skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hate speech is a loaded term where the connotations are more powerful than the literal definition. Other examples include racist and sexist.

Do you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist, but so what. All discrimination is not wrong, like how employers (attempt to) strongly discriminate based on ability.

Hate speech is in the same bucket. It has a murky, varying meaning depending on who you talk to.

I personally also do not believe in "hate speech". Its an attempt to bait-and-switch language, like calling someone hateful when really you just disagree with them, or maybe theyre just rude. Its begging the question.
Yes, Rust is a perfect fit for such a project.
That kind of sentence is gold.

Often half or (much) more of the value of a paper is in the references, and that's not a bad thing. Sometimes it is the first thing I read.

There's no ink shortage, no link limit on the Internet, and every paper has an abstract for quick filtering. As a curious person I want everything that serves to establish the argument cited so I can be guided to papers of interest and get a better idea of where an idea fits in the broader field.
How do you propose basic services you use every day (i.e. infrastructure) are paid for if not through taxes?
Noted, thanks =)
What?! Polarization has been around since long before social media.

The two systemic factors driving it have been 1) open democratic primaries which push party nominees away from the center and towards greater polarization, and 2) increasingly polarized media originally driven cable TV news that could profitably deliver to a specific niche, e.g. Fox News, and websites generally.

Social media is just the icing on the cake.
You were likely phished, have a banking trojan on your system or at some point used your banking login on your phone.

I've dealt with people in your situation. In one instance the victim may have used their bank card in one of those payment apps which were then compromised.

For financially gained low sophistication crooks,they just want as much from your checking account as they can so getting your cc#,payment app login and similar access is good enough. No need to actually login to your bank.

That said,even with 2FA turned on,if you can reset it via email then they probably gained access to your email (again,phish) saw emails from your bank,reset 2FA ,delete email trail and login.

If you dont have 2FA on your email, see if you've gotten push notifications from your bank elsewhere.

If you're on windows my money is on banking trojan but email compromise is also likely. If not, I'e check your phone.
Looks great!

Just curious - What do you need to do with babel/webpack et al. that Create-React-App or Next.js can't do?
Probably a limnic eruption. Or multiple of those.
What does it mean if yield curve is inverted?
Official announcement thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/ct2gcb/annou...
Exactly. We use Redhat because our contract with our customer explicitly states that there has to be support from the OS vendor in place.
Went into the data and took the top 1000 individuals with self cite percentages over 40%, then sorted by institution. Nearly every major institution had individuals in this group: Johns Hopkins (4), Cal Tech (4), Georgia Tech (2), MIT (5), each of the Max Planck Institute campuses (3-7), Moscow State (7), Penn State (6), Stanford (1), Utrecht (2), University of Zurich (4), ETH Zurich (1), DLR (3), Imperial College London (3), University of Tokyo (2), Princeton (5), Kyoto University (4)...

I feel like if this problem were very concerning we'd see the distribution concentrated at certain institutions but I'm not sure there's one with over 10 researchers at them. We hear a lot about questionable Chinese journals, but the highest institution in this list is the Chinese Academy of Sciences with 3 individuals.

I think the more likely case is there are a few bad apples, some bad practices we can't ever fully get rid of, and that some research lends itself more to self-citation.
Pretty much. You can't make all the money in the world. There's more to life than slaving away on someone else's bullshit for a buck. And make no mistake 99% of what we do at work is ultimately irrelevant bullshit that will be gone and forgotten 10 years from now. When I work, I charge pretty penny though, to sustain that kind lifestyle. I do consulting at the moment. Already made enough money this year to last me 3-4 years. Mortgage is paid off, and I have no debt at all.

US tech workplace is super unfriendly to part time work, unfortunately, so instead I just "part time" by not working for a while every 3-4 years. My wife does the same thing. She left her job over a year ago, so she's not working at the moment, though she's more of a social animal, so she'll start looking in September. Me? If the tech industry disappeared today, I'd breathe a sigh of relief, and switch to brewing beer (which is something I'm pretty good at as well). As things are right now, tech is the easiest possible way for me to make the most money per hour (and therefore maximize my downtime).
My wife used to assign important tasks in the form of a question until I told her if it’s a question don’t be surprised if I say no. However if you really want it done just say so and I’ll gladly do it no questions asked. And the whole “can you please” is just another form of coercion in my view - we’ve gotten so polite as a society no one dares damage their own or another’s fragile world when interacting with one another.
"Marry my wife. It worked for me!"
of course they haven't. Why would they? There is no penalty for just lying to their customers and continuing to profit from it.
> you have a sexual preference? In other words, you immediately discount someone based on qualities they were born with and have no control over. That by definition makes you a sexist

