skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You conveniently choose to ignore the cited research that says that employees are "happier" when they work 4 day weeks. Or are you simply being pedantic and arguing the use of "miserable"?

If human civilization is to go further, we need to recognize some of our generic assumptions. Work is a means to an end, most commonly a means to support oneself and one's family. It should support us in our basic needs (shelter, food, clothing), and allow us to put our creative and intelligent side to better use.

Sure, some would spend all of their time playing PS4, but by opening up opportunities for everyone in the civilization, civilization as a whole should see progress.

If you don't believe in benefits of the civilization and how it has advanced through history mostly through people with spare time (usually higher classes, but with spare time becoming more accessible, through everybody in the past ~100 years), I am sure you are fine with a bigger, stronger dude walking in and taking your car keys and driving off (that was the status-quo at a distant point in history).
I actually view 23andme as a way to extract a bunch of SNPs cheaply. Nowadays it is commonplace and cheap but back then it was difficult. They let you download your data, they provide lineage reports, and can help you find distant relatives. Their health reports (risk associated with specific locations) are not allowed in most of europe. The good thing about 23andme is that there are millions of people genotyped now who can contribute their dna to open research databases. Some related companies have sprung up based on these data like GEDmatch , and promethease (which offers health reports even to europeans).

As for the privacy concerns i have a bit different views. I think it s debateable whether DNA is intellectual property of its owner and whether it could be protected as such. Very few humans can claim that their DNA information is the output of their labor, and it is very highly shared among humans, so there should be a discussion to what extent genetic information should be subject to fair use. Having widely available open datasets would reduce the value of these big centralized databases.
This is great!

Looking forward to see more of these types of candidates phenomena.
Thanks. I didn't mean to make you a research assistant. In this age of misinformation, I think it's good manner to back up our claims with some evidence. And as a Chinese I was pretty surprised by the claim itself.
Interesting background - any story behind leaving IBM 18 years ago at the young age of ~33?

As an aside, ultimate responsibility for IBM's corporate websites does not _sound_ very similar to the CTO role at a tech company.
Calling out the hypocrisy
of top-tier candidates like Biden or Harris with the same panache as in 2008, while advocating policies not considered ‘Practical’, is their explicit goal. Some people view the 2008 performance as brave truth-telling—how many of those serious, smooth-talking candidates voted for the Iraq War?

Speaking truth to power doesn’t always mean speaking truth to people with elected power.
I post all the time in HN ad threads that most companies grow very slowly if at all from word of mouth, and need to use ads to grow (beyond a local level).

Say you make an app that helps plumbers do their job well. If every plumber used it, plumber productivity would go up 50%, making life easier for all. It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it.

There's a big plumber app on the market already, but yours is way better.

How do you get plumbers to hear about your product?

1) The press? Uninterested. Plumber magazines or sites? Very low traffic - no way to scale.

2) Call or knock on doors of every plumber near you? If everyone did this, the spam would be unreal. Also inefficient and not scalable.

3) Referrals? You get some, but most plumbers aren't chomping at the bit to help their competitors. And because you started with so few, referrals are a snails pace and by no means exponential.

4) Organic postings and SEO? The big plumber app is way ahead of you. And 100 other worse apps clog up the listings. No one sees your posts.

See the problem? Without ads, you can't grow many many categories of genuinely valuable products. Even if no one else is advertising, you can't really grow without them.

This is barely a hypothetical by the way. I've worked with a dozen companies with similar situations.

Here's a real life example:

I was just hired to scale marketing for a particular app.
This app currently has over 100 real reviews online, averaging 4.9 stars out of 5. Retention is nuts - 98% of people who ever started using the product (which has a monthly fee) are still using it. The company is three years old.

Perfect to take off, right? But few industries are actually viral. We just doubled the number of new customers per month using FB ads in the first two months of scaling it out, and we'll scale much further over the next 3.

Anyone who works in start-up growth will tell you the same things I am.
Semantic HTML was already fashionable in late 2004, when I was a graphic designer arguing against table tags. But my own exposure is a bad measure, just as is anyone else's. One of the most famous groups pushing for well-written HTML was WaSP, and it turns out that it was founded in 1998, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Standards_Project
It was my friends. We always try to learn new things. Its been really nice to work with. I recommend it
I understand OpenAI is experimenting with their release of the GPT2 model, but I still don't understand their reasoning. If it's too dangerous to release today, what's going to change in the few months before they release it? They don't say why it's too dangerous beyond hand-waving, so it's impossible to be able to protect against that.

Security disclosures are much simpler - we found a vulnerability and we will provide time for the company/team/organization to patch it before announcing it to the world so it won't be exploited by bad actors.

