed to take away all the attention from the over 3,000 children killed by motor vehicles that year. I can't help but notice that the media of the US is very reluctant to shine a light on an epidemic whose solution invariably involves cutting into the profits of its oil and automobile sponsors.

I understand that we have a desire to handle both problems, but to the degree that this these are public policy problems, we also need to remember that opportunity cost (for example, in the form of hearing agendas in legislative committee scheduling) is very real - every bit of attention on one problem is indeed a lack of attention on another.

The number of committee meetings in US legislatures (including both houses of congress) over ridiculous cosmetic gun control laws is absurd, while at the same time these bodies barely say a word about the extreme petronormative policies that dominate infrastructure planning and invariably lead to death and permanent disability for more young children than any other cause.
For expression statements I usually chain .. ? .. : .., breaking lines before :
This makes sense on the surface, but when the choice is "risk getting caught" vs "put food on my table for this week by working and leaving my kid at home", it's a lot muddier.
Crowdsourced Campaign about VR Reconstruction of the Notre Dame
Spotted at computex: The worse fake macbook air
I think you confused my point for the point of the OP, and then just typed a reply that is basically a reply to the OP.

My point was the fact that, at the end of the justification chain, you've generally left the domain of expertise of the expert/forum of experts that you came to. Because of this, the people you're conversing with will fail to actually help you with your problem, because they've been dazed/confused/distracted by the higher-level problem statements that exist outside their domain of expertise. Even though the immediate problem is one they're eminently qualified to solve.

It's unintentional nerd-sniping: they force you to tell them about a larger problem that they don't know how to solve—sometimes, in my case, because it's a research problem and nobody knows how to solve it—and they get distracted trying to understand the entire breadth of a topic they may not have ever considered before, in order to figure out how they would solve the highest-level problem themselves. They never "come down to earth" to solve your immediate problem.

It's as if you went to a low-ranking soldier and asked something about how well some body-armor they use works in practice, and they asked you what the context is, eventually demanding you to explain the whole strategy of the war to them, at which point they get confused trying to understand the strategy and politics of the war they're fighting, which is usually inevitable because they're a soldier, not a politician.
I mean game editor, I will add that :D
> School kids right now commonly suffer from existential crisis due to climate change.

Wait, what? You can’t just drop that one in there at the end without some follow up! I know Climate Change is the current boogeyman that’s causing all sorts of bad things, but now it’s causing mental health problems? Is there anything Climate Change can’t do?
The post mentions u/poem_for_your_prog, a truly talented writer and poet. Definitely one of my favorite Reddit personalities. Check out their Reddit profile here: https://www.reddit.com/user/Poem_for_your_sprog

Also worth taking a look at is u/Shitty_Watercolour: https://www.reddit.com/user/Shitty_Watercolour
Should people be surprised by that? Turn on any major news channel and you will instantly see evidence that bad news sells better than good news.

Newspapers are businesses and most have a simple equation in mind when deciding what content to use: use x s.t. x maximizes profit

Hopefully younger people will start to move away from traditional news sources as they realize how it skews ones world view towards negativity.
Mindwebs: Audio dramatizations of 1970's sci-fi short stories
Can you create something interactive and put it on a tablet for them to pass around and play with?
China’s Great Leap Forward: 50 million deaths

Stalin’s regime: 10 million deaths

Khmer Rouge: 2 million deaths (25% of Cambodia’s population)

East Germany “denazification efforts”: tens of thousands of deaths, possible as high as a hundred thousand

I don’t entirely disagree with the nuance you’re trying to make, but it’s worth keeping in mind that some things are very measurable when it comes to these communist/totalitarian regimes.
Is this a relevant metric? Why do we want to show pictures of victims? If I got killed in a shooting I don’t think I would want my picture thrown all over the news, nor do I think it would be particularly good for my family.
But existing theory predicts all those just fine, it just happens that some things are not in the same direction, but it’s not like one can ignore direction. The math is still always there. And I argue things going in different directions is a feature, not a bug, because it reinforces the point that net charge and net particles are not the same thing.
This reminds me of Mr Lee's cat cam from back in the day. http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_u.htm
The world’s largest airplane may be grounded after a single flight
> Just like we have always done, if something constantly disturbs day to day activities, then it is an addictive behaviour.

