skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The main reason for school education in the modern US is crime prevention, not any kind of achievement. It's known to any competent public school teacher in say Watsonville, CA or in Baltimore, MD that the majority of their students cannot learn. But keeping them in school prevents crime.

Your mere attempt at an argument with the OP is ridiculoüs. He is of Chinese descent. They have won, and you with your policies have patently lost the game already.
Opinion + metaphorical problem = this article. The key issue with the proposed metaphorical problem is the instability of its input. Garbage in, garbage out. Nobody can predict the future (but we can probabilistically interpret it if necessary!). To my mind, the article's conclusions take this unadmitted property of the metaphorical problem and use it to baselessly question an entire category of solutions.
Texas might be kind of unique in the USA for the way utility and pipeline companies can use eminent domain liberally against homeowners in order to secure property for right of way for power lines or pipelines.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/permian-highway-pipeli...
That was an amazing listen. Most people have so many beliefs they don't question at all - me included (and I add this not just to seem like I haven't missed the point of what Wallace was saying), and the metaphor of the atheist and the religious guy arguing exemplifies that very well, specifically in these beliefs we deem non-religious, from our political ideologies (even centrists have very strong, usually classically liberal ideology - when was the last time you heard someone discuss not merely certain rights but the whole idea of rights, not just a political candidate but the whole idea of the democratic establishment, not just rich and poor but the nature of capital and value itself etc.?) to our metaphysical assumptions that ground popular (and expert) conceptions of science.

Most people simply have no idea that there are alternatives (ask a random person if they're a materialist in the metaphysical sense, which they likely are, and you'll either get a confused look or a "yes" once you explain it; you won't here a critique of idealism; similarly, ask if they support representative democracy and a "healthy economy" and you won't be met with a critique of capital or the illusion of the economic[0]; ask if they are a moral realist or anti-realist and they probably wouldn't be able back up either opinion, if I had a penny for the number of times someone threw out a "morality is relative" as if a settled fact in philosophy when discussing an issue I'd be rich) and as Wallace mentioned, we build prisons so strong we don't even realize they are prisons.

[0] I've borrowed this term from Patrick Murray's essays on the value-form in his contribution to critiques of marginalist economics.
There are rather a lot of confounds here. I don't really want to get too much into that because it's a rathole of speculation, but if there were a gene for risk, and if risk taking made people more likely to accumulate wealth, then being descended from parents with money might lead to an inheritance of both financial assets and some polygenic entrepreneurial genotype.

Honestly though, that's missing the point. There are plenty of persons with a high appetite for risk who end up as burglars, robbers, embezzlers, fraudsters, or some other unsavory and largely unsuccessful or net destructive career. In my observation there are two essential traits for a successful entrepreneur: persistence and creativity. Everyone knows what persistence is, but I mean creativity in a broader sense than just art. Anyone who has read Julian May's marvelous Saga of Pliocene Exile will know what I mean. For those who haven't, creativity is essentially the ability to create. Every successful entrepreneur has by definition created something of value. Since as far as we know all traits are heritable, creativity must be heritable as well. However it's an even more subtle and ephemeral quality than intelligence, so I doubt we'll be able to identify the genetic basis of creativity within our lifetimes. By this I mean that while it is at least somewhat possible to synthetically test intelligence, there is no test for creativity other than reality itself.

I actually believe that for the sufficiently creative individual, risk is a non-factor. I have had the privilege of knowing a few people of this type, and they literally can't really fail. Sure, one enterprise might not work out, but these folks are just a wellspring of ideas plus execution. They could be dead broke and they'd still succeed in building things.
The core of the argument is the cost of reversing thermodynamics at extremely large scales. We need a way to scale the application of energy to the sequestration process which is intrinsically energy intensive. Biomass sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere with almost perfect scalability because it has a built-in energy source and the sequestration "factory" largely builds itself.

The industrial chemistry infrastructure required to drive this sequestration at the same scale literally doesn't exist by several orders of magnitude. Even worse, the tremendous power generation capacity to support that industrial chemistry infrastructure also doesn't exist. We're talking global GDP levels of CapEx just to build the infrastructure that would make it possible to build sequestration infrastructure that could remove CO2 on a reasonable time frame. Biomass requires none of this investment to operate at the same scales.

