skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, the judiciary branch was not involved in this fine. It was a government agency issuing the fine. Now the fined person could pay the fine, or file a suit asking a court to overturn it.

It really is analogous to most govt fines e.g. speeding tickets: the government (the police) gives you a ticket, and if you pay it then OK, no court involved, but if you challenge it then the courts get involved.

But more generally, the government should and does get priority access to the courts already. Criminal courts exist solely to serve the government; you cannot bring criminal suits as a citizen yourself, only civil suites. Also, e.g. in Germany the government and legislatures (federal and state) get priority access to e.g. the constitutional (supreme) court. A mere mortal cannot just file suit directly in the constitutional court, but has to go through the lower instances first (unless there is something similar to a class action petition, showing a sizable chunk of the population sees the same issue and wants it decided). Members of the parliaments and IIRC of the cabinet are allowed to file suit in the constitutional court directly. The reasoning here is that if it was allowed for citizens to petition the highest court directly, then the court would do nothing else than write rejection letters for bullshit petitions. While the govt and legislatures incl the parliamentary opposition of course represent the people (in theory) and aren't stupid morons wasting the courts time (in theory).

PS: Google was already fined €50M for GDPR violations, and there is probably more of those in their future. Facebook got fined €10M so far, IIRC, also with more to come.
And don't forget the billions of Euros worth of antitrust fines against Google and Microsoft, e.g.
It's not quite as simple as that, because there are multiple ionospheric layers with different physical properties that affect RF propagation.

An over-simplified explanation is that the outer layers of the atmosphere persist continuously, and can be used for very long distance communication, but only reflect radio waves at relatively low frequencies (<10MHz). The lower layers that become ionized during the day absorb some of the radio waves, reducing overall efficiency and range, but also allow operation at higher frequencies which would be unusable at night.

And you can get very efficient long-distance propagation along the terminator at dawn and dusk: https://www.qsl.net/w2vtm/grayline.html
_Any_ other domain, and I'm just going to ignore it. A legitimate *.ac.uk domain, and there's a good chance I will click it to find out what it is, even if I don't believe it. At that point, they've won (it's a 0-day).

Using a recognisable domain lets my guard down just enough ("there's no risk in going to a cam.ac.uk domain") for an attack like this to work.
> Weather Underground

Weather data is already gathered by state authorities in most developed countries. It would be nice if taxpayers could have free and convenient access to the data they paid for. Giving money to a for-profit corporation’s weather app only rewards rentseeking.
But it only connects to their environments, correct? With their special mouses
I don't think it would be questions.

Suppose you like fountain pens, and you recommend certain ones. One of your friend looks for fountain pens that their friends recommend and finds the ones you like.

That is just one example of things that don't require explicit questions.

Another one might be you have searched for books or other things and then they follow the same "path". So long as you have similar interests it might work.

People haven't solved this issue, but there is a lot of research out there on networks of connections potentially replacing certain kinds of search.
Most OTC and prescription medicines carry a note along the lines of "the long-term effects of this medication have not been evaluated". When they have, the long-term studies are generally on the order of 2 years, rather than decades. For most medicines, the long-term use risks are probably just hepatic and renal damage, or slow-building tolerance. But we seem to have an increasing list of things which threaten significant indirect dangers over the long term.

Anticholinergics, the medicines in the article, have been suspected for quite a while, though proof has been lacking. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter, after all, and cholinergics improve brain function in choline-deficient patients. It would almost be surprising if they didn't cause some long-term mental effects.

Antihistamines clearly cause short-term sedation and 'brain fog', and are another short-term medicine which many people take regularly for years. I don't know of any equivalent study, but I've heard a number of doctors express concern.

Proton-pump inhibitors (i.e. acid reflux meds) are one of the most widely-consumed medications in the US. They've also been linked to dementia in several studies (which are contradicted by several others), and have much less disputed associations with gut bacteria changes that can lead to infection and gastric cancer.

Amphetamines (i.e. Adderall) are another obviously-psychoactive medicine studied over short/moderate terms, with primate studies suggesting increased Parkinson's risk at human dosages. This one is a special case, though, because the full risk seems to be incurred after even brief use despite the harms appearing much later.

Add to this the stack of worrying-but-vague results showing that many drugs alter gut bacteria, and implicating gut flora in everything from IBS to anxiety to Parkinson's.

