skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

> Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

> In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

I wouldn't say they absolutely can since every attempt to do this so far has failed in the courts. It seems like a pretty flimsy theory since the Constitution explicitly says otherwise.
This shouldn't happen, did you make sure to yarn install and restart the reason language server?
Yup. Pretty poor blogpost, basically just picking the most hyped up things.
Because that's how American brick-and-mortar retailers make their profit: they take a cable that you can buy on Ebay for $5 and mark it up to $50, while keeping their prices on big-ticket items (like a TV or laptop) somewhat competitive because people price-shop on those things, but not on accessories.
Unequal taxes seems a valid form of repression.

Start with something simple, say taxing people of one race 15% more than another race. That would seem a valid form of repression.

Okay, so that rarely happens and is almost always combined with far greater forms of repression. But there are less extreme examples. What about taxing someone more when they have kids, or more when they don't?

Sin taxes also seems a way to repress certain behaviors in society by increasing their cost. Why can't the logic apply in other areas of life where tax rates are unequal?
Honestly, who cares?

A lot of people care now because they just filed for an IPO, which is why he returned the money.

But if this was a private company and a co-founder thought he deserved $6 million for his efforts and wanted to label it as a trademark transfer, I see no problem with it.
Holding doesn't change the price: buying moves it up and selling moves it down. An index fund holding 50% of all shares on the market but not trading them would have no influence at all on prices.
It's probably worth noting that that the "intellisense that vscode gives out of the box" is _also_ still delivered by TypeScript. Slap a `//@ts-check` into a js file and you'll find just where the typechecker thinks your jsdoc or usages are lacking or confusing (then maybe add a jsconfig with stricter settings than the default!). If you then fix those, you should be capable of getting _nearly identical_ completions in js and ts (because they really are just variants of the same language).

IMO, TS is all about static enforcement of inline documentation (types), just like how a linter enforces style. You can choose not to enforce it automatically... But at this point I don't get why you wouldn't? I wouldn't argue that style enforcement is best done by hand in the code review stage... So I don't see how further quality checks based on semantics derived from documentation would be any different.
McDonnalds didn't hire any internet shills or anything like that. The media bought into their lawyers public claims about the case without bothering to investigate anything, and the TV talk show circuits picked it up.

Unfortunately, you often don't need to try particularly hard to get the media to repeat false claims.
The label can be useless, I agree, which is why I try to limit my use to certain contexts where its use makes sense or can be inferred correctly.

I do think we should limit its use to something of a legal term, as I tried to explain elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20879152
I have been saying this for years...

Passive investing is great. Especially since the S&P 500 has been up for ~10 or years.

It's when passive investing becomes panic investing (sell everything).
I've had ads for things spoken about show up in FB. I have more of a libertarian mindset, but that really creeps me out and I think speech-based ads be outright banned due to privacy concerns. It's not so much the ads; it's being recorded and potentially having those recordings leak in a data breach.
Yeah, that basically is semantic. UBI would achieve the same thing, but, instead of negative tax, would just credit everyone and then alter the tax rates to achieve equilibrium.

Personally, the improved efficiency from simply collapsing the existing apparatus which is focused on preventing people from cheating seems likely to work. If the goal of the program was to fairly allocate a resource, rather than to prevent people from cheating it would consume a lot less overhead. that is where you can actually find some of the efficiency that the author wants.

Honestly, if you cut a check to a millionaire for $1000, and then tax that person on that $1000, it doesn't work that differently from the fact that we get taxed on the value of our tax returns. it ends up being recursive anyway.
I can relate. My understanding of it thus far leads me to think I can summarize it fairly well though, and I would welcome other people's input or critique on this.

It seems like it's so consequential because he demonstrated that no matter what kind of mathematical system you're using -- and no matter how much mathematics generally speaking develops -- there will be objectively true mathematical statements within that system that can't be proven.

If that part of my understanding is correct, the part that's really interesting to me is whether we can know these true statements to be true, despite them not having proofs. This is where I could be misunderstanding things I suppose, but it suggests there's a disconnect between what's knowable and what's provable, and furthermore, that we can know more than we can prove.

To actual seasoned mathematicians: is this a really naive interpretation of what I've read, or not?
Not knowledgeable on these matters, so my money is in index funds. Obviously a lot of other people are in the same category as myself. The article seems to be saying we'd all be better financial citizens if we put our money into actively managed funds, or did our own investing. The latter is out of reach for most people, and with respect to the former it's somewhat puzzling that managed funds can't consistently outperform index funds (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/15/active-fund-managers-trail-t...), and so the managers of those funds in a strict sense don't earn their fees. So what is the average person with a couple bucks to invest supposed to take from this? The market is in peril because not enough money is flowing to people who do a poor job of managing it?
Awesome, thanks.