I highly agree with your point in general, but I highly disagree that this is a straightforward distinction to make.

In order to tell when something is disrupting day-to-day life, we need to have agreement about what day-to-day life is and what changes to day-to-day life count as disruption.

It is not true at all for me that non-addictive, beneficial forms of media have never disrupted my day-to-day life. Arguably, getting into programming itself has been the biggest disruption -- because I got into programming the way I thought about problems changed, I started spending additional money on books and computers, my hobbies and friends changed to accommodate the new activity I was focused on.

You'll see the same changes in behavior, groups, friends, and time management for someone who starts getting heavily involved in a local church, or exercise, or volunteer work. We don't think of these activities as "addictive" in the traditional, harmful sense because we think that the changes they force you to make to accommodate them are desirable.

And who hasn't had the experience of reading a book so powerful and compelling that they couldn't get it out of their head the next day at work, or where it changed their worldview to the extent that it affected their daily routine?

These sound like pedantic arguments, but I've been in communities that disagreed about whether a behavior was addictive purely based on the idea, "well, people are spending a lot of time on it, and it's causing them not to do things that everyone else does."

No, the qualification of an addictive behavior is one that disrupts what our daily life should be, and while we can easily classify some behaviors (smoking, for example) as being problematic, it is much harder to draw an objective line in the sand on everything else. How you classify addiction is partially dependent on your worldview, because your worldview helps define what "normal" functioning looks like.
I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good guys vs bad guys.

I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at each other about online.

To an _individual_ it is important for them to realize that they need to account for the risk involved in what they are doing. If you drive for a company as an employee and get injured and can never work again, you will receive payments from them for the rest of your life. If you do it as a contractor you will be disabled and at best be able to receive the very limited US government disability which would force you to live in poverty. Remember, driving all day is one of the most dangerous types of professions. And absolutely no, you cannot get an individual workers compensation policy because it would cost more money than the income from the gig. Its absurd you would think that exists.

Please do not go into online forums and just shoot idealism everywhere. We get it, you hate big government and taxation is theft. We've all heard it 10 million times. Unless it has a unique connection to the topic being discussed, you are just derailing the conversation.
Hmm.. that would actually require some kind of game editor / custom game mode – let's see..
The music purchase service never launched in my country (.in)
Keyboard Catalog
You there! Stop having fun!
> When did sarcasm stop registering?

[In 1983][0]:

> 8. Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.

> Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.

[0]:https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/net.announ...
What he said in an other thread, and this thread, is press release, marketing. Don't trust what he says to save his business. You have absolutely no reason to.
Not even isn't expected. Isn't legally allowed.
"co-starting the 2WW, together with Germany"

It's so convenient to ignore the Munich agreement and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany, Poland and Hungary with the approval of the West and despite the USSR's objections.
I think central planning with no sensor data and human level only planning is destined to fail at national scale.

Central planning of a real time instrumented economy using super computers - well that might be more viable.
The Regret Minimization Framework: How Jeff Bezos Made Decisions
Agreed. And sometimes X is not permitted or unlikely to be permitted.

In my day job, I work at BigCorp and I get questions like "how do I Y without Z?" Often, the answer is "you shouldn't Y without Z. In order to have a consistent UX, all BigCorp applications have a policy that Y is done by Z... What is your X?" And then we can talk about if X really is exceptional.

There is a world of difference between a forum like stack overflow where individuals have diverse needs and a forum inside a perscriptive company where uniformity is an engineering or usability booster.
How were the subjects for this survey selected?
It's not a school shooting though, the last one I believe was UNC Charlotte and the shooter's multiple pics are all over the stories
Ask yourself, “where does the data originate?”

If the data originates offline - e.g. paperwork for an aircraft part - you still need to trust whoever puts the data on the blockchain. Are they who they say they are? Are the documents trustworthy? The blockchain ensures tracability after data is on the blockchain, but not that the initial data makes sense.

So if you need to verify these aspects manually at some point, might as well have everybody work through a regular API.

