skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with the article's suggestion that education of consumers is probably part of the solution, but reform of the industry is probably also necessary. It may also be there's going to be an inevitable decline if people move away from meat and animal products in general.

I've generally moved gradually more and more toward a vegan and vegetarian lifestyle, not with some single big decision, but through unanticipated shifts in my decisions over time.

Shoes and boots are one area where I still regularly buy leather though, even though I've tried not to. I've had a lot of trouble finding shoes and boots that have the same durability, design, and breathability of leather. Not saying leather alternatives aren't out there, just that for many things the choice isn't the same.

I still eat dairy products, and many of the arguments in that article have always been on the back of my mind -- if I eat animal products, isn't it best to make full use of the animal? But for me the leather industry's problems aren't all about animal welfare, it's about the environmental effects and working conditions. It's hard to spend years reading about poor environmental and labor practices in the leather industry and feel ok about buying leather.

In the end, I've ended up purchasing leather that's traceable in some way, preferably vegetable tanned, or if not, produced somewhere I trust.

Maybe this is all naive but all one can do is try their best to make decisions they feel comfortable with, one at a time. If the leather industry wants people to buy leather again they have to convince people of the reasons for doing so, and I suspect increasingly that will have to include environmental, social, and animal welfare reasons as well. I'm not saying that those reasons aren't there, just that they have to make the case, or someone does.
"federal government" is probably a better term than "deep state" unless you're intentionally trying to be inflammatory...
Hacker News in particular has a very strong libertarian streak where many people here believe all problems can be solved by a sufficiently motivated individual without any support or coordination with other humans.
> mathematically proven to be 100% secure

We still don't know how to prove the difficulty of any computing problems which the security of conventional cryptosystems rely on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_hardness_assumpt...

Some systems, like the one time pad and quantum cryptography have security which doesn't rely on computational hardness, however.
It makes you more persuasive. You can align your arguments to their values.
Yield curve inversion is way bigger than the trade war. Also the trade war directionality favors the USA.
Good points, and again, not something I keep current in, generally, as the field changes so quickly, particularly relative to my own replacement cycles.
I like this. I'm going to do it with my daughter when she's old enough. Thank you!
If you're in a browser the "send feedback" is at the bottom right in italic.

If you're using the application it's hamburger button, "help & feedback" then "Feedback" will be located at the top right.
99% is good enough?

If 1% of all secure public data transmissions were compromised there would practically be no point in trying to secure anything.

And who is Barr to decide what's worth encrypting on a societal level? I'll put my photo album through 5 different algorithms if I want to. Such is my right.

Go ahead Barr, make laws for corporations to follow and watch as all that data you're trying to capture disintegrate from the networks where you gave yourself access and reappears on even more secure smaller scale distributed systems.

What will happen is instead of Google hosting your data for you they'll just create devices that let you store your data at home, offline while only beaming back the telemetry and meta.
Not the OP, but while I'll agree with your sentiment in general, it's a bit straw man argument in this particular case.

I'm generally of liberal persuasion. I did not agree with almost anything that our Canadian previous conservative prime minister did... but I respected him. I thought he was intelligent, effective, and thoughtful. I didn't like that he was effective and productive about things I disagreed with, but I'd shake his hand and I can imagine having a thoughtful conversation and learning something, even if my mind may or may not be changed.

On the other hand, in theory, I "agree" with many of the things Michael Moore for example is fighting for. But I do not respect him, and I cannot watch more than 2 minutes of his programs before wanting to yell at the TV. Certainly, I wouldn't elect him. He is a propagandist, he cherry picks data, and presents a skewed picture. Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck or Michael Moore or Al Franken (the pundit; he may or may not have been more honest as a politician, but his prior books were awful) - it's not a matter of how much I agree with them, but that I find them all fundamentally dishonest.

Which brings us to Trump - my biggest concern is not that I disagree with him (which I do). It's that I have no respect for his mental faculties, honesty, abilities, consistency, beliefs, values, thoughtfulness, or any of the characteristics some of us believe a head of state should have. Further, I think not only is he doing a disfavour for those who disagree with him, I think he's doing a disfavour for those who agree with him / voted for him.

At the end of the day, I may disagree with somebody about what's the best colour to paint the room; I may disagree with somebody on what the best way to fix a education system is, or even what its goals should be; I may disagree on budget priorities, on a country's role in the world, and so on. There's fascinating discussion, debate and learning to be had with people of opposing opinions.

But if somebody wants to buy a bridge somebody's selling them, enroll in a cult, or jump out of an airplane without a parachute thinking it'll end well for them, dunno... I don't think it's in the "difference of opinion" category :|
Competition in commodities is great for consumers. The
huge problems appear when the "commodity" isn't -- when some offering is inferior in some usually hidden way (including externalities).

