skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Amazon does track the original supplier.

From their seller help pages:

> Note: Amazon ensures that the initial source of the commingled units can be traced throughout the fulfilment process.

> Important: Amazon ensures that the exact same units from two sellers, participating in the commingling programme, are always physically segregated. This means that Amazon storage logic does not allow same ASINs of different sellers to be stored in the same bin in our warehouse if they are commingled.

In other words, Amazon ensures that commingled items are never physically commingled.

For a public source, see e.g. Amazon comment in this article: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/04/03/1554287401000/Amazon-... (outline link: https://outline.com/4R7fp6)

> The system is purposefully designed so that similar products are not placed next to or near each other, and Amazon can also track the original seller of each unit.
It's a euphemism of the behavior of the media. No one means the news is 100% fake, but that there is some manipulation and bias going on.

At some point when there's enough bias it does become fake news because you can't trust the source at all.
Drilling and refining fossil fuels are BP's strengths, who cares about a little oil spilling into the environment?

Can you see how maybe other people might have valid concerns about the effects of a product, and ask for more rigor in the company's processes?
If you don't see the browser it doesn't mean it isn't there. There's always some chrome instance rendering the html and interpreting the js. Extremely wasteful. (Right now Slack seems to use 600 MB ram on my desktop).

And yes, VS code is a web site by my definition. Not an application.
You can argue with the merits of their arguments, but that article is not an example of "peddling debunked concepts like phrenology" (or whatever your original claim was, I can't get the exact text at this point).

And their discussion about skull measurement was not handwavey. It made one very specific assertion and provided some evidence. Again, they may be wrong, but your description of what happens in that article is not an accurate representation of reality.
You’re also the first in a very long time to figure out where my handle comes from. I was so intrigued by reading about the first graphics card capable of hardware transform and lighting (GeForce 256)
..because you've never tried using expect in anger?
> I think continual Turing testing is the only way of concluding whether an agent exhibits intelligence or not.

So you think it's impossible to ever determine that a chimpanzee, or even a feral child, exhibits intelligence? This seems rather defeatist.
Thanks for the additional background. So will this release improve performance much for those who have the prior update?
From React developer perspective this looks ugly (at least for now). It is dependant on class-based components, it will do nasty modifications to your class instances.

You can do much cleaner job using React hooks.
3) is usually the only way to go if something has a little bit of history and complexity. It’s almost impossible to capture all features and uses of a system completely and then deliver something that does all of these things. Much better to work in small increments which can be understood. It may take longer and feel less heroic but at least you always have something that works.
That's actually a runbook. But it's a pretty good idea to make your runbook into code! This is a nice, gradual way to begin automating. You automate one step at a time, easiest tasks first, until eventually all of it is automated. The more your steps are reusable, the easier it is to automate other tasks.

An example is approving new users to access a service. Say your list of users is a YAML file. Someone edits the file, fires off a PR, waits for someone to approve it, merges it, and applies the config. You might think it's so easy to do by hand, automating it would be a waste. But if you actually add up the time it takes for humans to do those steps, plus the lead-time from creation to completion, plus the occasional typo, wrong username, or Norway bug, it can take from hours to days to actually complete the task. By automating steps one at a time, you gradually move toward the entire process being a single script that takes a username, and completes the task in about 30 seconds. This is a small win, but added up over all your operations, reduces hundreds of hours of toil and reduces human error. If every engineer automates one step of one runbook per week, over a year you'll have hundreds of reusable automation steps.

To the OP, I'd add the following: 1) use the least-complex way to accomplish the task. If you don't need to write Python, don't. Bourne shell is your friend. Re-use existing tools and automated features. 2) Add documentation to the code that can be auto-generated, so you can use the script as long-lived static documentation. Documenting somewhere else will lead to stale docs. 3) Run all your runbooks from a Docker container. 4) Plan to run these runbooks-in-containers from a CI/CD system using paramaterized builds. 5) Organize your reusable automation steps by technology, but have product-specific runbooks that call the automated features. 6) In a big org, a monorepo of automation features is an efficient way to expose automated features to other teams and ramp up on shared automation quicker.
I remember foreign exchange students coming for a year, and they were never adopted by the host family. I guess the Midwest was different than your experience.
Meh, I've already moved on to other tools.
At some point a partial rewrite might become a complete rewrite. It depends. Ship of Theseus[1], etc.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
See also: In TDD, there are defined steps you go through as you gradually refine your code to actually do more and more things; from returning nothing, to returning one value, to returning a list, etc.
This is great! Now I wish they would open up trading for IRAs
You can call it “experience”, but that won’t help you find many TurboPascal jobs in 2019. At some point, experience is something that allows you to learn new things quicker and more efficiently, not something to be used as an excuse for not learning new things.
56k modems were pretty routine by 1999 and ISDN (It still does nothing) was a thing. But by 2000, DSL rollouts were starting to happen.
Very little news coverage on the Wuhan protests. Maybe it's not as big as it seems. Although all it takes for a revolution to start is for everyone to realize that everyone else is not happy with the situation. You can point to protestors and say "look at how unruly and dangerous these people are" but that image of protestor being beaten up could just be enough to embolden some people. If someone out there is willing to get beaten up for their ideals, those ideals must be pretty important to them.
> Jonathan Haidt’s early work attempted to explain the origins of our political differences. His new Heterodox Academy is looking for ways to move past them.