It increasingly looks like we're running a whole-population study on ourselves, distributing medicines to millions of users with no idea what they do over a lifetime of use. I don't see an obvious cure for this - requiring decades of data before authorizing medications is both unethical and impractical. But long-term drug effects are a disturbingly good explanation for the rising frequency of a whole host of long-term diseases.
I think your described 'Disney World' effect of nature tourism is a symptom of the misguided notion that pieces of nature can be cordoned off and preserved.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/against-sustainab...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/05/12/green-is-good
I read a related claim about this. People that just bought an, e.g. refrigerator, are much more likely than others to buy a second one soon as they're more likely to need a new refrigerator and even the small chance that the one they just bought doesn't work or isn't satisfactory means there's a much greater chance they'll need or want to buy a second one than that other people will want to buy one.

I could imagine buying a mattress would be an even better example.
It feels like those images of the energy could have been improved by plotting the log of the energy. It would allow us to see changes at the low end where the decisions are being made.
> Meaningful markets account for a relatively small portion of modern economies.

There's no way that's true. Like, how many monopolies in America, say, can you even name? I've almost never in my entire life been in a situation when I literally only had one choice for a product or service, even in areas of so called natural monopolies.

Edit: Actually I can name some true monopolies: NBA, NFL, etc.
Yes! Like this:
https://youtu.be/gaFKqOBTj9w
I noticed this when I visited Iceland a few years ago. Lots of tourists littering, jumping over barriers/ropes at waterfalls, and ignoring the signs that say "don't go near the ocean - it washed away a family last week!" Stupid and selfish on so many levels.

Sadly, I also noticed the same thing on Skye last month.

It goes beyond just numbers of tourists (a problem in and of itself, and one I'm obviously part of). Some people are just selfish pricks.
In addition to the paper and Twitter thread mentioned by fasteo elsewhere on this thread[a], this video of a lecture by the author is well-worth watching too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1vXAHGIpfc

Among other things, in this lecture the author shows, step by step, in non-technical language, an example with coin tosses in which changes in wealth are non-ergodic (in the sense he explains), such that the expected value of winnings over time is not informative of the time average growth rate of wealth.

[a] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20285638
Of course this works but won't solve the root cause and won't be applicable to the real world in which tracking also becomes more present. For the time being an ad blocker seems more useful, also I'd be happy to still use certain features of my browser like the history function. ;)

Also I think there is anyway a trend towards less ads. Those who push out most ads - probably online magazines - are changing more to paid subscriptions.
Study: People on antidepressants 'more than twice as likely to attempt suicide'
As long as they come from farmed trees and wind up composted, they're actually sinking carbon out of the air. Maybe it's not a net win because of the energy used to create them and move them around, but towel itself will lock its carbon in the soil for quite some time.
So...eat cheese the night of your study cram? (Bad idea if you're lactose intolerant)
Visualizing Financial Data with HyperCharts
Deming's work has been highly influential within the DevOps community:

https://itrevolution.com/deming-to-devops-part-1/
You'd have to get there through gradient descent, though. A pile of dark-chocolate chips is quite good, but a "cookie" that is a pile of chips baked with a small but nonzero amount of butter, flour, and baking soda... isn't. Gradient descent would have trouble with getting you through that, because cutting out the baking only makes it worse, and cutting out the other ingredients without cutting out the baking _also_ only makes it worse, and reducing the amounts of everything that isn't chocolate without bringing them to zero _still_ only makes it worse.
I currently serve real XHTML5 code on my website with the correct media type of application/xhtml+xml. https://www.nayuki.io/

This works properly in all modern browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge; PC, Mac, Android, iOS) and even Internet Explorer 11. Though in the past, I had to make concessions for older versions of IE, serving the same code as text/html instead.

I arranged things this way because I hand-write much of the HTML code on the site, and want to catch syntax errors as early as possible without the browser silently (and possibly incorrectly) fixing my mistakes. In any case, this is living proof that XHTML5 works.
I mean this is the core of adtech right? It's built on using psychology to sell things. That's basically always going to mean some sort of deceit or asymmetrical information.

When your whole industry, your day-in-day-out work is based on the assumption that this is normal, of course it all just becomes second nature.
Where do you find this insistence? I haven't seen a single relevant ad in years!
Can you discuss some use cases where that would be useful?

Can you think of some use cases where that would be dangerous?
So how do _you_ make any sort of judgments based off of what people say? What information do you use to judge whether their statements are accurate? Or do you always start with the assumption that everything everyone says is suspect? What sort of information do you use to come to any sort of conclusion, and how do you determine the trustworthiness of that information?

>This is domain authority again - trust some domains manually, let it flow from there. If that domain trusts another domain then they link to it, trust flows to the other domain, and so on. Maintaining such trust for a long time adds to a particular domains trust factor, linking to domains not trusted by others detracts from it.