Keeping prices high doesn't protect against that - a counterfeiter will happily sell at a high price, and a traditional supplier might cut quality in theory supply chain to increase profit.

The only solution is to have vendor and supply chain transparency (buying local, and supply chain offering video monitoring of their operations, maybe some Blockchain for tracking shipments end-to-end?), and to be willing to pay for the monitoring and for the quality you ask for. But at the end of the day must consumers talk a good game and then would buy whatever is cheapest
or slickest marketed regardlesss of inherent quality or externalities, so it's more efficient to skip the charade.
This true, and never really been acknowledged in the same was as slavery.

For example Trump's favourite president is Andrew Jackson with the stain of trail of tears:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal_...
You'll commonly hear these stories brushed off with, "these companies have so much metadata on you that they can know what you'll look for before you do."

I don't buy it - at least not fully. There are too many stories of totally random stuff talked about showing up in feeds to make this excuse totally plausible.

Hell, it was less than a year ago that you'd get brushed off with, "no, people aren't listening to the things you're saying to your home device, it's only run through NLP."
You should have a look at the work that the USDS is doing.

You should also look at volunteering with Code for America.
Check out Joerg Sprave’s video [1] on this with him and the IG Metall lawyers. Joerg is the slingshot channel YouTuber who is helping lead the charge on this. In the video, they give a good breakdown on their demands and their strategy.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ
Just my opinion but I think it will be worse than 2008 for normal people. Companies that are cash rich due to the tax cuts will use the recession as an excuse to execute deep labor cuts and boost their stock price. There is no longer a reason for executives to even pretend to care about employees as the one time bonus / stock buy backs after the tax cuts proved.

Wells Fargo has already proven that the same rules that were in place in 2008 that allowed those that caused the collapse to escape unpunished are still there.

Assuming the current administration is in power, government assistance programs will be greatly cut leading to desperation on the part of the nations 40% that cannot afford a $400 emergency.

Household debt, especially student loan debt is far above what it was when the 2008 recession hit making people even less prepared to handle a financial collapse. "Student loan debt hit $1.486 trillion, according to credit data from the New York Federal Reserve. By comparison, student loan at the height of the financial crisis was $611 billion and has been mostly rising since"

Assuming the ACA case makes it through the courts before the recession is over, health care will likely be stripped from millions of those worse equipped to handle it. Many of the homes that were affordable a decade ago have now been bought by mega renters and are rented out at high rates. People who lose their jobs will be unable to afford rents that are only increasing nation wide.

I think large companies and banks will weather it relatively well.

We will likely invade a middle eastern country to distract the proletariat.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-consumer-debt-is-now-br...
That's an interesting idea. Multiple LEDs, colour-coded, or ...?
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pern#Thread
This is an example of something fishy: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00JE36GLQ/?coliid=I3I52QIK9800LI this is a $40 coffee maker offered at $2 (plus $15 shipping) from a newly created shop.

Another example of fraudulent products is posting an existing ($10) book at $100 and have it at the top of the results because they changed the publication date with a fake one.
Haha not at all, since we never ended up investing. We were inexperienced and didn't really know what to look for. Homes that required extensive rehab seemed too daunting and a turnkey property in a nice neighborhood was too expensive.

(This will sound like we are very lazy...) We essentially wanted to buy an affordable home that would just grow in price over the next few years without us doing anything. At the time, there were no tools to help us find homes like this, which ultimately led us to starting this company.
“Your failure”? Do you believe you can spot disinformation with any reliability? When that misinformation constitutes the majority of all that you think you know about the issues you base your votes on?
> Can you believe that?? There aren't enough programmers to make the .gov stuff work right because FAANG is buying them all. So, I'm not sure you are right on that.

There are enough. There certainly are in the US and likely so other places. It's that government often pays peanuts compared to private sector and adds poor management and poor advancement prospects on top.

If people aren't willing to work for you because your working conditions suck, it might be worth considering better ones.
Ray Dalio's model asserts that 2008 was the end of a 75-100 year cycle - the collapse and then reflation of the long term debt cycle. And that the upcoming recession (whenever it happens) is more about short-term debt cycles, that happen every 8-10 years.

That doesn't mean a recession can't be really bad, though. Particularly when our normal tools for handling recessions are constrained, like interest rates already being low.

We're also still dealing with the greater inequality effects from the 2008 debt monetization, which is partly (according to that model) responsible for the greater populism political effects of that (like Trump's election, who ran as a populist in 2016).
Is this in the US? As I said, I was talking about the UK.
This. Part of the benefit is that it raises the cost of producing meat. Mass animal cruelty will be ended mostly by economics.
> you need sell all these products to somebody.

