skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Better to use a European pigeon, less likely to get pulled over.
JATO is for takeoff, thrust in the aft direction is not the same as trying to rocket assist a landing. Completely different. It's also extremely hard on airframes.

The idea is not feasible.

Also your list of "carrier aircraft requirements" is incorrect, the JSF is a single engine aircraft, and landing gear is a major requirement of a carrier aircraft. The F22 is not a naval aircraft, was not designed to be, and never will be.
I hate that companies have no concept of storage optimization anymore - sure, higher-res textures take up more space, but there’s literally no excuse for Battlefield 1 taking up 70GB of my PS4 storage. Plus the PS4 does weird stuff with updates, so I need to leave ~100GB of my 2TB drive free at any time so that it can figure out what to do with those massive update files before deleting the unneeded files...

I have found that forcing the PS4 to use CloudFlare’s DNS speeds up downloads by an order of magnitude, though, which is nice - updates that used to take an hour or more now downloads in <10 minutes.
@skinnymuch: Sorry if I guessed wrongly at the reason for your question. I probably was substituting my own reasoning.

@kragen: I think there's an interesting parallel between "jokes" of this form and intentional errors in Nigerian spam. Both serve to focus on the small portion of the audience most likely to be receptive, at the cost of eliminating some larger percentage who would otherwise be receptive. Whether this is a win depends on your goals.
It's alright, copyright doesn't govern pharmaceuticals anyway. That's what patents are for and they expire much more quickly than copyrights do though it's longer than four years.

Functional ideas or features are explicitly excluded from copyright or trademark protection.
So for a few million views (==3m?), that translates to $600-$12,000?

huh, I would not have guessed that. But I also have no concept of how much a few million views is for a typical content creator.
Native Lazy Loading Has Arrived – BBC Design and Engineering – Medium
The land isn't confiscated. The owner still owns the land and gets a royalty for the pipeline being there.
>I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm trying to give you a framework to understand your own opinion.

The fact that you don't seem to comprehend how absurd and arrogant it is that you think you need to help me understand my own opinion (which you continue to misrepresent) is the reason why I am not inclined to do a charitable reading of what you're saying. You seem to think very highly of yourself, to the point where you seem completely unable to conceive that you might have misapprehended the words of others, and assume immediately that anything that seems illogical to you must be the result of others being confused.

While I'm sure you think you're helping me by showering me with your amazing knowledge and clarity of mind, or something along those lines, you're actually just being annoying. Which is why I'm not inclined to read your comments "with an open mind", thank you very much.

>you are expressing something that is purely an opinion, and can never be anything more than an opinion

Yes. Indeed. You are 100% correct about that. You seem to think I believe "sanity=success" to be an objective fact. I do not.

What I believe is "rationality = acting in a manner one believes they will further their own success, however they define their own success", and that rationality requires sanity. When I state this, I am not stating it to be objective fact. I am making it clear where I stand. If you disagree with me on these premises, well, that's that. We disagree, and that's OK. The rest of my argument stands on the premises that rationality = taking decisions that one believes will further one's own success, and that rationality -> sanity (and therefore insanity implies irrationality, but one can be sane and irrational).

Your example about temporary insanity is actually interesting, because it reveals exactly what you have misapprehended.

>What if my goal is to go temporarily insane to see what that is like? Then you are claiming that I'm only sane if I'm insane...

You seem to think I am saying that you are only rational while you are succeeding, but that's not it. I am claiming you are rational if you act in a way you believe will lead to you succeeding. Or, in other terms, if you strive to act in ways that you believe will maximize your own "success" metric - or "utility", if you will.

So if your ultimate goal is to go insane (and going insane will not interfere with any other goals which are more important than going insane), if you are doing things you believe will make yourself insane, you are rational.

However, once you make yourself insane, you will, by virtue of the fact that insanity implies irrationality, not be rational anymore.

Failing to go insane does not mean you are irrational, just as someone whose greatest goal is to become rich does not become irrational simply by failing to become rich, as long as they keep trying to become rich while becoming rich is their goal (or "increases their utility").

If I believed what you seem to think I believe, I'd have to believe that every single person who makes a resolution to achieve some goal is insane as long as the goal has not been achieved.
It's more like:

"It only rains on my birthday. It's raining today - it must be my birthday."

At least I'm not aware of any inversions of the 10-2 bond yield curve in the last 50 years that was not followed by a recession, however minor.
Good luck getting a negative interest rate loan as a poor person
Handling Unused CSS in SASS to Improve Performance – Smashing Magazine
It's the particular revenue model of the marketplace that causes the problem—the one where cashflow all fans-in from advertisers to YouTube itself, and then from there back out to content creators according to view metrics.