(5) ‘pseudonymisation’ means the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person;
Because of "You'll take more money out of my pocket over my cold dead body!" mentality of a lot of of the lower middle class and poor voters who still seem to think the system works for them!

Oh, and stuff like this:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/31/20840700/i...
The change for avoiding secondary GPUs as much as possible has already landed in Firefox 69. This one is about using CoreAnimation.
Microsoft bad, Google good.
I've tried to make this click for me for a long time, to no avail. Do you have any tips?
Why does WeWork increasingly look like one of those deals on Shark Tank that starts off looking great then goes way south when the sharks start probing?

I can see it now:

“Wait, so we’d be investing in your business which is leasing buildings from another business that you own... but we’re not getting a piece of that action?”

“Hold on, so we’d have to license the name of this company back from you and then you continue to get a royalty from that?”

“So what’s your revenue and how much did you take home last year? Sorry say that again?!?”
I've heard this story numerous times as "haha in America X". Many of these stories go around the Netherlands...

"in America someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was hot"

"in America it says on the box to not microwave cats because someone once did"

"in America you get a gun when you open a bank account"

Etc..

Oh well I'm sure similar incorrect stories about Europe float around America.
I love my Panasonic M43 cameras, but the wifi experience with them is miserable. The android app looks like something from 2010, and performs worse. I've tried it with every permutation of four android phones and three Panasonic bodies (GX85, G85, G95) and every combination performs miserably.
> For comparison the yellow vest represented not even a percent of the population during the biggest event

I've always wondered about public support, is this 1% based on substantial polling?
+1 Thank you.

The whole Web 2.0 and beyond phenomenon is about getting some other sucker to over-pay for what you built before you run out of money.
The thing is even if Burry is right (and that's a big if), it doesn't mean that you as an individual investor with a long time-horizon should do anything different.

Burry's argument is that many of the underlying stocks inside the index have a lot less liquidity than the index funds and securities themselves. E.g. if a lot of capital quickly exits the index funds, then some of the single-name stocks may be overwhelmed by the liquidity. That would result in their prices becoming severely dislocated relative to their true value.

But if you're just buying-and-holding that doesn't matter. If the stocks in your portfolio become temporarily dislocated, who cares? Dislocations by definition correct themselves over time. If some stock falls 50% because of panic selling, without anything having to do with the underlying company, it will eventually return to the correct price. And much sooner than the decades long timeline that you're saving for.

That doesn't mean that Burry's thesis is irrelevant to everyone. In particular if you're an institution that offers liquidity to your clients it may be very relevant. Or if you're a bank, hedge fund, or insurance company that's subject to mark-to-market capital ratios or margin calls.

If stocks become very dislocated, your investors may panic and redeem their money. Or your regulator may say you have insufficient capital and have to liquidate. That's very bad, because you'll be forced to sell at fire-sale prices. However, that's not relevant to individual investors, because nobody can force you to sell out just because your portfolio goes down.
Consider the following lambda calculus expression:

((λ x . ((x x) (x x))) (λ x . ((x x) (x x))))

Under β-reduction, this blows up: doubling with every reduction, never repeating itself, growing infinitely long. Let's name this expression "BlowsUp". Recall that the Church encoding for "false" is "(λ x . (λ y . y))". Recall that this acts like an "if/else" statement, taking two arguments and always returning the second, discarding the first. Then its clear that this expression:

((false BlowsUp) (λ y . y))

or more explicitly,

(((λ x . (λ y . y)) ((λ x . ((x x) (x x))) (λ x . ((x x) (x x)))) ) (λ y . y))

should evaluate to "(λ y . y)", the identity function. However, under a call-by-value evaluation strategy, which is eager, the value BlowsUp will need to be evaluated first. Only a lazy evaluation strategy will which first the "false" expression (thereby discarding the part of the program containing BlowsUp entirely, without evaluating it) will succeed.