(By pushing the same old narrative you've heard from exactly one side)
I tried switching to Gitlab for my hobby projects over a year ago (before Github had free private repos), but recently, have decided to move back to Github, mostly for UX purposes. Not sure what it is about Gitlab's UI, but I find it more difficult to navigate and parse visually than Github's. I am a hobbbyist developer though and rarely work with other people.

Granted, Gitlab CI was awesome the one time I used it.
Zero to Startup in 10 weeks
Tao Te Ching.

(And I'm a Catholic Christian, not a Taoist.)

As a standalone spiritual work divorced from the attached context of community and tradition, I would not recommend the Bible (plus, it's massive) or, similarly, most well-known Christian theological works.
> It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument

Yep, that's the main reason the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop works.

> Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.

You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
Agreements are stepping stones to work together, allowing you to reposition your country in the global scheme to be in a better place when a new harsher agreement comes.

It's not obvious what you want to say, but the Paris agreement would have been a piece of cake if we had taken responsibility.
I've admired all of the Haidt books I've read, including Coddling: https://jakeseliger.com/2018/11/27/the-coddling-of-the-ameri.... His earlier book The Happiness Hypothesis is underrated and highly recommended: https://sivers.org/book/HappinessHypothesis
There's a lot of discussions that Slack should go for a full native application. Yes memory/CPU usage would be much smaller but then again this cross-platform maintenance hell begins. You can look at Skype's example it didn't end well, Linux version was lagging totally behind, also Mac client wasn't up to date and now Skype also released web client :D.
> In both cases the old `factorial` works and the enhanced one fails.

Does

class computer_enhanced = object
inherit computer

method prev x = x
end

tells you that factorial definition changed and that it's dependent on prev? No.

Does

fact(x, fun x -> x)

tells you that this function's behavior depends on `fun x -> x`? Yes.
>“The recent spike in students’ anxiety and depression is like nothing else in history,” Haidt added, because they grew up exposed to online bullying and know they could be the next victim.

Every now and then the mental health epidemic comes up on HN and I see ten or twenty different theories about what's causing it. If nothing else, it's galvanized me against believing any one explanation just because someone says it. Has Haidt really cracked the case? It would be nice to see some evidence one way or another.
Can a missile survive reentry at 3200km/s? From https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/BGH/hihyper.html LEO reentry speed is 17500 mph = 28000 km/h = 7.7 km/s. It's 415 times the speed.

I didn't do the math but at that speed you don't need a warhead to destroy a target. Let's try with 1000 kg steel or whatever won't melt down

1/2 mv^2 = 500 * (3200 * 3600)^2 = 345,500,000,000 J

1 J lifts about 100 g mass by 1 m on the surface of Earth. That energy would lift 345,500,000 kg by 100 m.
There's a thoughtful examination of Haidt's claims here (https://niskanencenter.org/blog/there-is-no-campus-free-spee...), which agrees in part and disagrees in part. Worth reading before passing judgement.
Or you can just provide a URL to any host with a SSH server and Git installed. You only need `git init --bare /some/path` on the server and `git remote add origin myserver:/some/path` on clients. If the repo is used by multiple users, you’ll need the `--shared` flag.
That would be UPS doing that, not Amazon.
Hi, that sounds awesome! I'm also very interested in learning Clojure/ClojureScript, and re-frame sounds great. I think it would be important to choose a functional language for this project. I've also been thinking about using Haskell, and writing the core engine in Idris. (I also recently had an idea for an experiment after reading about Nix expressions, and how I might be able to use some of these underlying concepts and algorithms.)

I've created a Discord chat group for the project I've been wanting to work on. Please feel free to join with this link: https://discord.gg/7Ca3R8

I think we might have a few people in here who are working on different ideas in the same space, so it would be great to bounce ideas off each other. A Reddit group also sounds good!
> Why not compare with other remote companies, but with local ones?