I've heard that the US mostly sells stuff to itself, i.e., trade is a relatively small component of its GDP. I haven't looked into it, yet, though.
Your 'real one percent' are people earning 100k? What an interesting viewpoint.
> Faced with an impossible choice – a ‘koan’ as Zen Buddhists call it

A koan is not an impossible choice. That's the whole point of a koan, realizing the illusion of the impossibility.

A koan highlights the inappropriateness of (written/spoken) language to describe the ineffable experiences that life is really made of.

Funny thing is pretty much all written/spoken language are in a way koans. Making an analogy with formal logic, language itself is an inconsistent knowledge base, as it allows for (seemingly) opposites to be expressed simultaneously. For example the phrase: "Absolutes don't exist", is a statement that implies absolutism itself, while at the same time stating absolutes don't exist, thus it contradicts itself. However reality is not inconsistent, it can never "contradict" itself, reality just is. So our words fail us in accurately conveying what we mean.

So, depending on your own interpretations and point of view, I might be completely wrong about all of this too.

PS: I was expecting the article to focus more on the meaning and potential use of paradoxes, however the word is used only once in the whole text. Despite that, loved Bateson’s remarks about dualism and overcoming our fear of death.
Wouldn't anyone spending money on that just cheap out and go with a library or cafe or home-office to save money? Sure, not working at home is great for productivity for some people, but when push comes to shove, their customers can largely move elsewhere, right?
More money, less happiness: When money makes you miserable
I would suspect, that if facebook were listening, someone, somewhere would have some amount of evidence. A reverse engineered binary, an emulated program, something making a visible call to a microphone and hashing the words or something.

Based on google being able to identify what song is playing in the room my phone is in, while my phone is in airplane mode, I suspect facebook COULD have a list of a million brand words stored on the phone and their corresponding representation, and tally as you say them and report the tally back, without ever sending the audio itself off the phone. But I would think, after all this suspicion, someone would have some amount of actual evidence of the process itself, and not just the results.

Zuckerberg said the answer was NO in front of congress. That would be a pretty bold lie.
> since they are so intertwined.

They're simply different things, slavery doesn't imply racism though the US system was almost entirely on racial lines.

Either way there's a broken situation that needs fixed.
I have read literature from Stallman essentially supporting piracy of closed-source, proprietary products without saying it directly. This is more impactful in the software realm where you are not still giving hardware sales, but that is his stance.

However, I think NVIDIA is still leading the industry (AMD is catching up fast, but still lags behind) and I want to support their hardware development. However, I make it clear what kind of relationship I expect from them by virtualizing my Geforce instead of buying a Quadro. I also support open-source driver initiatives and abhor NVIDIA's practice of not releasing hardware schematics if they aren't going to open source the driver. It's a complicated issue.
Negative interest rate will increase house asset prices as you will get money to loan. When there will be inflation due to outside forces a lot of home owners will have loans under water. The banks will be saved and there will be new regulation promising never again. Until the next bank crisis for different reason and so on.
Bollards and concrete planters are excellent for stopping a lot of mass going very fast, this is true.

One thing to keep in mind about the threat of "flying car attacks" is that weight requirements of staying in the air generally remove the "mass" part of the equation.

Someone could pack a flying vehicle full of explosives, but explosives that pack a big punch and that are compact & light weight are pretty regulated. Explosives that are easy to acquire tend to have more weight (fuel oil & fertilizer, for example). You could only pack so much in a vehicle before it couldn't take off anymore.

In general, I don't think flying cars would be any more of a risk than light aircraft, which have been around for decades without very many incidents of successful terrorism.

As an example, about a decade ago, and anti-tax nut flew a light aircraft into an office building that housed local IRS offices in Austin. It caused a lot of damage, but not serious structural damage and there were no fatalities other than the pilot.
It's easy to parse. Apparently that means a lot to people... guess they write a lot of parsers ;)
Would you please follow the site guidelines when posting here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The GOP... take a bow... Bravo.. all on their heads shall this rest.
I think I would benefit from this sort of technique. Do you know of any available tools or audio resources that implement it? Your comment about frequency decibel imbalances is the most concrete information I've been able to find on the topic, so thank you.
My Nest is signed up with my local power provider. In the summer, they turn up my temp a couple degrees from 2-6pm a couple times a month.

There's a pre-cool from 1-2 where they drop the temp, and if I leave it alone for the entire four hours, I get $5 off my power bill that month.
If that platform doesn't have an app on my TV it's going to hurt a little bit
That wasn't your initial assertion. Only that it wasn't a matter of public expenditure, which is manifestly false.
I don't see how being OK with silences and gaps matches this "introvert" trait mentioned in the parent.