YouTube content creators have responded to the flaws in this model by choosing a better one: one where advertisers pay them directly; they put the ad directly into the video; and YouTube isn't involved.

The production side of this alternate relationship is a big hassle, though; it's like it's the 1930s again, when the actors in soap operas would stop to advertise soap.

It'd be very easy to build a "middle way" where the platform handles inserting the ad creative into the video, and handles payment processing between the advertiser and the content-creator, and even captures view metrics to allow the advertiser visibility into their spend—but where the platform doesn't decide which advertisements run on which videos (with that instead being entirely up to the advertiser and the content creator to schedule between themselves.)

Yes, insofar as Google is an ad-tech company, that distributed-ad-auction is their business model's secret sauce/moat, and I'm suggesting they just throw it away. But in this case, the "tech" part of ad-tech is precisely what's killing YouTube as a monetizable platform. Content creators just need ads, not ad-tech.
Besides the batting average comment, he said that in 1998 for a particular reason:

> First, look at the whole piece. It was a thing for the Times magazine's 100th anniversary, written as if by someone looking back from 2098, so the point was to be fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting; I mean, there are lines in there about St. Petersburg having more skyscrapers than New York, which was not a prediction, just a thought-provoker.

* https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-int...

That was the year Apple was still on the ropes (Microsoft's investment was in 1997), Google was just kicked off by a $100K cheque by Bechtolsheim, Amazon was four years old, and Facebook didn't even exist.

Give it a rest, it's been over twenty years:

> I must have tossed it off quickly (at the time I was mainly focused on the Asian financial crisis!), then later conflated it in my memory with the NYT piece. Anyway, I was clearly trying to be provocative, and got it wrong, which happens to all of us sometimes.

* https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-krugman-internets-eff...

How wise were you when you were twenty years younger than you are now? Sheesh.
As long as we want to eliminate "disinformation", it's good that different opinions from different perspectives occur in this thread. To be honest, if a thread about a global political affair has only one sound, it's disinformation to me as well. Ppl could believe in sth in common and share common value, that's why we have right to protest if the value is under compromise; but ppl could also have different opinion and every right to express the opinion, that's why we have HN.
If taking orders in that volume require significant investment, wouldn't you make sure they commit to the order volume over the next N years until the capital investment is paid off?
A recession will follow in 12-24 months, based on my understanding of the bond yield curve and close following of it in recent years. We can check in mid 2020 and see if that timeline holds.
Demo Data as Code
>the messy parts of the UEFI ecosystem

The jokes practically write themselves.
Context also matters. Veritas has repeatedly and intentionally taken information out of context to skew the message.
The balanced portfolio is a 60/40 stock/fixed income (government bonds, etc) split. If you're running hot (a 90/10 balance seems quite toasty) then perhaps you could consider pulling back to a more moderate position until you feel we're approaching the bottom, and then return to your aggressive split.
I'm going to guess they're authoritarians of some kind. If not that, they're going to do what people who dwell on paradoxes tend to do: go insane, come up with a shoddy rationalization, or become comedians.
"Known", yes, though probably not widely so. As I understand it, passive investing was generally considered a bad or at least risky idea at the time Vanguard was created.
Top 10% of assets?

This [1] suggests that $1,180,000 would put you in the top 10% in the US, which if you're living off (and in) it won't stretch that far.

If top 10% of income earners, that's quite a movable feast. If I have $1,000,000 in shares earning 10% and taking all as income, am I rich, if I've got $10,000,000 in less risky investments, and after reinvesting to account for inflation, earning 1% the same amount of rich? One advantage of taking an income from assets is that you can choose how and when.

I suspect the latter approach notionally invested in some prudent fashion would give a figure comparable to a wage, I misses out on some big differences though, no having to work, worry about getting sick, having the money there if you need is a major psychological boost, and if you want to buy a house, you can, plus you can pass on assets, which you can't do with a job.

[1] https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...
That model seems incomplete given the lack of efficiency as a variable. Home energy usage went down in spite of growth in electronics and power mainly due to better lighting efficiency alone. While it can help it doesn't drive all.

One common mistake in economic growth modeling is thinking only in terms of bulk. We are far richer than bronze age herdsmen but very few of us have tens of thousands of livestock.
Got some reading time? Keep your cash but offset with leveraged ETFs. See here for how it works and why warnings of "decay" are overstated:

https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10...

Example:

75% short term treasuries;
8.33% S&P 500 3x;
8.33% long term treasuries 3x;
8.33% gold 3x

E.g:

75% SCHO;
8.33% UPRO;
8.33% TMF;
8.33% UGLD

Rebalance quarterly. Steer clear from the advice in the thread to buy volatility (XIV).