If OpenAI truly feels they have something akin to nuclear weaponry, and that fewer actors having it is better, than they have to openly admit that they consider themselves better gatekeepers of the technology than the public and back away even further from their non-profit/limited profit ideals. "We are creating this technology for the good of the world, but it's so good we are afraid to let you use it, so only we will benefit from it."

I find them wildly inconsistent in their messaging, trying to have the best of everything with none of the drawbacks.
Full-time blogger wife of a wealthy tech worker is like the millennial version of the full-time philanthropy/NGO wife of bankers/lawyers/execs in times past.
> It follows that we are very likely to be giving people drugs that are harmful to them

Yes, or the wrong dosages.
optimal for gaining massive resources and generational wealth

the children can focus on honour with their trust fund salary
If leetCode is what you have to do to compete in your market so be it. In the grand scheme of things, it would be hypocritical for me to criticize someone for spending hours upon hours on leetCode considering the amount of time I’ve spent on books about architecture, spent a year learning the ends and out of AWS, and the time I spent networking.

Not to mention the fact that I will spend the next two year learning front end frameworks and Docker ecosystem. I’m 45
Sadly, the majority of web devs don’t give a rat’s butt about those users.
Not only that. Drugs often change your gut bacteria.
This might be a stunt, or it might just be... news?
I'm not playing your game because it's not going to go anywhere. I gave you what you asked for. I'm not defining words you can look up within a few seconds yourself because you're not actually interested in that. I gave you a list of quotes, I gave you a video like you asked.

Stefan molyneux has argued in interviews IQ differences are innate. If you check one of the six sources on the wikipedia article attesting to his white supremacist views you'd see the quotes about it. Clicking on the words "white supremacist" there brings you to a wikipedia article that also gives you the definition that you are begging for for some reason:

"White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them."

You're being completely disingenuous. Facts don't let you mop the floor with people as you put it. You can just once again complain about 2 sources provided and ignore the rest. You can pretend you don't know the meanings of basic terms. You can pretend that no one can imply anything and only if someone blatantly says "I am a white supremacist and I believe whites are the superior race and all other races are lesser" do they qualify as a white supremacist.

I don't need a lecture from you about being intellectually dishonest.

Post limits aren't intellectually dishonest also? Not sure what you're going with that.
The microarchitectural side-channel attacks that have received a lot of attention lately really challenge the idea of a "sandbox".

Also the poster said that webpages shouldn't be blank without having, not that they should be fully functional. I think it's reasonable to expect some function without javascript.
> Caffeine, for example, has a different elimination half-life based on your genetics.

I don't really feel woken up by coffee, could that be related? Nothing helps more than being hydrated (after 8 hours of no water) and ample sleep time.
If you can recompute my hand back after that, i'd be happy to put it in whatever box you want, the thing that is valuable to me is the time i still have to live, not the absence of all pain. If i had lots of time, and sufficiently advanced technology, i'd happily play realistic games where i had to go through torture by medieval inquisition, or other interesting ways of dying. And i'll be happy to go through any amount of suffering if i knew that i have a week to live anyway, and my suffering can help science or someone i care about.

Maybe in some situations logic isn't enough (though i doubt that), but in situations like that thoughtless comment in the style "wHaT iF i CuT YoUr HaNd" is not enough either:)
I used MIT because I have no future use for this. I create projects like this all the time. If you use this as a boilerplate for your next startup and get rich let me know. I'll be happy to hear i could help someone out
Yeah they occasionally get paranoid and clamp down it seems. I had installed it, made an account, then uninstalled it. When I reinstalled, I forgot my password. That flagged my # as suspicious and then it required another WeChat user(who had an account longer than, IIRC, 6 months, and who hadn't validated anyone else lately) validate me before I could continue.

A few weeks ago I tried again and all they wanted was a facebook auth to create a new account. I think they're trying to broaden adoption now. Probably a good strategy for a spy app.
> I’ve found other ways to make money instead of being employed by others

SaaS?
We could also just designate a limited number of people as politicians’ voice, who speak for him. We could call this new job, I don’t know, “spokesperson”?
Me: says something

You: points out I'm wrong

Me: concedes I'm mistaken

You: continues to question me

Why?
He didn’t say ban all sites with ads, he said to ban those that deny access to ad blockers.

I think that’s a fair thing. Paywalls & denying ad blockers (which is thankfully a minority of sites for now) isn’t the entire internet and there’s plenty of other content.

Actively rejecting scum would hopefully deter other sites from doing the same.
Best Free portfolio website template for Geeks,Programmers and hackers
I watched this video from Mike Monteiro and I always refer to it since. It's about getting paid for the work you do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U
> They would frequently say how they are not interested in "part time" work. I'd counter that this is full time work, with efficiency higher than the full time work, because people can focus on intellectually hard problems only for a short while sustainably.