This can be gamed if you're able to update the trustworthiness of a domain for other people, and that's why a trust metric needs to be mostly personal, and should update dynamically based on your changing trust valuations.
> Does this ring true to anyone else

Not to me, and that jumped out at me as the most bizarre part of the story. I have a lot more of an economics background than "having read some Paul Krugman articles", but I'd think that this was obviously a scam because there's no way in hell that that anyone in the world would think I should be judging a competition on economics.
Foreign language speakers aren't stupid. You can Google "famous school England" in any language.

There's no "second step" to this con. You don't have to get tricked into wiring them money. If you visit the page, you lose.
br is an empty element (https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Stric...), so <br/> should work fine
Fuck Hard Work
> It seems to me that you're presenting a compatible assertion as a contradiction.

How is the domination of a large agricultural class by a much smaller military class (who were prepared to perpetuate that domination by violence, and did so) compatible with the assertion that before the advent of the nation-state, governments left people alone "so they could pursue their well-being in a bottom-up fashion via social interactions in their local area"? Unless, that is, you exclude that military class from the definition of "government" (which I don't think you can, as they provided governmental functions, in particular justice, law enforcement, and defence), or the agricultural class from the definition of "people".

> The notion of humans forming communities predates the advent of monarchy. Both you and the author are trying to create "just so" stories around authoritarianism as a motivating factor for human culture.

But we're not talking about communities and human culture in general; we're talking about the specific concept of the nation-state. And as far as I'm aware, there's little evidence of their creation by a group of people as a whole banding together for common defence (as suggested by the article), and plenty of their creation (gradually, over time) as a means of extending and entrenching the power of the people at the top: the promulgation of symbols and myths that support the idea of a single national identity, the quashing of rival power centres, and the uniformisation of laws and bureaucracy at the expense of local privileges.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be corrected.
I think you're suggesting homomorphic encryption to execute the user's ranking model. Unfortunately, homomorphic encryption is pretty slow, and the types of operations you can do are limited. But it's viable if the data you're operating on is relatively small - e.g. just searching through (encrypted) personal messages or something.
I'm glad someone else is worried about this. For some reason Catalans are very special and love tlds. For example in BCN one is within the geometric catchment for:

- .barcelona
- .cat
- .es
- .eu

I don't think any other settlement on earth is so blessed.

For what it's worth, the registrar for .cat (Nominalia) isn't very strict
Kids have a reason for everything they do. If you don't know the reason, it's because you've failed to communicate with them. Sometimes they don't know themselves, but that's still a kind of communication failure.

There are many things my kids were saying that I only figured out days, weeks or years later. Listen, guide them, let them be, and don't be a helicopter parent.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. In Brooklyn and Queens, this happens a ton. If a loud motorcycle happens to rev when you're on the street, it's viscerally terrifying.
That's amazing. In a 2 minute promo video with many clips of people washing hands, and many clips of people drying hands, they never show someone washing AND drying hands in the same clip. They know the poducts doesn't work at its primary value-proposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkpP-mEUcAs
I've always used my clothes over an air hand dryer. You know they have to be nasty because of all the water blown off hands that are likely only marginally cleaner than before washing, and that nastiness gets aerosolized and spread around the entire bathroom. The front and sides of my pants to wick enough water away so I can use my hands while they air dry the rest of the way: problem solved.
It's complicated. There are various "layers" of the ionosphere that "bounce back" radio waves in different bands of frequencies depending on the time of day. It's a fun topic to learn about.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, I mean I know why people are but I don't think they should be.

You're forgetting that we have to create paper towels/toilet paper, etc. from trees. And we aren't just talking a few trees, it's a deforestation issue.

Sure we could replant trees, etc, etc, but it still destroys the current eco-systems living there.
It doesn't really seem that targeted, just tailored. If they'd only emailed people who used crypto, that might be spear phishing.

Edit: nevermind, I didn't realize he worked on coinbase.
I'm confused. My takeaway was that dice rolls and coin tosses are ergodic because flipping one coin 20 times or flipping 20 coins is meaningfully equivalent. Whereas following an individual person for 1000 days is different from following 1000 people for 1 day.

Is that not the right heuristic?

Also -- why is it called ergodicity? I keep thinking it has something to do with work or thermodynamics, but I'm missing it...
A couple good examples: When you touch the screen, and drag, the mouse equiv. action is clicking the button and dragging. But with touch, in many cases you want the screen to scroll, whereas with the mouse you want to select / highlight text.

Also, with touch you don't have a "hover" operation, so you have to make "click" (touch) initiate a "hover" type of action in some cases, but in other cases you want touch to actually be the same as a mouse click.
>It is incorrect to say that they are at least equally skilled.

It's a good thing no one said that then!
Nice work.