However, in case of a digital currency - e.g. bitcoin - everything is generated on-chain. There is no crossing the offline/blockchain boundary. You can verify that data was generated according to the algorithm, and how it was used afterwards. This is where a blockchain is not necessarily replacable with a simple REST API.
Did you seriously just cite a quote from a fictional villain as evidence that capitalism is bad?
I do agree that news channels rarely cover the statistically significant story such as motor vehicle deaths, etc. However, I think their coverage pattern has a lot more to do with their incentive to maximize their own profit and tell the most inflammatory/engaging story. Cars killing someone isn’t as flashy as a man with a gun.
IMO Facebook is the real modern evil. Google is exhibiting the woes of a company that's become too big for its own good; it controls too much. However it continues to provide very high value services, especially to businesses. Facebook on the other hand is converging toward pure evil. The little value it was providing to the world has turned fully negative, a succubus in everyone's life.
You must not see the value in dictionaries, or explanatory text, or examples at all.

Let me rephrase: would you have a problem with RFC 2119 if it defined the terms P0, P1, and P2? If so, why? (That would be a bizarre stance to me.) If not, why do you see it as problematic that they chose the words MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, instead of P0, P1, and P2? After all, there's no logical fault in choosing more memorable names.

I see this problem in code often too. Some people think it's sufficient to give functions and variables English names with "obvious" meanings. Yet however "obvious" the meaning is to you, it can be interpreted differently by different people because English is ambiguous. Such symbol names without comments ascribing them a meaning plain English might as well just be "xyzzy", "qwert", and "l33t". English-named symbols are mnemonic devices, nothing more.

Example: the code base I work on as two commonly-used functions, "findObject" and "getObject". One returns a reference to an object only if already cached; the other fetches it from disk if necessary. Which does which? Does "find" mean to go out and actively "find" the object? Or is it referring to the fact that it only returns the object if it is "found" in cache? After all "get" is a pretty active verb. I guarantee you, whoever named these (and didn't document them!) thought like you, that the meanings were "obvious" and "unambiguous". And I bet they were, to that person, at that time, in that context.

I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not, or whether SHOULD indicates nice-to-have-but-not-mandatory, or purely optional. They're terrible English words to use in a formal specification. But the mere fact that RFC 2119 disambiguates them as formal terms in the context of specifications makes them eminently usable for that purpose.
That's pretty circular logic. There are feedback loops between expectations and law, but that doesn't mean the status quo is always correct. The nature of how much surveillance one person can perform has increased by many orders of magnitude. It's worth rethinking how we limit public surveillance.
The thing is, my business don't want to deal with people. It wants to deal with a business made of multiple people to guarantee service availability. If he cannot answer, surely someone else in DigitalOcean can?
Burning was a common means of disposing of a prize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law) by naval forces, privateers, or pirates, when for whatever reason the victorious force decided manning the prize and sending it to a friendly port was not practical. Reasons could be some combination of 1) the victor already was short-crewed 2) the vessel was too damaged by a battle 3) the most valuable cargo had been transferred at sea to the victor 4) reaching a friendly port was not practical 5) the economic value of the prize did not justify sending to port.

So this could have been 1) from the war of 1812 2) US or British operations against Caribbean pirates in the 1820s 3) a slaver, captured by British or US naval forces anytime after the war of 1812 4) a Union vessel captured by Confederate forces or a blockade runner captured by Union forces during the Civil War.
That's not an externality. The person starving to death is the same person who didn't buy insurance.

What you're getting at is that there is a reason people buy insurance anyway -- the peace of mind that that won't happen to you, as I mentioned. Because a million dollars in claims money even if you have to multiply it by the only 2% probability of that happening is worth more to you than the $20,000 in guaranteed premiums you'll have to pay over your life, because if the claim actually happens you need the money more. The value of the same dollar is higher to you then, which you can predict from the beginning and account for.

But that value still has to be balanced against the losses to administration and fraud, and balanced against what you need the money for today. If losing $100/month to premiums causes you to starve now, it doesn't matter that there is a 2% chance that you starve in ten years from now. If the majority of insurance claims are fraudulent, the higher value of the money in case you have a legitimate claim may no longer exceed the losses from buying the insurance.

It's possible that buying insurance makes sense. It's possible that it doesn't. But people should be able to make that choice for themselves instead of having it imposed on them.
Let’s not forget kids starving to death in some parts of Africa while we are at it. And cancer, it kills a lot of kids every year also. So what does that have to do with school shootings? Isn’t this just a huge red herring?