Is it really true? Can you prove it? I mean you can argue that, but if you're absent 20% of the time compared to other workers, is it true that your value is still the same because you're so much more productive? Maybe yes, but can you prove it to an employer? You're asking them to take a risk on supporting unfamiliar approach - which their familiar approach probably worked for them for years and they are fine with it. What do you offer them to justify taking this risk? I mean, maybe you are so spectacular that employing you is worth any risk. But naturally most people aren't that exceptional, by definition. Their experience shows 5-day weeks works great for them, how much better would be 4-day week to justify the risks?

> Civilization as a whole would benefit as a result if there were more people putting their brains to problems they think matter.

Is there any proof that there's significant marginal increase compared to thousands of existing research institutions that have tens of thousands of very smart people already spending years attacking practically every important problem? Would amateurs spending one day a week on side projects significantly change the picture here - and offset the above-mentioned professionals not spending one day a week on their area of expertise (instead doing their hobbies in turn)? I am not sure this is that obvious.
Corresponding paper: Defending Against Neural Fake News https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12616
I have a normal American background. I grew up in a house with my parents and elderly grandparents.

I married a woman with full knowledge we would have to support her mother who had cognitive issues due to a stroke.

I’m not sure where this idea came from that it is somehow an Eastern ideal to take care of your parents. It is common across many parts of Europe and the US.

Social Security is nice, but that’s just money. It doesn’t address the emotional and cultural aspects of keeping the elderly part of society.
A highly upvoted comment from that video:
"as a mexican I gotta say these mexicans don't represent all the mexicans"
If a widespread facial recognition system were deployed, the false positive rate would probably be a lot greater than would be acceptable. For what it's worth, this paper I found claims that humans are 97.53% accurate, whereas one particular deep learning algorithm was 99.80% accurate [0]. If you ask me, 99.8% accuracy means large cities will pretty regularly experience situations where there will be serious negative consequences from misidentification.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.06655.pdf
haha i love you
It looks like a Bell X-1.
>I’m keenly aware that I’ll be left penniless once I can no longer work, but I have a plan for that.

What's your plan?
Which is kinda the plot of the movie Gattaca, where the main character is stuck in low-paying grunt jobs for this reason until he goes to extreme lengths to fake his DNA to get the job he really wants (and is otherwise completely capable of performing well).
assume differently
As their long form journalism with moving graphics and images is so popular and gets so many clicks, think how awe inspiring and what a major effect it would have to shut down all of that stuff on articles talking about that stuff, just to give people a dose of what it could/would be like. It would be respected, get other articles about it, etc.
Not exactly. If you close a company with the intention to avoid legal consequences of your actions only to then spin up another company, there's often some kind of law in place to prevent you from benefiting.

In the UK, these are generally called "phoenix companies" and courts can step in to stop the abuse of limited liability and can apply civil penalties and criminal sanctions to company directors.
That's the Economist's headline humor.
It doesn’t matter, you only need a small % of your contacts to leak their contacts to Facebook/WhatsApp and it’s trivial to build a graph of almost everyone you know
It's well known that the harder the government makes it to fire someone, the equally harder it will be to get hired. It's just that people don't want to believe it.
>I understand the impulse to want to live on an exciting cyberpunk Internet

I don't think you do. On the contrary many people have no such impulse and in fact never wanted or expected such scenarios to be a realistic concern.

It's scary. Undo this story and take back your cyber punks, please. Just the possibility it was malicious, snd that's not necessarily an indictment of China alone in the post Snowden era, is reason to seep up BGP improvements.
My resume has always been one page. I hate looking over 3 page resumes. I don’t care what you did in the 90s.

No one cares that I wrote C for DEC VAX and Stratus VOS mainframes in the late 90s or the systems I wrote with a combination of C++/COM and Vb6 in the early 2000s. I only go back 10 years.

In fact, I negotiated not to be a team lead at my current job.
I bet you have fun learning, right? I actually find doing algorithms problems fun. If I didn't find them fun I don't think I would've done 250. I'm also spending a lot of time reading architecture books and learning AWS. React is probably next on my list.

That said, it sounds like you and I are both "cultivating" and "tending to" our profession. I think that's what it takes to stay competitive and have longevity imo.
> A large amount of cutting-edge research comes from EU universities and companies

I'm not attacking European universities and companies, I'm not arguing that there isn't any great research, I'm saying it's not a multiple of the US, which it really should be if "have a strong social safety net and the possibilities are endless" was true.
Since I am willing to take a pay cut, and even a pay cut per hour, here's my reasoning.