Good luck.
Idk if his work flow is still the same but as of well into the digital age, Nick Brandt was still shooting with a Pentax 6x7.
> Because NSA can't legally "spy" on US citizens, they would be happy to allow UK, or say NZ, to access those backdoors and record everything US citizens do.

This is, modulo using the hypothetical backdoors under general discussion, pretty much exactly what the "Five Eyes" member states (which set includes .nz and .uk) are doing for one another already.
I mostly shoot in aperture mode with auto-iso (with a maximum set). I adjust exposure as needed.

I will go to manual in challenging light situations or when taking specialized pics like of the moon or something.

I do recommend using manual when learning so the learner sees what happens.
> I'm still kind of amazed how difficult it is to create a Lisp program that isn't hundreds of MB in size.

That's not true IME. No doubt SBCL binaries are large, but they start around 70 Mb and grow from there. The growth depends partly on how many shared libraries are loaded when the image is created. Commercial Lisps are supposed to be better, but I haven't used them so I can't really say.

For smaller tasks SBCL (and possibly others) support scripting using a "shebang line" of "#!/usr/bin/sbcl --script".
Good translation.

However, the meaning of just is varied and the extent of the influence of Lat ius, "right" or Ger just, jeh + -st (please don't make me elaborate on je), is well hard to estimate. Cp "right now", jetzt "now".

I thought you might be takin a round trip from simple to einfach to just, inadvertantly mixing differently sensed variants of einfach. I shouldn't be assuminc, but the influence of ein- "one" or ein "in" (cp Fr en, Gr ana etc, etc) is again hard to gauge even for native speakers and encoded in contextual usage patterns (cp e.g. einfältig vs Einfall "quick idea; in-spiration"; respectively).

Since ein and sim- reflect old roots deemed to mean "one" in different idioms (the latter especially in Hittite, but also e.g. Ger sämtlich) it is tempting to equate io- with those and the Indo-European reconstruction *oynos "one".
> The academic and hobbyist internet is fine, and not that much different from the old days.

YouTube, and dreams of monetization, have infected the hobbyist internet too. I am active in some niche travel hobbies. It used to be that people in this subculture would write detailed text blogs with tips about various routes and definitions. Now, people think video is the default medium for sharing one’s information, and so they make YT videos that have lots of whizbang effects and GoPro shots but aren’t very information-dense. You have to sit through many minutes (or up to an hour) of a guy stuttering “Uh... So...” to eventually glean details that might help you. It sucks. For a while the people who made these videos would also spam Reddit and specialist forums with links, clearly interested in the prospect of monetizing, but now everyone seems to understand that YT is not a reliable path to financial success.

The decline of text blogging is also partly Google’s fault, in that lots of hobbyist blogs are now excluded from search results even if you try to search for the exact terms you know are found in the blog entry.
He started 500 businesses, 6 went bankrupt.
I used to really enjoy playing really dirty psy in the middle of the day, but slowed right down - like -10%. I loved the effect personally, but I did get kicked off the decks quite often..
Which numbers?
kind of the opposite of stagflation

deflecitation
Just like in SERPs, some keywords (video verticals?) are more valuable than others to advertisers, so views monetize differently per vertical. You can bet that a video about e.g. high-end fashion or jewellery gets huge CPMs; and that a video about e.g. software piracy gets basically nil CPMs (because the viewers are the least likely audience to pay for anything!)
Because as a language it has some nice properties that make it conceptually easy to do otherwise complex.

The sad truth is that beside that, it’s severely lacking in real-world-usable libraries, there are a number of implementations with none of them gaining a majority share if users and, last but not the least, a kind of distance from the operating system that make it non-obvious to reason about the usual stuff (“ports” instead fo file descriptors, vm memory dump to disk as a form of binary executable generation, etc etc).

So lisp has some cool things but will never likely become a mainstream language, hence the perpetual hype.
Facebook should probably wait for a few years until it does it. Currently it is the main traffic driver for “news” outlets and they will likely try to discredit the search engine.
Thanks!

1. A few of the top and more intuitive things we found in the bay area to be indicative of an upswing include an increase in food trucks and vietnamese restaurants. As well as increases in the number of social media postings about pets.

2. Yes, we believe it will. We have backtested on a ton of different markets and been tracking our models predictions in these markets over the past year and it seems to apply for most cities where these alternative data sources are present. Obviously (and perhaps interestingly) the things that seem to drive revitalization do have some constants between cities but they do also vary a decent amount by geographic area.

3. This was somewhat tricky. Obviously some of the sources we use like home prices and sales are more readily available and have existed for a long time. Others, not so much, especially for alternative data sources. We tried to choose sources that had been around longer (around a decade was a proxy) and had historical data that could be accessed via an api or scraping. This limited the list of sources we could use but we are quite happy with the list we ended up having that met this requirement.