To my ears, this usual "introverts are not made uncomfortable by silences" refrain sounds condescending.
I get plenty of low quality goods at Walmart and Amazon too, and plenty of scams as well. Sometimes it's the cheap goods I'm there for, and I don't expect high quality for that. Caveat emptor applies everywhere.

The problem comes when you don't realize you're digging through crap looking for pearls and imagine that it's all pearls.
Were these examples of other situations where people are forced to pay an unfair amount for services they don't need meant as a rebuttal? Because it seems to me that you're supporting maxaf's argument.

The objectionable parts of data caps are the arbitrary hard cutoffs and massively inflated overage fees. It's crazy that the second TB/month may cost 10x the standard monthly rate with a 1TB cap, especially since most ISPs don't provide any easy way to track or limit the amount used. It should be more linear. Really the bill should have two parts: a small fixed connection fee based on the provisioned peak bandwidth to cover last-mile equipment costs and basic unmetered, contention-free connectivity at perhaps 500kbps, and a charge for data transferred above that limit proportional to the product of data size and priority/weight. Priorities should be set on the CPE side of the link using the DSCP field according to whatever policies the subscriber chooses, with "unmetered" (weight=0) as the default classification for automated background traffic and low-priority/bulk (weight=1) as the default for anything initiated by the user.[1] Higher priority traffic would carry a higher weight in the bandwidth allocation when the link is under contention but would also cost more per MB. For example, if there are 100 subscribers using only bulk traffic and 50 subscribers using only priority-2 traffic on a 1Gbps shared link the available bandwidth (925Mbps after the reservation for "unmetered") would be divided into 200 shares (100 + 2x50) with bulk traffic getting one share (4.6Mbps) per subscriber and priority traffic getting two shares (9.3Mbps). Put another way, 1MB of priority-2 traffic costs twice as much as 1MB of bulk traffic but is delivered in half the time. Of course other priorities/weights are possible, including fractions.

[1] This part would require better interfaces for classifying traffic at the source, since almost everything looks like opaque TLS traffic to the router these days. The router has no concept of whether a human being is waiting for a given transfer to complete, or how much the subscriber (who may not be the end user) is willing to spend to speed up the process. I'd imagine an algorithm based on target speeds and a monthly budget could work reasonably well as an approximation, though, combined with some basic source- and destination-based rules.
That's what I mean. It's a public image / marketing problem if the TSA starts blanket banning apple laptops.
That's one of the reasons power utilities are regulated by the government.

Yes, every organization is dependent on other organizations. That's why it's so important to be thoughtful about how those organizations are structured and what their incentives are. It's not the being dependent on an organization that's a problem, it's being dependent on an organization that has little regulation, whose goal is to make as much money as possible, and who thinks of your organization as a cost sink.

People tend to get into this mindset that businesses and government are fundamentally different, but their both just social institutions with their sometimes different sometimes similar rules and incentives.

> I too, am baffled by how many of the greatest advocates of democracy seem to have been brainwashed into resisting democracy in the workplace.

The owners of those workplaces have spent decades and millions of dollars creating propandanda to do that brainwashing.
They're not stupid, for the most part. They just have a different set of priorities.

Many of the individuals supporting the trade war and tariffs know that it's causing them problems, but as far as they're concerned it's worth it to stop China from "screwing them over" or "taking advantage of them". This is not, in fact, an unusual thing- people are are frequently willing to take some personal pain to punish what they believe is wrongdoing or failure to adhere to social norms.

I happen to be on the side that believes the tariffs and trade war are doing more harm than good, but labeling those who disagree as stupid is exactly the sort of thing that leads to resentment, failure to communicate, and polarization, none of which are valuable.
How did you learn sumerian? And what sumerian texts are you reading? I am intrigued
Wearing them as I type, have been for at least 10 years, will likely wear them til I die.
Yeah China definitely has more to lose. The US will win if it goes on for long enough, but it's like chopping off your hand in order to chop off another guy's arm. You're technically winning, but you're also inflicting enormous pain on yourself.

I also agree that in reality China has more ability to withstand pain and the US will blink first if it comes down to it.
I'd disagree with this approach. If your target retirement date really is 2050, you have more than enough time to weather a downturn in the market.

The key problem with timing the market is it's easy to miss out on the recovery. Most people get back in once the recovery is obvious and the big gains have already happened.

During 2008 I tried to put my money where my mouth was and not touch my investments. My portfolio went down by 35% (several hundreds of thousands). But I was in at the bottom. However, it recovered in less than 2 years and is now up about 250%, mainly because I was fully invested during all the big gains.