For every hour spent at work, I am not spending it on something of my own choice. Hours of my own choice are worth much more than hours of work to me, because they usually fulfill me more.

So, if I am to work couple hours a day, that's going to cost you little. The more you take from my "own" hours, the costlier they get. So, if I consider a normal work week to be 24h, anything above that costs non-proportionally more. I.e. 40h is not 40/24 more, but it's actually 24 x base_hourly_cost + 16 x own_factor x base_hourly_work, where own_factor is usually around 2, depending on how much I might like the base work.

So, in a sense, I am not taking a pay cut, I am just taking a reasonable salary for doing the work, but if someone insists on taking more of my time for little benefit to them and a lot of burden to me, it's going to cost significantly more.
UK Biobank has a smaller cohort but deeper and more reliable data.

All UK Biobank participants were tested for blood pressure, bone mineral density, grip strength, BMI, etc. The last 200,000 participants underwent detailed tests of cognitive function [1].

23andMe asks customers for health information, but self-reports are not usually as reliable as the clinician-administered tests done in UK Biobank.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6451771/
You know how good scientists try to falsify their hypotheses?

Go to the FB ads library and look up ads from some random brands and start-ups you've heard of. They're all here: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/

Count what % are basically honest, neutral, or just dishonest. The ratio may surprise you.
Many places have a tourist tax already. In this case, like the article says, there's a $11000 tax for each person climbing the Everest.
Yeah, I've been having similar feelings. The state acts like a monopoly on culture and so the focus isn't on the audience but on the grant administrators. At least we're creating a proxy indicator for studying the tastes and likes of the officials that decide what gets subsidized ;)
Imagine a police officer automatically IDing someone, automatically pulling up their past criminal history, and actively changing their attitude towards how they treat them.

This would make police treat people with prior records worse, and no records better.

On a societal level, this would just entrench and amplify existing inequalities of criminalization and inequitable treatment by the police.
It is not bad, but on a regular monitor (1080p) the white space is about 60%. We don't need wide monitors just to use the center 40% of it, we cannot go Notepad style and use 100% width, I would prefer to use about 60%. That makes also the page shorter and requires less vertical scrolling.
But this is picking on the page layout, not on the merits of the points in the article, that I mostly agree.
If the point is catch-and-release, there might be better options:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMAzyDDAppU

There doesn't seem to be a lot of distress/trauma involved -- in fact, if you watch to about 2:54, there's a rodent that apparently successfully avoids the trapdoor action and then more or less appears to think to itself "hey, what's down here, maybe I'll join the party."
Thousands of people, from the researches, to the authorities, to the workers in the field, are suffering this trauma ten fold. Imagine yourself, as part of your job, having to go to someone's house and murder their chickens, while they scream and cry?

Now picture yourself doing that every day, 8 hours a day, for months on end. Imagine being the person giving the orders to kill. The researcher advising it.

But this article doesn't focus on that tragedy. It doesn't tell the story of those heroes who are trying to _save_ billions of animals.

These actions are necessary. The article doesn't even argue against that, and no one in their right mind would think that California and all of its workers are going out of their way to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to kill people's chickens.

We know what happens when diseases get out of control. Whole species are wiped out. It's happened before, and it can happen again. We eat hundreds of millions of chickens a year in California already; 1.2 million is a fraction of a percent. A small price to pay to save the tens of billions of chickens in the world.

So instead of bringing the spotlight to honor these people having to do the dirty work to save our animals, we get an article feigning outrage and showcasing the reckless behavior of a few people.

It's hard for me grind an axe against those families that have had to suffer through the loss of their animals, even if the killing is for a "good reason". Humans never fair well at that violent line between emotion and reason.

But there's no two ways about it. Livestreaming the killing of animals on the internet, and inciting people to spread a deadly disease is reckless. It will only lead to far more death. You can't call yourself an animal lover and then tell people to ignore the very real threat of a disease that could wipe out billions of animals. The disease doesn't care whether that chicken is food or your family pet. It doesn't care that about your likes on facebook. It doesn't care about how much your care for your animals. It is here to kill, brutally and efficently, for no reason at all. I can't imagine an evil greater than disease, no matter how much distrust you may have for people.

I suppose I'm just frustrated by the multitude of spotlights the media is willing to shine on irrational human behavior. There's a story, just as tragic and beautiful in its own way, to be told by those on the other side of this fabricated controversy, but this article ignores that. The title of the article asks "Is it reckless or necessary?" The euthanisia was necessary. This article was reckless.
I was equally opinionated as a younger man, though I was wrong a lot more often :-)
feel free. you can my website through github