These prototypes of industrial sequestration are only pricing in the OpEx and the CapEx of the facility itself. At scale, you also have to pay for the creation of the entire supply chain from scratch -- the factories, power plants, mines, logistics, etc that allow these sequestration facilities to exist at the required scale. The only way the fully burdened cost remotely makes sense is in applications where none of this infrastructure needs to be built i.e. small scale applications. For global atmospheric CO2 reduction, the fully burdened cost of sequestering CO2 via industrial processes is never going to be viable due to industrial chemistry economics.

Industrial chemistry is not embarrassingly parallelizable.
Sorry if the post reads like “rust did this right”: my intention was to show different trade offs around static/dynamic checking of constructors. I didn’t mean to argue that certain approaches are right, and others are wrong.

In particular, the section about Swift shows that you can fully statically checked constructors if you dedicate enough language machinery to it.

I don’t know a lot about Pony, but it seems like it uses a strict subset of Swift’s rules? There’s no inheritance so two phased initialization is condensed to “don’t call methods until all fields set”. It’s also not possible to call one constructor from another, so designated/convenience constructor split is also absent.
Genetic modifications will go beyond human traits and variances relatively soon after they become available with relative safety. There is no reason people will not choose e.g. memory-enhancing modifications or huge life-extending ones. It will only take a few first experiments to have a new global "arms race". The fear of loss of power will easily silence most ethical concerns. In that respect western countries seem to have locked in the best scientists for that. There is no doubt that it will be a pivotal moment in the history of the human race (and probably the end of it)
I'll add to the "meditation is a tool".

In psychotherapy I have always encountered mindfulness as only a small part of a full treatment, not as a solution to everything.

To me it is a specific tool as well, I use meditation to focus and gain awareness of ruminating thoughts that have been bugging me throughout the day. Sitting down, focusing on the breath and then having the thoughts come back to me, I can see more clearly what is actually going on inside of me. It is important to be non-judgemental at this point, to allow yourself to become fully aware of the thought.

Afterwards I sometimes sit down and think about my feelings more. What personal character traits lead to this, and what was the context in which the feeling arose. This I connect to mentalization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentalization).
Feature Selection Algorithms Every Data Scientist Should Know
you see how that's completely different though right?
If having a fall back plan is what drives entrepreneurship, you’d expect the firm safety net countries in the EU to have far more of it than a country like the US.

Yet we don’t.
Where is 3D model file?
As others have pointed out, the original article features an ideological undercurrent that remains mostly implicit. I referred to another article of the same author which makes those ideological assumptions explicit, thereby clarifying his political stance. If this is considered flamebait, then it seems that clarity needs to be avoided where it might cause controvery.
Yes, back in the days when not owning a television was ahead of the curve. But would you like to buy stock in a TV manufacturer today?
Yes, regards water level it won't do much (I missed parent's point), but it doesn't hurt to have less children and give them better education vs the way it is now.
With immune therapy, did that help with your type 1 diabetes at all?
It came about through short shortsightedness. The path they chose was in fact more expensive than the recertification cost. But even Boeing had come to dislike the regulatory paradigm they helped to create. I think most people are framing the regulatory paradigm as needing to revert to what we had, because clearly less regulation resulted in multiple bad outcomes.

Based on available reporting, Boeing chose this path not to avoid higher cost, but reduced time to market to compete with Airbus because, again, shortsightedness, lack of innovation and planning, and even lack of imagination that their competitor would do exactly what they did, and had no contingency and no response for ~9 months after the Airbus 320neo announcement.

I also can't take seriously any complaints about lack of competition in the U.S. market when it's so docile about competition law. The 1960's merger of McDonnell and Douglas is questionable, but the 1990's merger of McDonnel Douglas and Boeing directly lead to the loss of any remaining domestic competition in transport category aircraft. U.S. regulators are tacitly saying this is a natural monopoly, and yet should be regulated as if it's a competitive market.
You should probably cite articles that you copy from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938692/

Also, the reason the guidelines were removed from the NGC is that they hadn't been revised in 5 years.

https://lymediseaseassociation.org/news/official-word-on-ids...

And the new draft guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America doesn't appear to agree with your position either.

https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/Lyme-Disease-Gu...
Eugenics were crushed with violence, they weren't actually disproved.
Yes, all of this. The idea that meditation can and should be a productivity hack to serve capitalism is perverse.