This is an extraordinarily important case, because recursive functions are typically written with two branches: a base case that terminates, and a recursive case that goes on for ever. For example, consider everyone's favorite recursive function, factorial:

def factorial(n):
if n <= 1:
return 1
else:
return n * factorial(n-1)

Translated into the lambda calculus via the Y combinator, this (and pretty much every other non-trivial recursive function) will exhibit the same property of the above, and will never terminate if evaluated under a strictly eager, call-by-value strategy. Therefore, specifying the call-by-value evaluation strategy is not useful for the purposes of evaluating non-trivial algorithms, which almost always involve recursion. (In the lambda calculus even unbounded iteration must be implemented via recursion so this excludes basically all algorithms of interest to complexity theorists.) Note that languages which use call-by-value for function calls usually have a separate, built-in construct for if/else or && (short-circuiting boolean AND) which allows the programmer to decide when they want to use the "lazy" strategy; the lambda calculus unfortunately is too elegant to admit of such a pragmatic distinction. :)

There is of course a so-called "normal" evaluation strategy for lambda calculus (which is guaranteed to work) but it is basically "call-by-name" (to contrast it with the call-by-value nomenclature) and it has the problems I describe above and is hard to analyze.

https://sookocheff.com/post/fp/evaluating-lambda-expressions...
Did you mean to reply to my post? I don't see the relevance.
> This seems to be getting slightly overblown in that thread. To be clear, this impacted one datacenter out of ten that make up one availability zone out of six in AWS’s us-east-1 region. So we are talking 2-3% at most of that region’s capacity was impacted.

For how many users was this 100% of their business?

Single-digit outage percentages for cloud services like AWS look like no big deal from the big perspective, which means that they often aren't a high priority. But when you're one of the customers in the 2-3%, it is a big deal, and you want it to be a high priority.

Small hosting providers may have only 3 9s of availability, but when your site goes down their world stops until it's fixed. I've seen reports of 5 9s of availability from Amazon, but when your site goes down, their alerts are still all green and they'll call you back at their leisure.
>Why anyone puts a max 10 W port on a desk basically hand-tailored for the SV 4-ft desk open office "experience" is beyond me, though.

Seems simple to me: it costs a lot less to put a cheap, crappy 10W port there, and then they can advertise that their overpriced desk has this fancy feature. The idiot managers at tech companies (probably non-technical HR types) who make the purchasing decisions don't know any better.
In my view there are two take-aways from this: 1. Diversify, but 2. not too much.

1. Even among index funds, maintain some diversification. Don't put all in US large caps (S&P 500), but also some international and some small caps (Russel 2000).

He is saying that given how much money is invested via index funds now, there are opportunities in assets that are not (or insufficiently) represented in index funds. (This is hard, though, and the standard advice to refrain from trying and placing your bets on index funds instead remains valid, I think, particularly for mature markets in which you don't have an edge.)

The second take-away is at a tension with the first:

2. Avoid ETFs that handle illiquid assets (real estate, bonds, etc.) or create synthetic exposure using swaps and derivatives.

For big, liquid assets, the ETF or index fund can just take the investor money and go buy the assets. Then the value of the fund is approximately the value of its constituent assets, sort of by definition, and that value is relatively easy to realise (that is, if you want your money back, you get it - they'll have to sell some of the assets, but they're liquid, and that won't influence price too much).

For smaller or more exotic assets, a fund might not buy them outright, but contract with a third party (an investment bank, typically), and give the bank the money, with the bank promising that it will return the value of the asset. So, it's "like" holding the asset, except that you get the credit risk of the bank - there's a risk the bank might not be able to uphold its promise. And this is most likely to happen when everyone runs for the exit.

> The theater keeps getting more crowded, but the exit door is the same as it always was. All this gets worse as you get into even less liquid equity and bond markets globally.

> ... the impossibility of unwinding the derivatives and naked buy/sell strategies used to help so many of these funds pseudo-match flows and prices each and every day.

So, an ETF promising to deliver the value of an index can generally do it, and there was no big failure so far, but scenarios are conceivable where it cannot deliver.
How can index funds that track the market actually distort the market? In the alternative, wouldn't the same amount of money just be invested in stocks individually? Wouldn't even a small number of active investors jump on distortions and quickly provide more accurate pricing?
>I'd assume there's some stability to knowing that X% of the market is passively invested in indexes.

Indexes holding shares have no influence on the price. The price only changes when traders trade.
> But everyone is a dummy in that sense.

And even honest people well versed in economics will tell you that they are too.
Objectives and Key Results
Note that the headline cost will be very high because much of it ends up being a partial rebate on higher taxes. (This would be true of most people with a middle-class or better income: you'd have higher taxes, but get some of the money back.)

With any redistribution program, just looking at direct costs and not its effects on the economy, the average person breaks even. That's what redistribution means - there's no money being created or destroyed. The numerator and denominator don't change.

But most of us are not average. Like with insurance, most people end up paying most of the time, but if you're out of work for any reason, or just working a low-paying job, then you'll benefit. And like most other insurance, the advantage is security rather than actually saving money, most of the time.