No it doesn't.
I never suggested eliminating taxes.
I did notice that notifications were habit-inducing early on, and disabled them entirely for Facebook/Twitter/Email years ago. Still, finding myself regularly going back to all of them, I'm not sure that it's the only problem
Or maybe there are substantive sociopolitical issues at play - primarily people at some kind of disadvantage trying to wrest power, wealth and control from those who already have it (as if history has never heard that story before). Except now it is this weird kind of interplay between race, gender, migrants, and no-one is which side they are on.
Actually he bought $3m worth two days before the report came out, and another $2m after the report came out, for a total of $5m.

Other GE executives/directors likewise bought more stock after the report came out.

More significantly than any of the above, in my opinion, is that one of the world's most respected investors, Stanley Druckenmiller, stated he bought more after the report came out:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/stanley-druckenmiller-says-h...
In that case, the probability of choosing 5 words so relevant at random (including the two main targets, the code name of the whole operation and the code name of the most crucial part of it) are so small that their suspicions were totally warranted statistically.

They tried to transform their suspicions into material elements and came empty handed, and left the man alone, which is the core difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime.

However this coincidence is so strange that on that basis alone I am wondering if they did not miss something.
It’s not exactly a convenient location to haul bodies to. For example, the lead author in one of the papers reporting this was unable to visit the site personally; she was kept at base camp with altitude sickness for the duration of the site visit.

Reporting notes that normally when you find a lot of bodies you’ve found a graveyard, but this site seems different enough from normal to warrant a second look.
It's a bad idea to put both your money and your career into the same basket. Either the employees will immediately sell the equity, which will essentially make this just a tax cut, or (if they can't) they'll be in a dangerous position and the next recession will be devastating.
Recommended reading: https://blog.ycombinator.com/how-to-manage-a-board/ (especially the "board compensation" section)
I think their point isn't that terrorists leveraging this tech not a problem. It is certainly a problem. But the greater problem being a few large entities being the only ones who have access to or control over it.

I think it's pretty clear that terrorists or any other bad actor will find great value & utility in this tech. The article from OpenAI says 'Humans can be convinced by synthetic text.' & research at Cornell found people find it almost as convincing as New York Times articles. I would be interested in learning about the methods you guys are using to determine of it? I wonder how that could be measured?

So let's assume the answer is 'YES! This technology is dangerous". The Middlebury program, Cornell, and more and more universities and research groups find the same thing. Then what will the recommendations be? Certainly not to release it into the wild. I think they will be to keep it locked up. To keep it in the hands of a few large and powerful companies, with the resources to 'manage' such a thing.

This seems to be what the original comment is trying to illustrate, and I think it's an interesting point to consider the implications of long term. The tech exists now. There is no going back. So is it worse to let it out of the box, or to let a but a few have control over it?
Closely related, I ask "How do you spend your time during the week?"
In a country that protects money transfers as speech, shouldn't this be obvious?
The issue isn't that its ex-post, it's how theory is built. There are better and more credible resources/work on this topic than a blog post.

The most common terms I've seen that gets used in academic research that is critical of how theories about entrepreneurship are built are 'mythifciation' and 'reification'...

e.g., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-6486.00...
Fuck. This is not good in either situation. If it's market manipulation, then shorters will be out in force. If not, then an org the size of GE will be a catalyst.
Is it? Wal-Mart's revenue is 500billion. 500 thosand is .0001%. If you make 200k, thats like suing someone over 20 bucks
The author's pseudo-code implies that bd->items is full already, since it is probably initialized to the initial number of items that are added. This is probably for memory optimization for games. Also explains why resize increases the size by 1, just enough memory to add the new item.

This way you don't need to worry about keeping track of size and capacity either.

The reason I suggested -1 is because when we iterate through bd->items, we need a way to know if it's a valid value or just "holed".
Ishkur’s Guide to Electronic Music
Totally, like why does Wal-Mart even bother selling items that cost less than a million dollars?
I agree! Stick it to the Man.
The hot air exhaust from an old Mac pro is enough to power this origami pinwheel
Customers ability to 1. Punish innovation and 2. Punish a lack of innovation is a little bit hard to overestimate as a Product Manager. Experimentation = bad, no experimentation = also bad. It's like how Google makes some of the best software ever, and also people savagely denounce them every time they kill a failing product. As if they would have learned as fast if they either didn't make the product to begin with or kept it around to languish and maintain.
Android Studio 3.5 Released
Thing is the big tech cos also compete with each other. You can online shop at amazon, walmart, ebay and many other small online shops. Same with advertising. You can advertise at google, fb, twitter and a bunch of other small advertising providers.