And yes, we had looked at that competition Zillow ran and drew some inspiration from it. We do currently use satellite and street view data and are actively adding more uses for it, although we currently do not have the sunlight measurement per property integrated. I noticed that (i think?) as a new feature for homes when you look at them on zillow which was cool!
Not anymore they aren't, but they were when the last gen of listening devices were launched.
What It Takes to Hire 10 Employees in San Francisco
Found this torrent for the same files
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:221cedaadd3a04e21b7ef365a1dc37bf0908b88f
> Absolute BS. You have not come across enough photographers. A computer is NEVER better than a human at evaluating light, unless you are looking at a uniform 18% grey card.

Could you please substantiate your claim with any references or information? I am curious because I suspect you may be conflating dynamic range of human vision vs. sensor's dynamic range. Just because sensor's dynamic range isn't as wide as human vision, it has no bearing on sophisticated algorithms in today's cameras that determine the optimal exposure. Modern cameras have ridiculous processing power, scene recognition, face detection, and all kinds of algorithms that determine the best exposure. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

I use a Leica M10 and the auto mode almost always nails the exposure (I use full 3D metering).

In my view, "Manual Mode" in cameras is akin to "Manual Transmission" in cars, almost all super cars have automatic transmission for obvious reasons.
"Normally" as in Denmark, or "normally" as in "anywhere in the world", or for some other meaning of "normally"? Why wouldn't it be if inflation is meant to be a measure of changes in the expenses of average households?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says "The measure of inflation is the inflation rate, the annualized percentage change in a general price index, usually the consumer price index, over time." and links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index which says "The index is usually computed monthly, or quarterly in some countries, as a weighted average of sub-indices for different components of consumer expenditure, such as food, housing, shoes, clothing, each of which is in turn a weighted average of sub-sub-indices." and goes on to give an example (apparently ficional) in which housing makes up 41.4% of the index.

Edit: My copy of Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, 19th edition, has an example of a consumer price index including housing weighted at 42.4%. At that weighting, unless my math is off, the remaining 57.6% of the stuff in the index would need to get cheaper by 1.2% to get to overall 1% inflation with a 4% increase in housing prices:

42.4 * 1.04 + 57.6 * (1 - 0.012) = 101.00479999999999

Some things do get cheaper over time (like consumer electronics, sometimes), but others not so much.
Corporate cash is $1.8 trillion, but that's against $2 trillion of debt maturing in the next five years and $15 trillion total. I'm worried... he's probably worried as well https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-09/corporate...
Here is a powerful and elegant human language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
(although it should be said that its power is mostly hypothetical until it becomes widely used, which may be never)
Yes! That's what I'm getting at! The reality of Youtube is that it made it easier to upload videos. The amount of time it takes to learn how to do that and build your own content distribution mechanism isn't really that hard. Most of us around here could do it in a day or two using FFMPEG and amazon buckets.

It actually does in fact take less time to build something to share your own content than it does to create the content itself.

That's why I don't understand why does airbnb take 10% of the transaction? They are just a website. Why does Apple take 30%? They are just a search engine.

And google makes something like $1.2 million per employee. How much of that on average does the google employee get to keep? Is it more or less than content creators?
Homes come in a lot of shapes and sizes though - in Italy where I lived for a number of years, it's pretty common for people to live in a flat in a 4/6/8/whatever unit building, either as owners or renters.

Depending on where demand is, I'd expect more of that sort of thing too, if it's allowed. In the US, it is forbidden to build those kinds of homes in large areas of our cities.
It really shouldn't be that hard. The behavior could work by question: it's fine to show the accepted answer while the original asker is maintaining the question.

But if a question gets a lot of new answers without the original answerer reacting any more, just change the algorithm to show the answer with the most votes in the pas month/year.
Why don't they buy gold or some other asset that does not lose money like this?
There is a lot of bad science here. Possible contamination from using plastic bags to collect samples. Results not matching the expected distribution between rural and urban samples.
Because businesses donate more money to politicians than you do.
Which unions in particular?
> If your only work is buying stuff wholesale and boxing it up and sending it to Amazon then you, frankly, don't deserve much profit for a few hours of monkey level work.

This line needs to stop - it's flat wrong.

It's not monkey level work - and it's exactly how the entire manufacturer-distributor-wholesaler-retailer relationship has always existed, and it brings obvious significant value to the entire chain, all the way down to you, the customer.

The only difference is the end customer is now more aware, or thinks they're aware, of the chain. Nothing has changed - and it's not going to change. There's too many things and doodads out there in the world that people want to buy for any single company to procure and manage them all.