skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What do u think of the impact potential/risk of a legal crowd-sourcing platform?
TL;DR: I believe that each of us has unique perspectives to offer and therefore, collectively, we know what needs to get done and can figure out how. We just need a place to do it. So I want to build a legal crowd-sourcing platform to provide such a place.

Some time ago, I came upon an idea during a conversation. This person had an interesting idea as to how to organize a law to specifically address a social issue and I figured that there must be many "regular" people on this earth with great ideas but no easy way to refine and get them to actionable status. Recognizing this untapped potential along with my experience with open source, I combined this hypothesized need with an older idea I had concerning forum reorganization and came up with ideapackets.

It doesn't have to be a place just for bill propositions but also for charters and protocols, anything which can help reorganize our collective knowledge into actionable outlined courses of action.

Practically, it would have a user submit a proposal using a form designed to identify its components so that the community can comment on each one. Each component (provision) would have its own own thread. This organization can hopefully help keep refinements focused on the specific small part at hand so that, overall, the proposal comes out with accurate, expert-driven steps to action. Each of these threads would allow viewers to vote on the refinements - that's the "merging" part of the process. Eventually, the community as a whole would have proposed, voted on, and put together a community-sourced plan of action to tackle any organizational issue, I hope.

If you think this shows potential, let me know. I'll be posting my progress and asking for input so you will have a direct impact on how this tool turns out.

pic of the form to help with visualization:

https://www.reddit.com/user/ideapackets/comments/cdnnru/what_do_you_think_of_the_impact_potentialrisk_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Or 3. CEO's are superhumanly capable of DECREASING the company's bottom line. The board is paying to minimize their risk of ruin.

With consistent good management, mature organization should hope to see incremental growth. Bad management can destroy a company overnight.
A different answer: Pay them when their labor is actually worth.
I think that's a good point, and for the most part I'd say I agree. If someone meets the criminal threshold of incarceration, it should be possible to divert them to treatment for at least the same length of time as a prison sentence. Along the same lines, maybe blur the lines between incarceration and treatment a little more. Incarceration should ideally be more therapeutic than punitive.
A layer of 'aerogel' could make Mars habitable
The quote is an extreme exaggeration & simplification to attempt to get some agreement.
Yeah, you need the mux because you can run a wired Ethernet adapter in over USB at the same time it’s outputing a DisplayPort signal on the port.
The butterfly effect movie doesn't get this concept wrong IMO, since it's all about the unpredictable results of past actions. It does however have some logical plot holes large enough to fit a tornado through.
I believe in Gaussian distributions.
You've got some internal, "spiritual" things you've got to sort out then. Be happy for them, learn from them, emulate what your identity allows. Otherwise, forget about it. You're not going to grow from envying people.
A New Twitter.com
I vaguely recall one telling of it that noted the problem wasn't simply due to square windows, but some other contributing factor, an adjustment to the design that caused extra stress on top of the corners.

An opening on the top for a radio receiver was improperly riveted, instead of being glued. The rivet holes caused stress concentration, which resulted in metal fatigue and eventual failure and explosive decompression. When this root cause was discovered, it was also realized that the window corners also caused stress concentration.
Soldered on 128gb ssd. Expletives readily come to mind.
Right. I'm just saying it should be clearer. Ex: I want to have a list of accounts, netflix style, that I'm presented with on an empty chrome window. If in fact multiple identities don't merge data implicitly in anyway than this is just a UI issue.

But I have a hard time believing google truly partitions everything in a multi account setup.
AFAIK you'd need vulcanization to make rubber belts practical, so wouldn't have been available much earlier than chains and sprockets.
Charity should be to the people who need it around you, not to some big organisation that then decide to funnel all the money to Africa or something while cashing 50% of the money into their employees pockets.
It is important that poor people will get the donations from people who are in the same locality, this way it solves the relative disparity which is in many ways more important psychologically. It also expose the donator to the real situation in his community and create solidarity and caring relationships. It is not without reason that most religions preach to donate first to people around you. Charity should scale horizontally rather than vertically.
That does not sound like a good argument at all. Metal for vast majority of human history gave you massive edge in weapon technology. Some Mandarin just shut something like that down? Seems super unlikely

Vikings transported Crucible steel all the way from Afghanistan to make high end swords. Damascus steel(actually manufactured in India) and then forged into weapon in Damascus.. etc

There got to be other reasons. Better or equivalent to Crucible steel but en masss.. you can have forged plate for everyone, horse full armor, heat treated crossbow bolt heads etc.
It's not _that_ much of an overhaul imho. I still find it to be weird, coming from other apps (Cinema 4D in my case).
> well defined, reliable and documented datasets

Can you elaborate this?