Also, ignoring the genocide of the Rohingya while going on a Vipassana retreat speaks loudly about one’s personal ethics.
You register with your store bonus card to get access to self checkout, then use the same card each time. Getting the card required ID so it’s effectively an ID by proxy.
I would assume HN users have some idea of facebooks business..

that's beside the point. Facebook and its products are growing regardless if you like them/know about their business (as if its some sort of esoteric practice...?), to state otherwise isnt worth discussing much less posting about on here
Wow. I just Googled and found a graph Fourier Transform (GFT). Amazing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.00468.pdf
Hiring Is Broken and Yours Is Too
How to Overclock Raspberry Pi 4 to 2.0 GHz
Jeff Bezos was adopted.
When I turned 25 I started getting nothing but hard soda ads from YouTube. I don't drink.

I went and disabled personalized advertising, and for the first time in years I started seeing ads that tempted me to click through, ads from tech companies about tech. Why the difference? Because YouTube started showing me ads related to the content I'm actually watching rather than based on their faulty neural network profile of me.

Obviously this is just one anecdote, but it's illustrative of the point: don't try to advertise either beer or iPhone covers on a car maintenance site. If I'm on a car maintenance site, you know all you need to know about where my interests are at that exact moment. Why try to hijack my attention (difficult when I'm trying to solve a car problem) when you could instead subtly redirect my attention to an ad for a local mechanic?
bitch please.

you're not even brave enough to post on HN with your true identity.
I honestly think that the biggest problem with launching an RTS is that BW already exists. People aren't clamoring for something better, it's just plain good enough. That takes the air out of any possibilty of a competitive RTS and I believe the 'not enough people to play with' is a symptom of this. If there is a remedy I would suggest that an engaging singleplayer campaign can at least sell the title without the promise of PVP-I bought DOW3, for example, knowing I'd probably just play the campaign. Grey Goo's (great) campaign was (according to the devs iirc) an afterthought and as a result some of it's huge potential was squandered.
When the author mentions that Go’s build system is useful in this scenario, what does he mean? Can Purescript compile to Go with “go build”? Doesn’t make sense to me. I’ll be sure to give this a try!
> Biomass sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere with almost perfect scalability because it has a built-in energy source and the sequestration "factory" largely builds itself.

Wait, what? Biomass uses solar.
Really good water, or occasionally a cold glass of milk. I stopped drinking sodas a very long time ago and I never miss it. I think decreasing my sugar intake has increased my appreciation for food in general.
> This sounds to me like they really mean big money, high growth enterprises and are out-of-hand dismissing the kind of people who start more traditional small businesses with no goal of ever becoming a Mega Corp.

Actually, the original study makes a distinction between unincorporated and incorporated self-employment as a proxy for business type.

> Women had trouble getting funding at all, plus typically had ongoing obligations to do the women's work at home, so they typically started smaller ventures with less risk and less growth potential.

Well, yes. They cite papers studying that effect, including one by one of the authors (Rubenstein) of the paper being discussed on the other side of the link.
I've also found these pretty effective. I'm not sure if the hydrocolloid itself is that helpful, but the fact that the bandage seals and blocks moisture better definitely helps a lot.
Exactly, being an entrepreneur has a survivorship bias from having an excess in money or some other resource

People that want to make high margin, high growth companies will be making “tech companies” (cloud based ephemeral software services)

Developers are rich in “I dont need to pay other developers I cant communicate with to build the initial idea” and are ALSO rich in money

Survivorship bias means they can try and fail and try again very quickly, compared to someone that gets one shot before having to save up again for the next 15 years who experiences life changes and loved ones saying “maybe its time to get realistic Roy”
> burglars, robbers, embezzlers, fraudsters, or some other unsavory

is compatible with being a successful entrepreneur. Common wisdom says it's essential, even.
> The authors examine a number of empirical studies for different countries. Regression to the mean in earnings in rich countries appears to be rapid. Almost all the earnings advantages or disadvantages of ancestors are wiped out in three generations.

That's deeply at odds with what I know about the world (think about the existence of the "middle class", and how middle class parents tend to have middle class children). That, and the fact that the article was written by Gary Becker (he of "all crime is a rational cost / benefit tradeoff" fame), and published at a time when economists did very little emperical work, make me more or less immediately dismiss the claim.