Yes they distort their respective markets and put pressure on suppliers, but so does walmart and other big retailers. So if the law comes into place, it shouldn’t be limited to the online space
The State of Open Source - Vulnerabilities Management Report
Let's be careful here: I'm not saying getting paid is the only important thing. Far from from it!

But what I am saying is that it shows what I'm doing is important to other people. It's not just something I'm doing for myself.

> it's what the market / society / the invisible hand has decided is deserving of almost outlandlishly wealthy levels of pay, so I do it.

That's true, but I prefer to deabstractify it a bit. There are real people, who have decided to spend substantial money on paying you and me to do what we do, because they think it's important. That makes it very real to me. And confirmed by an independent outside "reviewer", so to speak.

I came into this way of thinking after being a stubborn youth who hated work and dreamt about never having to do it. But I couldn't get the ethics of it all to add up. So this is how I made sense of things.

Of course, what you describe sounds like working for the benefit of others as well.
Seven figures isn't pocket change for anybody. Unless they're doing this with someone else's money, that seems like a pretty good signal to me.
If you cared you would tip cash. The thing is, people don't care.
Behind a Made-for-TV Hong Kong Protest Narrative
Ok, ok, asset price inflation measured by the S&P 500 has been about 9% annually from $123 in 1982 to $2,920 in 2019. In addition, the availability of debt amplifies increases. For example, the Case-Shiller Home Price Index increased from 100 to 220 between 2000 and 2019 (about 4% annually), but owners often leverage 80% at the start, and they actually have a 13% annual return (less carrying costs)-- lets say double the nominal return.

If high finance generated a ROI of 9% x 2 on average since 1982, through asset price gains magnified by leverage ... that would be 64% every 3 years, on average for almost 40 years. That's a remarkable inflationary event, however you choose to define 'hyperinflation.'
> but that's all sorts of illegal

There's a subset of people who find this aspect appealing.
Not necessarily. Micro-converters to step up from panel DC to a common DC bus, and then inverting from the common DC bus to house's AC bus is much cheaper than going straight from DC to AC at the panel.

My house is wired up this way, with individual DC/DC maximum power-point trackers at the panel, and a central inverter.
No, I'm talking about superposition. Classical models can only simulate superposition with an exponential amount of information to model each possibility of a sequence of qbits. Shor's algorithms can only factor large integers efficiently because it uses a quantum fourier transform that manipulates the superimposed states. If you could do that with a classical model, then you would have a superpower that no one else has without a quantum computer.
Given valuations it seems like capital has less power than ever, so it's kind of strange how the politics suggests that capital has more power than ever. It is very hard to find good investments as the capital side and simultaneously people diefy the capital class. Similar to how everyone fears losing their jobs to automation that doesn't seem to be having that much impact. This to me is basically affirmation that 1. Good CEOs are really hard to hire and retain and so 2. Power is shifting from capital (of which there is lots) to good CEOs (of which there are few) and finally that 3. Big companies have largely run out of ideas to grow so they would rather fight their battles on the PR front.
Coincidentally, this recent HN post also contains a fine introduction to processor internals of this sort: https://gamozolabs.github.io/metrology/2019/08/19/sushi_roll.... I know you (BeeOnRope) don't need the introductory parts, but you might appreciate the meat of his post.
edit: turns out this rebuttal was by Andrew Left, a serial activist short seller himself, who was banned from trading in Hong Kong for falsifying reports on his website. LOL.

Citron says the report didn't "pass the smell test".

It's quite a lengthy report. One could simply read it and make a point by point rebuttal. But they don't do that at all.

They say:

> The credibility of Mr. Markopolos has to be questioned immediately when he was asked on CNBC and other media why he chose GE now. To this he responded: “They moved their headquarters to Boston last year. My hometown. I don’t appreciate when you’re running a scam in my hometown.”

They then go on to frame this as a giant 'AHAH! Gotcha.' Instead of rebutting the actual report.

They then go on to claim that "Aggressive accounting" is not fraud. LOL. I nearly fell out of my fucking chair when I read that one.

HOW DARE YOU, SIR. IT'S NOT FRAUD. IT'S AGGRESSIVE ACCOUNTING.

wut's aggressive accounting?

Aggressive accounting refers to an accounting department's deliberate and purposeful tampering with its company's financials in order to outwardly characterize its revenues as higher than they truly are.