Along with that security comes greater freedom. The question is a philosophical one: do you trust that most of your fellow citizens can handle freedom? Will they live in near-poverty rather than strive for more? Do you trust that if someone decides not to work, they usually have good reasons? And do you think it's worth paying in during good times in order to ensure everyone has somewhat more freedom to choose where to live and how to make a living?

Or do you think that people cannot be trusted and must be controlled via the threat of financial ruin?
Because erectile dysfunction is funnier than diabetes?
I worked for a major DSP / advertising platform and I was asked to setup a campaign to advertise some particular drug to bi-polar people in a manner that would specifically target that population.

I declined to do so and I was later fired. They were within their rights to fire me and I was within my rights to decline. That is all.
Hipcamp | San Francisco | Onsite, Full-Time | https://hipcamp.com/careers

Hipcamp is a marketplace for booking unique camping, glamping, and RVing experiences on over 300,000 campsites, ranches, vineyards, preserves, public parks and more. Andreessen Horowitz recently led the Series B round, valuing the company at $127 million, with participation from Jay-Z's Marcy Venture Partners and Will Smith's Dreamers Fund.

Some open roles:

* Data Engineer, SF or Remote: https://jobs.lever.co/hipcamp/584e582b-ade6-4840-a44d-8c23f5...

* React Native Developer, SF: https://jobs.lever.co/hipcamp/541611f2-88b2-4ae3-bedd-ae05f9...

* Full Stack Software Engineer, SF: https://jobs.lever.co/hipcamp/f1612b67-2712-46c3-81b6-4ca411...

* Growth Engineer, SF: https://jobs.lever.co/hipcamp/58b3ca87-4023-4e2b-8262-ae23cd...

* Senior Software Engineer, SF: https://jobs.lever.co/hipcamp/257b07a0-f84d-4afd-a535-ec763e...
Emergences: A Talk by Danny Hillis
That's it exactly. If the index funds get so big that they basically are the market, then active investors will have to adjust their view of the market to be effectively just whatever the index funds do.

It may be possible that although they can't beat other active investors enough to justify their fees, they can beat a big dumb index fund enough to make their services worthwhile. That remains to be seen however.
The Trump Voters Whose ‘Need for Chaos’ Obliterates Everything Else
To avoid this: Firefox with uBlock Origin and resist fingerprinting setting on. Use private mode whenever you don't need logins. Bonus: Use a $3/mo VPN to dodge your ISP's tracking (xandr.com and weep) or just use Tor Browser for browsing, it's pretty fast these days.
To make money you don't need to "Guess the future" in an absolute sense, you just need to "guess" better than the rest of the market participants.

When there is a majority buying/selling all the shares in block without any consideration to the differences in liquidity and fundamentals between stocks it may be easier to find opportunities than when everyone buys and sells individual stocks. (But one could also say that the average stock-picker is so bad that having more active investors actually increases the gain for the talented ones rather than pressuring profits due to competition).
> I wonder if there are high speed shorts triggered by twitter already.

There are: https://www.marketplace.org/2019/08/29/meet-the-algorithms-c...
Microsoft Acquires Movere
So what if he was?

Everyone should provide a disliked example of their choice to illustrate their disapproval of discretionary spending of donations meant for product development.

You're welcome to use your examples, and they may be diametrically opposed to his. We don't have to permit, approve or agree.
Dunno about the G/GX series, but I use it regularly with my GH4 (my primary camera) and it's just fine for me. My only real complaint is that I can't use it and an HDMI out to a recorder, for some reason.
Information gerrymandering in social networks skews collective decision-making
Marriage has legal consequences. Many of which don't exist for unmarried couples. Some of the legalities will make some people think twice before getting a divorce/leaving.

I think that is more than enough to support the claim of: 'a little harder to leave'.
I took an entire college course on it and it never really clicked for me. Still very interesting though.
Prisma is just Data Access Layer (you would use it instead of other ORMs like Sequelize or Mongoose to work with database directly) while 8base gives you production ready API right away with roles/permissions/authentication, with possibility to extend you API with custom functions with much more
you certainly haven't used Linux on a mac then. On the exact same machine it is incredibly more snappy.
An index passively holding 99% of the market would not interfere with price discovery because the remaining 1% would go about its business as if nothing was different. Indexes can't sustain irrational prices because they have no impact on prices.
Yes, and in particular they would indicate lower future returns for the equity market as a whole, but that has nothing to do with the issue here, namely ETF/index fund vs. non-ETF/index fund.