Want another challenge? Try one with the azimuthal equidistant projection. Would be quite interesting to watch the comparison.
Fair point. Society however is rewarding asshole behavior via social media
Ask Nike or Magic the Gathering!
> Internally, companies have full on top down planning just like governments. At larger companies this often results in silly levels of inefficiency.

This leads to Coase's transaction cost theory of the firm.

" for Coase the main reason to establish a firm is to avoid some of the transaction costs of using the price mechanism. These include discovering relevant prices (which can be reduced but not eliminated by purchasing this information through specialists), as well as the costs of negotiating and writing enforceable contracts for each transaction (which can be large if there is uncertainty). Moreover, contracts in an uncertain world will necessarily be incomplete and have to be frequently re-negotiated. The costs of haggling about division of surplus, particularly if there is asymmetric information and asset specificity, may be considerable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm#Transaction...
Personally I use KeePassXC on macOS, Windows, and Linux and MiniKeePass on iOS and synch between all devices using iCloud Drive (I would use SpiderOak ONE but that client doesn't allow uploading files from iOS and I do add entries to KeePass from my iOS device). Keeping an offline backup (or four?) of your KeePass database(s) in various locations isn't a bad idea; encrypting the database backup(s) is also an option if you think you need it. And a printed copy of the KeePass database password in a fire safe and/or safe deposit box could be reasonable fallback recovery method as well.

As for the files themselves: Dropbox, iCloud Drive, Google Drive if you don't worry about people at the storage provider being able to reset your password and access your stuff; SpiderOak ONE if you want a zero knowledge cloud storage provider (they aren't the only one, just the only one I've used).
I thought 0-day exploits could be sold for a significant amount if money. I wonder if the hackers bought one, or, found one and thought they could make more on their own than by selling it? And, if they did buy one, what was the return on their investment?
> What matters is how people are treated.

Couldn't agree more. Use AI, cameras, people, or even a random dice roll to decide how to treat your customers or citizens.

If you mistreat any of them, expect to be giving them compensation through the courts though.
> Humans can only produce new text-based content at a linear rate.

True but that assumes a fixed number of humans. In reality, the number of humans is also increasing exponentially.
>Dismissive comments

I wasn't being dismissive. I was trying to refine your crowdsourcing idea by explicitly surfacing what's been tried in the past.

The thread's op asks: "Can we create a new internet where search engines are irrelevant?"

If the current best answer for op is: "I propose crowdsourced curated directories is the alternative to Google/Bing -- but the implementation details is left as an exercise for the reader" ... that's fine that our conversation terminates there and we don't have to go around in circles. The point is I didn't know this thread's discussion ultimately terminates there until I ask more probing questions so people can try to expand on what their alternative proposal actually entails. I also don't know what baseline knowledge the person proposing the idea has. I.e. does person suggesting an idea have knowledge of internet's evolution and has that been taken into account?
Every other person I know that goes to Iceland subsists off of hot dogs. For dining out at restaurants in Reykjavik, the cost has been comparable to tipping well at middle to mid-upper US metro establishments that aren’t chain restaurants ($20-$25 / entree as of 2014 when I went).
> Looking back it’s obviously completely absurd that the University of Cambridge would ask me to judge an economics competition

I don't think this really matters all that much. I might click the link anyway to find out what it is, or to find out why I am allegedly being considered, or even just out of general curiosity. It doesn't _stop_ the attack from working.
When you hook a computer up to a brain, which end of the connection has the more sophisticated information processing system?

When you hook a network of computers up to a network of brains, where is the more sophisticated information processing happening?

I pity the fool who suffers under the illusion of control.
Or business development executives. Or freelancers. Or journalists. Or academics.

Or like anyone who has some level of networking as part of their job. Which is a lot of people.

The point being that most people need a better system than "ignore every email that you get from a new contact".
Google throws billions of dollars at this problem, nothing about it is "trivial".
I remember hearing something about Differential Privacy from a WWDC keynote a few years back however I haven't heard much lately. Can you say how and where Apple is currently using Differential Privacy/
Do you mean whitelist JavasScript to known good sites?

HN is about the only site that I frequent that is usable without JS.

The progressive enhancement ship has sailed into abyss.
Show HN: EggFinder – We Qualify AWS Tooling for You
I don't want to breath smog or vehicle fumes either, because I have asthma and an asthma attack could kill me.

I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.
The cloud providers? Are you referring to HPE and Ericsson here?
Children Shouldn’t Be Dying at the Border. Here’s How You Can Help
Nice rant, but the problem described by the GP has been there since long before social media. (Since I was a kid in the 70’s at least.) At best, social media exacerbates the problem but I’d say growing population and wealth have had a bigger impact.