skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is very true. One needs to consider both physical addiction and psychological addiction.

If you give 100 people high doses of Oxycotin for a month, all 100 will exhibit withdrawal symptoms when the drug is stopped. However, 80 of those will probably suffer through it and not crave the drug after that, 17 will willingly continue to use the drug to avoid the withdrawal symptoms and 3 will (if possible) escalate the dose to the point they care about nothing else.

That's the psychological part of it.

And yes, I made those numbers up, but you get the point.
Lack of sleep affects fat metabolism
You're right, I shouldn't have even called it a debate.
How did you draw that conclusion?
You only need to prove one case for it to be a crime. Proof is difficult. Where there is one case, however little profit gained, there is crime. Where the trouble has been gone to in one, for low profit it suggests that it is not a "one off." There may strong suspicion that there are many, many more criminal activities that are overly difficult to proove, yet. See one and prosecute it very, very hard is the only possible honest strategy for law enforcement about such matters.

But then "spoofing" is problematic. "While the order was in the market I was absolutely willing to trade at that price." Is a pretty reasonable defence, given that if someone does trade with you at the price you're showing, you are completely stuck with the trade.

This kind of "spoofing" isn't something you really need to learn. I want to sell at $X, so I put my sell order in, then put a bunch of buy orders in at a lower price so anyone looking at the balance of buys vs sells thinks the price is going to go up and trades with me at $X. I mean a grade school kid can work that out without being taught. It has financial risk. It is illegal. Should it be? Should the orders be anonymous or should every order have a trader and firm associated in its market data? Would that help, ("I'll sms my rivals Joe and Mary to put some buys in quid pro quo that I'm here when they need it.")

There's some tricky policy decisions and some tricky rules and enforcement issues around it, given that there is no lobbying or regulatory capture from enormously wealthy investment banks and your sole purpose is to provide execution in the market for low transaction costs enabling the best possible price discovery at all times. If you think there might be pressure from lobbying and some regulatory capture it's possibly trickier...

But option (b) is that trading is really, really dull most of the time (being there waiting for good conditions of high volatility) and traders get bored when nothing happens and play silly games to entertain themselves rather than to make any meaningful money.
When you’re famous enough to be considered a “representative” of a community (e.g., “hacker culture” in the case of rms) then you should be ready for anything you say to be taken at face value. There’s all the incentive in the world to write a takedown and rake in the karma (or claps).
I feel like this is one of those things that everyone knows but just isn't true.
Jonathan Ledgard Believes Imagination Could Save the World
Given the number of people I used to see in the street using the shitty quality earphones that were in the box with a new iphone, I think the reality is that most of Apple’s users don’t really give a shit about music quality in the first place.
What a disappointing course of events. I cannot fathom how an institution such as MIT can have such a thin spine. But I also couldn't fathom the first time I walked into a Sears in a long while (ca 2010) and saw an "online catalog" which merely searched Amazon's website.

I can't help but think this is the same creative destruction - rather than falling back to a core strength of traditional reputation, even a learning institution turns into the winds of its own destruction. Force out the type of person who specialized in software philosophy over social skills, in support of the type of person who politics. Because we're all in politics now.

(And for all his prescience, RMS still couldn't see Free Software ushering in lynch flash mobs, one of which would eventually go after him.)
It's exactly the same thing that Amazon does with its product lines though (like Amazon Basics)

That's pretty much what Monoprice does too -- it contracts out to Chinese manufacturers for it's products (sometimes copying existing products [1]), but their stuff is generally pretty decent quality.

[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/monoprice-a-tech-consumers-best-fr...
I personally avoid promoting my free software projects. I don't see any benefit in doing so, only downsides.

I write the software for my own benefit. I then share it for the benefit of others, but sharing it requires a near-zero amount of effort (`git remote add` and `git push`, basically). I sometimes then derive a benefit to myself when others improve or otherwise contribute to my work.

This only holds as long as my userbase consists mostly of competent technical people who are able and hopefully willing to contribute, and not likely to waste my time.