Because there really aren't that many of them, and even fewer who aren't also using local rates.

> Living in a cheap area comes with drawbacks.

I agree, I live in a cheaper COL location. But, I was already living here, so I'm not sure how my salary at GitLab affects that. Local companies don't pay you more because of the drawbacks of living in a cheaper location. If I moved to a higher COL location then I would be compensated for that [1]. The mechanics are the same, I just get to do my job from home.

> I’d care a lot if I made a lot less than a colleague for the same type of work at the same company

This is, I think, the most important factor. I didn't decline my offer at GitLab in favor of staying at my previous company because I knew my salary would be the same as every other employee. I compromised on that front so I could work remotely for a company that I really felt like was a better fit for me.

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...
Metabase added joins to query builder in a recent release: https://github.com/metabase/metabase/releases/tag/v0.33.0-pr...
TLDR; question answer: An HFT makes money because they see you want to buy 100 shares of Apple. Their servers are located in the exchanges, so they can buy the 100 shares of Apple for $99.99 each quickly, then flip them to you for $100 each, effectively giving them a risk free profit of $1. The HFT then gives Robinhood a small reward for sending them the order data. Multiply that times millions of trades a day.

If you are curious where the average broker routes orders to, they all file Rule 606 documents with the SEC.

Here is Robinhoods for Q1 2019:
https://d2ue93q3u507c2.cloudfront.net/assets/robinhood/legal...

These filings show exactly how much each HFT, aka market maker, got routed by robinhood.

Here is Schwabs: https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/imp...

What you will notice is that both have roughly similar distribution across execution venues, and the same can be said about many retail brokerage firms (Fidelity, Etrade, and the like). The difference is that Robinhood makes quite a bit more money from Payment for Order Flow than the typical brokerage.

Back in 2016 when Robinhood was gaining traction, I was pretty suspicious that they were either directly front-running their own users, or they were selling order flow to HFT's. Back in that day, both of the founders still had a LinkedIn that showed that they both worked at an HFT! before starting Robinhood. Since then they have removed that history from their profiles, but it's definitely not a good look if you are saying you are commission free! Selling order flow is the norm in the industry, but there is certainly a special relationship between Robinhood and their execution venues that isn't completely clear.

Overall, I am in the boat that Robinhood should at least be required to say that they aren't perfectly commission free. It seems that the commission most users pay is just indirectly being paid to an HFT, then kicked back to Robinhood.

With all of that being said, unless you are making huge block (100's of shares) trades, it's probably still cheaper to use Robinhood than a retail firm.

My hypothesis is that Robinhood gets higher kick backs because:

1) The user base is typically not financially savvy.

2) Users are more likely to do "market" orders leading to more profit for HFT's

3) Since there is no commission fee, users feel like they can buy or sell with 0 friction meaning the average user will end up in and out of positions much more frequently.

All of those things mean more profit margins for HFT's to kick back to Robinhood.

Robinhood certainly is "free", but the issue is that without friction, e.g. $10 trade fee, you as an investor will hop in and out of positions quickly, meaning more profit for the HFT, and indirectly, Robinhood. However, for most of us Robinhood is still cheaper than a brokerage even with this hidden tax.

I recommend avoiding options, penny stocks, and cheap-per-share stocks if you want to avoid paying a higher hidden tax to HFT's.
It does not need to. It just need to get complex enough. This is from an 1965 article:

"If the machines are permitted to make all their
own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the
results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of
the human race would be at the mercy of the machines.
It might be argued that the human race would never be
foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines.
But we are suggesting neither that the human race would
voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the
machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to
drift into a position of such dependence on the machines
that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of
the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that
face it become more and more complex and as machines
become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them,
simply because machine-made decisions will bring better
results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be
reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be
incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the
machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able
to just turn the machine off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to
suicide."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20483591
Can it transfer the same file in parallel? I had to use aria2c for that. It's a pain to waste rx/tx rings and CPUs when transfering large files. I believe you can use mulitple sockets(optional) with HTTP range options to do this.
> lots data that needs to be globally available between multiple pages and is largely interdependent

This is the ideal use case for react context. It's not as if redux is doing something magical to achieve that result, it uses context under the hood anyway, but it adds on the complex and usually unnecessary action/reducer abstractions. I have mentored about two dozen developers on react and redux projects over the past three or so years, I've learned this lesson the hard way.

> the data needs to be updated optimistically (i.e. we show updates to the user before the fetch succeeds and unwind if it fails) and the updates are triggered through a mix of web socket polling and user actions.