NoETL targets semi-structured and schema-less data models prevalent in NoSQL/HTAP data stores, so if well defined relates to well defined schemas, it maybe doesn't apply here.

As far as reliability (aka reproducibility) and documentation is concerned, I guess it's more about building tools that promote sound engineering processes like version control, modules (aka reusable snippets), documentation (could be Jupyter notebooks, etc.) and these tools could be built for NoETL systems too.
Modern bikes are built yo tight tolerances for their purpose. Taking an inch curb in a mountain bike is nothing, taking it in an ultra weight optimized road bike is a different story.
Autotranslation for the lazy: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...

Is the SSN secret in Bulgaria? Here in Argentina the DNI is public and put in a lot of documents, list for voting and other stuff, so nobody expect it to be a secret.
Good faith use: Portability.

Bad faith use: Obfuscation.
I see the `benchmarks` folder, but why not run the benchmarks so an end user can quickly compare on known hardware what the differences between node.js are performance wise roughly?
Well one reason people use credit cards a lot in the US is that it is much easier to dispute a payment charged to a credit card then it is a debit card. Additionally a charge on a credit card is not money you currently have it is more potential money, whereas a charge on a debit card is tied directly to your bank account and can take a while to be returned in the case of fraud. At one point you used to be basically SOL if fraud occurred using your debit card.
I just think of the 3 vertical dots as vertical ellipsis. I often use vertical ellipsis when making a list that continues. e.g.

— History of Empire and Colonialism

— History of Religion and Society

— History of Race, Gender, and Power

⋮

— History of War and Society

So it naturally means "there is more stuff here" to me. YMMV
There is absolutely no requirement that workers at a charity must work for charity. You're clearly confused about mission versus methods.

Are there bad methods with good missions? Yes. Are there bad missions with good methods? Yes (most for-profit companies fit here).

Furthermore, CEO salary is one of the most dismal metrics. UNICEF USA's CEO is often in chain-letter-type posts about CEO salary, yet UNICEF USA raises gobs of money for highly successful programs saving millions of lives per year in developing countries. UNICEF vaccinates somewhere near half of the worlds children. Half.

Somehow, hiring talent seems over-rated. This seems related to "efficiency" which is % of dollar going to "programming". Fine salaries paid to employees is cash they cannot hand out to homeless. I get it.

It's usually not those trade-offs that reduce "efficiency".
There's a ton misunderstanding about what "programming" is. If a company installs a landing strip to fly in 10 years of supplies, have they spent that money on "programming" or "overhead"?

The worst offenders, in my opinion, are the tiniest hobby non-profits that do virtually nothing. If I fly to the third world and install a well for some people, have I done real good? Perhaps! If I hand out food once a year around thanksgiving, have I? yes! But that labor, effort, and money may have been better invested in policy changes or continuing-support programs. In almost all cases I've seen, the tiny non-profits bemoan the cost of doing this compared to the larger non-profits. Why are some programs more expensive when implemented at a larger non-profit? The main reason is they include this "extra" work such as publicity, policy, continuing support, and yes, hiring good people so they can do better next year with more money.

Any business-minded person will tell you that you must reinvest in your organization to do more. What that more is might be up for debate (the mission), but to avoid self-investment is to have a bad method.
not strong enough for the frame without being too heavy. there are wood composite bicycles, today, but that is whole other thang
A while ago, i needed to search something from the cli with w3m, ddg wouldn't work without JS so I had to use google.

That commentary aside, search engines make a big chunk of their revenue on prioritizing results and making sure the search term is relevant. Why can't the index be exposed as an api to allow arbitrary front ends?
> It's probably possible to build a search engine for a specific vertical that's better than Google.

Funny, I don't disagree with this, but my perception has been that Google seems to detect when I've switched roles from one type of programmer to another. I don't know if that's organic from the topics I'm looking up or not, but if I'm looking up a generic string search, it seems to return whatever language I've been searching for recently. (very recently in fact)

My point is, it seems like the search engine intuitively understands my "vertical" already. Maybe it's just because developer searches are probably pretty optimized.
That uses the USB 2.0 wires, as far as I can research.