Dealing with support requests and so-called bug reports from non-technical users that found out about my software from a blog post somewhere is simply not a way in which I'm willing to spend my limited free time.

If I knew that my free software was being used by millions of people, I won't deny that it'd give me a bit of an ego boost, but I am not sure it's really worth anything at all, really. It certainly isn't worth the many hours of free customer support (a thankless minimum-wage job even if it were paid) I'd have to provide.

By contrast, having it be used by a handful of like-minded individuals, who might contribute actual code, or simply talk about other interesting technical topics, related or not, provides a ton of value for little to no effort from me.

So I think I will continue mentioning my free software only in mailing lists, and hope that no one ever sees fit to blog or tweet about it :)

I would be curious if some of you that _do_ care about promoting your work would say why you care about it, though. Do you expect the popularity of your free work to have an impact in your professional career? Or is the satisfaction from providing value to so many people worth the huge extra effort to get there? Or is it something else?
I would have thought the opposite. Margins tend to be high in financial services, revenue tends to be tiny. The value of payments / GTV is huge, but the taxable component is the fees themselves?
What are the differences? Does the screen work?

I have a Push 2 with Ableton.
Astronomers Detect the Most Massive Neutron Star Yet
I'd say recent statements more accurately reflect somebody's current beliefs than old statements. Considering how badly he's been recently slandered by media outlets leaving out context and mischaracterizing his remarks, I am disturbed by your willingness to exclude that context from your previous comment.
When your hand accidentally touches that miniature touch screen and random things happen on your mac how do you control the urge to hurl it across a room?
I think Stallman was looking at a moralistic interpretation from Minsky's point of view.

Minsky's sex with the Epstein girl was in 2001, several years before Epstein's legal trouble over his sexual practices. She was also over the age of consent at the time in the US Virgin Islands, which was 16 (it did not become 18 until the Child Protection Act of 2002).

So Stallman's argument is that from Minsky's point of view it likely seemed to be a perfectly legal, consensual encounter. Presumably, Epstein was somewhat cautious over letting people know he kept sex slaves, and so would instruct the girls to not go around introducing themselves as his sex slaves to his guests. Thus, Stallman believes that we should not be tossing Minsky in with the people who had sex with Epstein girls knowing it was not consensual.

I've now seen several different places report that Stallman said that the Epstein girls were "entirely willing". What he actually said was

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that
she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was
being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her
to conceal that from most of his associates.

He's not saying they were willing. He's saying they probably said they were willing because Epstein would require them to say that. This is an important distinction.

This should not be a controversial statement--if Epstein had sufficient power over someone to force them to have sex with third parties it is very hard to believe that he didn't also have sufficient power over them to tell them to claim they were acting on their own when they did so, or that he was stupid enough not to exercise that power.
It has been my experience that the people who most loudly defend rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible ideas are often not interested in rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech or, say, liberty should be restricted.

It's an odd twist of irony. Everyone seems to be able to be rational, intellectual, and level-headed, when the issue they are debating does not personally affect them.

Edit: Judging by the karmic sentiment, we are probably unable to have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of such a topic. Pity.
Hi there!

Co-founder and CEO of DigitalBrain here We built this product because we were frustrated copy-pasting links while we took notes and annotated from articles on the web. Please feel free to sign-up and we will email you with a link to the Chrome Extension: https://digital-brain.co/sign-up

Here is the demo:https://youtu.be/hLSRbT-IBOc

Please feel to ask us anything! Looking forward to hearing what you guys think!
Looking at their award winners, it looks like a lot of those ads were aimed at doctors, which makes it a little less concerning.
Attitudes towards pain are cultural and can vary wildly.

"letting patients suffer" is a very telling sign of one attitude, but it isn't the only one, and not necessarily right or wrong.