School shootings are not a leading cause of death for kids in the USA. Instead, they cause terror: freaking active shooter drills, metal detectors and security theater, armed campus officers, all the crap that I really don’t want my kids to go through.
As a Turk, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in Turkey are aware of the way the late Ottoman Empire treated certain ethnic minorities. What they deny is the “genocide” classification (and the responsibility and repercussions that would come with accepting it).
TC39 Proposal: Temporal
At the end it was not even a matter of delay. It was more like, we locked your account, we don't want to hear you anymore until the end of times.
Patents can be defensive. Someone else could had patented it and used it against them. Also (subjective opinion), they were kids: They thought patenting it was important, like they thought asking Yahoo for a mere $1M to buy it was a great deal.
Polyfill: https://github.com/std-proposal/temporal
I hope this puts it to rest for all the doubters here. Hell, you think the HN crowd would start to get excited about the possibility of seeing ET code soon...
I strongly disagree that execution matters more than luck. I ask myself would I rather be good or lucky, and I will always choose luck. Because no matter how good you are, if luck isn't on your side you're going to lose. You might be the better programmer, but you still didn't get the job. You might have the better proposal, but you still lost the bid. You might be the better candidate, but you still lost the election. You might have a better product, but your company still failed. You might eat right and exercise, but you still got cancer.

I see this regularly play out when founders who found success on their first startups attempt to repeat it, only to fail miserably. Granted, there are a handful who manage to duplicate their success, but I know that some of these are simply due to who you know from their first success (you could argue that's better execution, but the number of unicorns I know that wouldn't exist if it weren't for a lucky break from an investor previously befriended makes me think otherwise). I do not mean to belittle the hard work and brilliance of many successful founders, only to emphasize that luck was absolutely critical in nearly every success story.

Obviously it's better to have both, but pretending that you can outmaneuver the universe is an act of hubris. I think people pontificating that execution matters more than luck are too arrogant to realize how lucky they are, or want to believe it matters more because it's reassuring to believe that we are in control of our destinies.

There are things you can do to increase your exposure to luck, but it's ultimately something beyond your control. The world isn't meritocratic.
Do you have some actionable ideas on how to prevent automotive deaths? Honest question.
> The vast majority of people in the world work in order to feed themselves and their families.

Yes, and this is an inane state-of-affairs given 2019 technology. We could keep the entire world population fed with minimal effort, if we stopped acting in insane ways.
Trolley wire infrastructure is not a non-zero cost, and people hate the visual obstruction of trolley wire. https://humantransit.org/2012/03/dissent-of-the-week-trolley...
Interestingly if we can find a way to accelerate at a gentle constant 1g it is possible to take a round trip to the edge of the universe in the lifetime of the traveler [1].

This neglects the expansion of the universe, the health and safety effects of traveling near to the speed of light, and the fact that we do not know how to do this (you would not be able to bring your own fuel). Nevertheless we do not know why it should be physically impossible.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_...
Yes, there’s a lot of people who know nothing of Tiananmen at all, but often those that do would characterize it as a riot by agitators who forced the governments hand.
Firing some of their drivers, not all. And making it harder for someone to become a driver. Like say someone wants to drive 2 days a month, they won't be able too anymore. Uber will probably pick only the serious drivers willing to do it full time, fire all the others, and we have ourself a taxi industry again.
Making one of these things nice (even with a good LCD!) should really not cost much. Honestly wondering if it's worth just going into the market for making "dumb" home stuff that has a slick UI that people want.

The only problem I've seen with it is that the people who would actually think about buying them are similar to my family members: tech-savvy enough to want something like this, yet still wanting it to be internet connected. ("Why should I not be able to WiFi control my thermostat? WiFi chips are so cheap nowadays!")

The problem I see is that (a) most people don't really care and will stick with whatever they have, while (b) the people that could care usually want IoT devices and (c) the people that do care are a very small, remaining portion of the rest (e.g., some proportion of the usual HN audience).
So I take it you don’t carry a smartphone? Because they all have the exact same assistants built in.
Most interesting part for me as a Pole, is "Die Deutsche Reichsreugierung" and "Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken" and the same in russian script. So how they described themselves, and the rest is quite boring non agression treaty, so they skipped "we are going to meet in the middle of Poland and then we will see 'смех' 'Umfassungsgraben'".
"The press may not be successful most of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling them what to think about."