And if it was using a mux to pick signals they wouldn't run at the same time anyway.
No. 1 horsepower, this instant, equals 746 watts, this instant. An average of 1 horsepower over an hour equals an average of 746 watts over the same hour.
In the long run everyone will live in a society like that, not because America will suddenly become child-friendly, but because any country that massively discourages childcare will drop to zero population.
I'd say failure to align financial incentives is a bigger problem than jealousy of colleagues in the staff cafeteria. Zoom has crushed Google Hangouts and is now a $27 billion company, yet the Hangouts team are still rewarded with sweet Google stock options.
In a way Google probably fears addressing these issues because once they take ownership of them, they are going to be forever saddled and blamed when bad ads get through their review system or when shitty videos get promoted on youtube or when people get some "racist" result when they ask OK Google about $stereotype. Google's main source of cash is replacing humans with automation. For them re-introducing humans (i.e. risk) into the equation means seeing dollar bills grow wings and fly off. Most internet companies do not want their services to have a human labor component. It used to be a joke that you could never call anyone at Google to get any of their shit fixed. They just farmed it out to the "community". But whose laughing now? They used to "organize the worlds information", but 'information' soon changed to 'content', and 'content' to 'content farm'. I doubt any significant percentage of their users are ever going to switch away from Google. There is almost no way to detect if you should have gotten a better search result or a better ranking. The results are OK as long as you get a link that is vaguely useful. Its been years since you could even look at the actual results. They claim a query has a millions of results, but you can't even go past page 20. #Fail ? Us nerds made them popular by recommending them to our friends and family and/or surreptitiously installing Chrome to escape the tech-support-calls-from-hell for IE toolbars and shit. We're partly responsible too..
> then reverse the charge on the grounds that that was your friend's kid, not you, what will happen

I think they’d start asking for the police report in that case, or telling you to call your CC company to report the unauthorized transactions.
That sounds interesting too. Any chance you have a link or two handy for reference? I've seen Oleg Kiselyov's bibliography on the tagless-final style (http://okmij.org/ftp/tagless-final/index.html), but there's quite a lot there.

Referencing his "Typed Tagless Final Interpreters: Lecture Notes", it seems like a tagless-final interpreter is just a regular function whose result depends on the domain you intend to evaluate it in. It seems like the easiest thing to do is define a domain in which the tagless-final primitive operations map to an initial type, then serialize that. (So tagless-final seems at least as expressive as the initial representation, and by the "initial" concept, I would expect it to be no more expressive.)
In Germany you can set yourself on the black list of your local casino or whatever. It‘s a legally required feature.

https://www.verspiel-nicht-dein-leben.de/spielsucht/spielers...
Most gambling software has self-banning (for time periods) functionality also btw
The fundamental tension of technology monopolies is convenience v. competition. In the same breath that Google and Amazon are criticized for their dominance critics bemoan the fragmentation of online streaming.
I really dont see the importance of this security layer, unless you major mess up and start eval'ing user input. I first I thought this was like deno where you provide permissions from the commandline, but providing permissions inside of the code itself really doesnt make much sense to me. Am I missing something/viewing it in the wrong mindset?
Not really, I belive it's important. I worked as a teacher and we had to the handle coffee machine ourselfs. Every week there was a coffee teacher and we put money in a jar. Alot of energy and frustration was caused by this and most likely no money saved for the school.
> I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals.

If a charity today is serving 1000 people well (say by providing food security), is it not better if they aspire to serve 1200 people next year?

That’s what “growing a charity” looks like: helping more people.
You're right, it's expensive and needs to be funded.

Suppose I had an alternate funding model. Also suppose I wanted youtube to change it (note: I never said that). How does that invalidate the bad things I pointed out with the current model?

You never said whether or not you agreed with my original points.
I think even horses was more of an upper class thing. Most humans throughout our modern history have used their own muscle power for work and transportation. In poorer rural communities a bicycle is immensely helpful in getting your products to a market more quickly and economically then walking. This is as true today as it was in the early 19th century.
> It seems like you are recommending teaching something which is entirely different to what the vast majority of learners will come into contact with on a regular basis in their future lives. That is not useful and it does not prepare people for the real world.

Many free software replacements for proprietary software are quite similar to the locked down alternatives. Maybe if people learned a different program in school then they would continue to use it in their future lives. That would increase the number of users and the chances that other people would encounter it in the real world.

Proprietary software encourages dependence on a single company and discourages learning, the primary goal of an education institution. Realistically it is near impossible to live today without encountering proprietary software, but educational institutions should be more responsible about how they frame students' relationships with it.

> In the United States, it is the done thing to file taxes through a proprietary software portal (as the result of extensive lobbying). [Yes, this state of affairs is a travesty] Should schools, therefore, avoid teaching people how to file taxes?