So fraud?

[HOW DAAAARE YOU!] "Aggressive accounting" .... "has helped fuel a growing economy" [AND EVERYONE DOES IT SO THERE!] (actual quote in quotation marks)

In summary, their arguments are.

- Aggressive accounting is not fraud (it is)

- Activist short selling is the real culprit (This is like blaming bug bounties for bugs in code. Even more confusing is that THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT CITRON'S BUSINESS MODEL IS. WTF!?)

- The author has a big head and we don't like him (so therefore made the whole thing up??? Or Something?)

- The CEO bought 3 million in stocks as a demonstration of his belief in GE, therefore NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WOW. 3 MILLION. MUCH CONFIDENCE!

Citron's arguments wouldn't be out of place in The Onion.
> I don't see why it wouldn't be illegal to break up your company into a thousand subsidiaries to evade taxes

It could be illegal, but this isn't the same as comparing a few timestamps. You'd need to dive into WHY the subsidiaries exist to determine that they weren't "legal" structures.

> Even if you asked them, it wouldn't be hard to come up with legal reasons

And as I said, they might be! There are probably many reasons to split up an organization that aren't CURRENTLY worth the effort. But this suddenly makes it worth the effort and they already have the justification.

The details of what these justifications are can be interesting, but are largely specific to each entity. Here is one general example: if you have a business presence in every state, boom, 50 subsidiaries already there. Come up with a few other bogus reasons and you can easily rack up entirely legal subsidiaries that on the surface, seem like intelligent organizational choices.
You hit it.

My younger cousins were a lot more well off than my side of the family, went to private or high competitive schools from kindergarten on, and are super smart.

I used to hang out with them and their friends from time to time, and it struck me how uniform their aspirations all were. Investment Banking, Consulting or medicine. Maybe a few wanted to be lawyers.

It struck me then and now as an incredible waste of talent.
I recently read that, to be a successful large-scale short seller, you have to be an activist.

You can't just sell a stock and wait passively for it to eventually go down. You HAVE to be out on CNBC and elsewhere trying to actively prove that the company is overvalued.

Look at the way Bill Ackman and Pershing Square Ventures went after Herbalife for years. Not (just) because they thought a fraud was going on. But they were trying to make billions of dollars for themselves too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/business/dealbook/ackman-...

Ackman spent 5 years on the road doing roadshows, on TV, trying to make the case for fraud.
I feel like there's potential for a class-action lawsuit there on behalf of the customers.
I sure hope not. I’ve had a lot of managers who are women in my career and I prefer them to men because they are more direct. Could you please and it’s derivatives have almost always exclusively been a male trait unless the person was British/Irish (sorry to over generalize).
It is inconvenient to carry cash though. I would gladly tip cash if I didn't have to drive to an ATM just to get it thereby defeating the purpose of having something delivered.
>Semi-relatedly, theres a 4000 year old dolmen close to my house and lying beside it is a ~200 year old broken grave stone

If your cat ever dies, it might worth the experiment to bury it there...
Depends on who you ask. Americans increasingly believe otherwise. Here's an anecdote https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-blacks-is-not-a-sexual-pref...
Landlord busted for renting micro-apartments
Can anyone speak to the quality of this book. Been looking to learn PostgreSQL and get a better understanding of SQL.
The US doesn’t protect “money transfers” as speech as such. Buckley v. Valeo upheld limits on campaign contributions, for example. What that and Citizens United struck down was restrictions on using money to pay for political expression. If you want to spend $500 billion to put a sign on the moon that says “vote for Biden” you can do that. That’s not protecting “money transfers as speech,” it’s striking down restrictions on speech and political expression disguised as restrictions on money transfers.

Of course that makes sense. If the government can stop you from spending $500 billion to put a sign on the moon, “because money isn’t speech,” then the government can stop you from spending $500 at Kinkos to print signs for a protest, for the exact same reason. If the government can use control of money to control speech, it has vast powers over speech because huge amounts of speech involves the expenditure of money. You pay AWS to host your political site? If Citizens United went the other way, the government could control that! Indeed, during oral argument in the Supreme Court, the lawyer for the government defending the campaign finance law was forced to admit that under the government’s view, Congress could ban books by controlling corporate expenditures: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... (pp. 26-30). (It’s one of the most devastating concessions in a Supreme Court oral argument I’ve ever read.)
Good one.

My Mac pro touchpad is getting so warm I sometimes think to put some butter and make an egg on it.

Apple must to fix these issues