Redux doesn't address these problems specifically, but I'd be curious to understand why you think redux is of particular value for them.

> You're right that I don't need Redux for this project, but oh boy I really like using it.

Well that's fine, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't use what you like.
If you're interested, at least, you can try combining the two. I moved into technical writing full-time five years or so ago. I'd been a tech blogger before that, just with my own sporadically-updated blog that I never quite figured out how to monetize despite it having hit what I'd consider "B-list status" (showing up on Techmeme occasionally, linked from bigger blogs, etc.); in an odd way, moving into documentation was monetizing the blog, since a startup came looking for me after their CEO read a few blog posts and liked them.

This doesn't mean giving up creative writing, either; I still do that, and in fact started that first job with "so, uh, two weeks after the date you want me to start, I'm going to be attending a residential writing workshop in Lawrence, Kansas for two weeks; will that be a problem?" (It wasn't, fortunately.)
> I am describing the historical reality.

No you’re really not. The PRC and the ROC are two separate countries with (extremely large border disputes). Everything else is just propaganda. There is a landed region vaguely referred to as “China” made up of land that one time or another contained the mainland as well as Taiwan. That region is not a “country” today and is definitely not represented by either the PRC or the ROC regardless of what the acronyms stand for.

> I think the point of HN is to be able to do that without receiving insults in return.

I didn’t insult you. I called your argument nonsense. I mean that literally and it is true. You are parroting old propaganda that there is “one China” which was first put forward by the ROC when it was a member of the UN and trying to assert its claims to the mainland. That propaganda continued to be used by the PRC attempting to make similar claims. But it can’t hide the fact that they are two countries and that propaganda simply makes no sense. Hence the “nonsense” of your argument.

> Really, the mistake of the PRC is to have prevented the use of the official name of what Taiwan is as a state: The Republic of China. That would have nipped all those "Taiwan v. China" narratives in the bud.

I have no idea what this refers to. The ROC refers to itself the “Republic of China”. It considers itself a state.

The real mistake of the PRC is the one it continues to make: not accepting reality and stopping it’s interference in the ROC’s international relations (including its blocking of admittance is the ROC to the UN). It was a farce when the ROC kept the PRC out of the UN and it’s a farce now.
He's also telling us we're going in the wrong direction and have been with our approach to reinforced learning. He's not convinced that's how the brain works. In fact he's convinced it's not.
> Strong opinions held strongly is a net negative.

Strong opinions like your opinion on older folks?
How do you protect your copyright assignments in the face of an employee paying someone else to do their work?
Haidt talks about it in detail in his "The Coddling...". He cites other studies. I can't say that that he's "cracked" it, but if you're interested in why he says that, that's the place to start looking.
This paper says more about that specific dataset/task than about neural models for NLP.
I personally smear my own feces on the armrests, having come prepared with plastic arm sleeves so that it doesn't get on me.
I’ll try because you asked me to, but i think I’ll do a bad job. You’ll get a much better understanding by reading on the topics of philosophy of mind and metaphysics. Here goes, though:

1. Purely immaterial things exist. Think of mathematics or the laws of logic or physics - these things exist as ideas or concepts, not arrangements of matter.

2. Some abstract concepts cannot be embodied in matter at all. For example, you can make a shoe, you can draw a shoe, but you can’t draw shoe-ness. You can understand and reason about what makes something a shoe in the abstract, but you can only make or draw an individual shoe.

3) the mind contains these purely immaterial things when we think about and reason about them.

4) If we can use the abstract concepts, but the abstract concepts can’t be embodied in matter, then the mind must be at least partly immaterial in order for the concepts to be in our mind.

I hope that helps a but please don’t rely on my exposition of the case - a real philosopher would do it justice.
There are sites like procon.org that pit arguments 1-vs-1, but don't really make allowances for rebuttals, see this one on e-cigs for example: https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005430
This is the best article I've seen on this issue (by patio11): https://www.kalzumeus.com/2019/6/26/how-brokerages-make-mone...
> We all feel this way.

Absolutely. I order direct from the manufacturer for most of my supplements these days and the rest I pick up from Target and CostCo. I used to buy all of them from Amazon.
How can a person be identified from a hash by behaviour? We built the software but you seem to know something we don't...
Can someone explain to me why the choice of filesystem mattered? I would have thought that Dropbox could exist entirely in userspace with FUSE and wouldn't need anything as low-level as direct filesystem stuff.

(I'm speaking out of ignorance both on how Dropbox and filesystems work).
Aren’t Teslas running on 21700?