But if anyone could give me the gist of the argument they make, I'd love to be proven wrong.
Depends how you define a television. Furthermore, whether Facebook’s engagement metrics depend on how you define engagement.
Like pilots and vegans
> while it does not focus at all on whether and to what degree they are actual valid and important

That hasn't been my understanding at all. The idea is to observe the feelings and name them so they no longer hold uncontrollable emotional sway over you, but rather you can recognize them for what they are, judge their validity, and act on them rationally and maturely rather than out of unexamined emotionality.

It's a kind of version of "if it's mentionable it's manageable" -- mindfulness turns "unmentioned" vague feelings into "mentioned" feelings you're now aware of and can deal with.

Mindfulness doesn't distinguish between what's valid or not -- it allows you to recognize things in the first place, then it's your own job to make those distinctions later.
I'm not really sure what's special about this. Instead of showing chat messages in an element on the page, they are emitted via console.log().
The aircraft type rating is exactly difference training. You don't start from scratch just because a type certificate differs between two airplanes. The whole point is to require that difference training, and for it to be specifically laid out.

Whereas without that, what did Boeing do? They gave pilots an iPad for difference training, and kept them in the dark about the differences between 737 NG and 737 MAX. That was their choice. The lie of omission by manufacturers is the whole reason why we have type certifications in the first place.
No need to posit a conspiracy here. People died, and there weren't enough new people entering the field to learn it all before the critical mass of knowledge died with them.

I believe that the bulk of knowledge, in most fields, is passed from person to person through active practice, not through books. Books, as a cheap way to widely distribute knowledge, are relatively recent innovation, and most of what I know about any topic is not written in books. Or if it is, it's almost an afterthought, not the primary method of knowledge transfer. What book did you read to learn to tie your shoes, or drive a standard transmission?

On a related note: what is humanity's Bus Factor for creating a CPU? I know a little about semiconductors from school but I certainly wouldn't know where to start, even for a tiny 8-bit one. I doubt Intel writes down everything they've figured out. Could 2 or 3 especially unlucky "city-killer" asteroids send us back to a pre-information-age society?
And how does posting a Wikipedia article link make it to near the top of Hacker news?
iPhone 8 (and up) fast charge with USB-C to lightning cable and larger charger
Apple, Google, and Amazon all employ thousands of engineers who work on products that would greatly benefit from Facebook’s failure. I would bet that employees from those companies make up a good chunk of the HN community.

I am reminded that there were several threads accusing FB employees of downvoting anti FB comments. Worth noting that the companies listed above all employee more engineers than FB.
Except you're also blocking their analytics scripts, so you don't send any signal at all.
Um, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but Perl 5's object model was based on that of Python.

And every method of a Perl 5 object receives a $self scalar as its first argument ( see https://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html ).

In fact, Larry Wall specifically stated in the 11th "State of the Onion" speech that he "stole" Python's object system for Perl 5.

I remembered him saying this, so I went to find the transcript. However, I could not find a transcript of the actual speech. I did, though, find this perlmonks.org quote of Larry Wall (from that speech):

"I don't really know much about Python. I only stole its object system for Perl 5. I have since repented."

https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1212836

So unless you mean Perl 5's "$self" is somehow "non-magic" (whatever you mean by that), I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say it has no "this" or "self".
Click frauders will always ensure a steady stream of 'conversions'.
Java and C++ application programming are almost identical.
(Well, Java is a subset of C++/. CC++ is just Java plus extra work because you don't have the convenient shortcuts that waste CPU and RAM. There are many interesting novel languages for different problems .
As predicted, the article doesn't contain any genome wide association study to back up its claim in the title that entrepreneurs "don't have a gene for risk".

Instead they present another causal factor for creating startups and just implicitly deny that other factors exist.

I think Quartz is basically the archetype of fake news at this point.
This is tautological. Control of the means of production defines what “rich” is in the industrial world.
"When we're talking about human lives, there is no regulation too burdensome or inefficient."

This is not only not true, it directly contradicts how regulations are evaluated. Regulations are judged at the cost per life saved (or similar metrics), and are rejected if that cost is above some threshold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Policy_applicati...
Historically Acorn RISC Machines that ran an OS called RISCOS.
That explosion also eventually disabled over a half-dozen satellites. Whoops.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/09/th...

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531197.pdf

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/starfishandapollo-1962/
>Deregulation never seems to result in more competition

Deregulation won't result in more competition when there are big players that can use their money for advertisement, consolidation, buying smaller competitors, cartels, and so on.

What can result in more competition is regulation that favors competition. Breaking up behemoths after a certain size (a la AT & T) is one good way...