Areas where centralization and high levels of security are important such as tax filing, flight booking, and online banking will likely use proprietary software for the foreseeable future. Rather than taking the strict stance that these activities must not occur on school grounds they should teach students how to protect themselves from potential harms of proprietary software (e.g. by running programs in isolated environments).
Even if everything you're saying here is 100% true, I don't see how it would support the accusation that Tim wants to force everyone to use his launcher, which is what I quoted and took issue with. Can you explain how the lack of a shopping cart and some mistaken bans are meant to prove the accusation true?
Really what were the USB guys thinking.

I had to 'fix' my inlaws computer today because some shovelware browser was autostarting, and had a banner across the top to change the autostart settings.

How am I supposed to communicate the finer points of USB-c USB 3 and all the various combinations to them, when I cant even keep track myself. USB was successful because it was plug and play, simple, easy to use. All the things USB3c isn't.
Spill. The. Tea.

Spill. The. Tea.

Spill. The. Tea.

Spill. The. Tea.
No, not necessarily. It depends on each individual and the circumstances they are in. Its like with drugs, if you have a healthy social circle, a relationship / family you care about and a stable and productive work-environment, it will be a lot harder to get you addicted to the rewards of micro-transactions.

>> I feel like the ability to reliably turn money into entertainment (...) is a great thing to have

Yes, definitely. Each and every person can use (or learn to use) these games responsibly -- Not only games -- books, videos you name it -- like most people here I have a steam account, amazon prime, audible and a few other amenities where I wouldn't use my money in a compulsory manner. But a lot of free-to-play games have these little tweaks, that make it so very easy to spend money and don't even think twice about it. The occasional invite to start a transaction, placed at strategic "blockers" where you'll otherwise have to wait for 24h to advance can already be enough.

The crucial thing is to know about these mechanisms and have some sense of introspection into ones own behavior -- these skills can be learned.

EDIT: After I read some of the other responses and thought about it -- it is also important for us all, to acknowledge that some of these mechanisms do work like drugs -- neurochmically. And like with drugs prohibitions are counterproductive -- but a good effort in regulation might be a good step forward -- I've read very good examples in the other parts of this thread regarding a step like this.
Same can be said, perhaps more accurately, about the wheelbarrow. From https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/312366/the-knowledge... :

> The wheelbarrow, for instance, could have occurred centuries before it actually did—if only someone had thought of it. This may seem like a trivial example, combining the operating principles of the wheel and the lever, but it represents an enormous labor saver, and it didn’t appear in Europe until millennia after the wheel (the first depiction of a wheelbarrow appears in an English manuscript written about 1250 AD).
I think Apple already (can) do that - but as you note it doesn't help with a shared device.
Yep, the point is exactly that no matter how Ivan tried to change things for the better, unforeseen consequences would still arise, like his friend being interned or he losing his arms or the other guy becoming a boy scout instead of a psychopath.
> it's not enough to simply show a correlation; in enforcing disparate impact claims (under ECOA or FHA or Title VII), regulators have to show not just the correlation, but also the illegitimacy of the (facially neutral) action, or at last that some other (facially neutral) business practice would accomplish the same goals without producing the impact.

But that's the problem.

Suppose you're evaluating whether to consider zip code in loan approvals, and that doing so improves the overall prediction rate, helps hispanic applicants, but hurts black applicants.

If you choose to stop considering zip code, you've got a disparate impact against hispanics but no business justification for doing it that way, meanwhile they can show an alternative (i.e. taking zip code into account) that serves your business goals better and reduces the disparate impact against hispanics, so not considering it may get you into trouble.

But we also have people suggesting that you shouldn't consider it because it increases the disparate impact against black applicants, and you might "have a hard time" demonstrating that business justification in court. Which is perhaps not ridiculous, because the business justification is there, but it's also in complicated algorithms that are not easy to explain to a layman.

So you have two basically reasonable alternative courses of action, either of which could arguably result in liability. This is the hallmark of unworkable legislation.
Trying to understand the excitement around this. Is it uncommon for games to be turing complete? I imagine a lot of modern games are complex enough to pass turing completeness check.
> are we going to have a hole in society where those jobs once existed?

This wouldn't be the first time. Happened with farming 100-150 years ago. It's going to be a painful adjustment, but until all human needs are met, I'm sure humans that still have jobs can come up with work they want performed in exchange for money so long as politicians don't legislate against the existence of those jobs.
Isn’t health insurance, in the case of tech workers at least, usually covered by the employer?
> Without ... rubber,

as a one-word piece of supporting evidence, let me just say - Boneshakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#Boneshaker
Personally id like to do business with countries who dont do business with countries that have concentration camps or the like. Is there any like that anymore?