Wanting to avoid discomfort at all costs is a very American trait as is its opposite attitude glorifying discomfort. There are more than two directions.
the current warming trend is not an extinction threat to humans even according to very pessimistic projections. try not to over panic it doesnt help. plenty of things to be concerned about and pilibg on with unsubstantiated hysteria only turns people off who might have listened
Whoever told you that was being very liberal with the truth, Vodafone has always been #3 in the Australian mobile market since they started, they were hemorrhaging subscriptions for most of this decade due to underinvestment (known as "Vodafail").

They only started providing wireline services very recently, one of the few "western" markets they were not a full telco player in.
The tragic irony of the Cold War (and maybe all wars) was that both sides saw themselves as threatened, and that they were being justifiably defensive.
As a general rule, I tend to give more credit to consistent and freely offered opinions espoused over years than a sudden conversion immediately after a PR crisis. There's a famous saying: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."
Same. I assume most people are just saving up to leave.
See the earliest filing in CGC19579061 for Square’s complaint (https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CGC19579061).

The headline is a bit misleading because I don’t think there are any banks in a similar situation to Square: a bank that receives most of their revenue from transaction processing fees and whose employees are almost all in San Francisco (San Francisco apparently apportions company revenue according to where the employees are).

Note: In California, local governments use relatively unfair gross receipts taxes instead of more efficient taxes because Proposition 13 (1978) forbids fair property taxes, and RTC 17041.5 (1963) forbids local income taxes (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...). So we tax gross receipts of large companies, with 7 different rate schedules based on different industries in order to sort of approximate income.
I don't really have an opinion on this, but I found your sentence interesting:

> rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of how, say, their right to speech should be restricted

Isn't that a contradiction in and of itself?
Now What? John Hopfield’s Autobiography (PDF, 2018)
Rust rust rust!
stuffs mouths with cheerios, shouting while chewing
Rust!

Arghhhhh

R U S T

U

S

T
Someone emailed an event for protesting Minsky, and Stallman accused her of wrongly inflating the term "sexual assault" when using it to refer to Minsky and Epstein. Stallman bends over backwards for Minsky, saying that he shouldn't be automatically to blame if Epstein forced someone to have sex with him.

It's little different than the absurd pretzel that Lessig bent himself into when trying to defend his friend Joi Ito [0]:

> Q: Doesn’t it make sense to you that people would say someone who is taking money from and cozying up with a guy who is a pedophile and who is targeting young women, maybe he shouldn’t lead an institution that includes women?

> Lessig: I’m not sure it describes the case, and more importantly, what about the institution?

> Q: What do you mean it doesn’t describe the case?

> L: I don’t know about the “cozying up to.”

> Q: Going to his house, being socially in his orbit, taking money from him.

> L: In the context of raising money — just like you would go up there and meet with him in the context of an interview...

> L: When you say that he is cozying up to him, that’s something very different from what I understand actually happened, which is: Joi, in the context of his job for the M.I.T. Media Lab, built a relationship with one of the people he’s raising money from.

I don't begrudge Lessig and Stallman for attempting to apply what they think is logic and rationality in approaching these topics. I absolutely despise them for their hypocrisy in the way they refuse to acknowledge how they themselves are tainted by irrationality when defending their friends.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/business/lessig-epstein-i...
Brave is doing exactly this with BAT on Ethereum but automating the whole thing. You can donate to any website, but you'll also auto-contribute if you choose to have that enabled.
I'm surprised that the OnePlus 6 is not in this list. It is the best smartphone I have owned so far and it has a headphone jack.
There is no way for this list to be exhaustive anyway, there are still a lot of models with a headphone jack (but this trend is indeed annoying).
Only from the perspective of one of the two sides in the debate.

The other side thinks that it's perfectly good and proper to not have a rational, intellectual, level-headed discussion of reprehensible topics, and would rather the first side not pull them into it.
“Several years ago a frustrated philosophy professor said to me, "How can you know all this math but not know whether the number 2 even exists? Think about it!"

So I did. And then I wrote about it for
@sciam
“

https://twitter.com/KelseyAHE/status/1169310784133971969?s=2...
>Is it genetic, philosophical, or environmental?

All of the above, and none of them can completely dominate the others.
Could you clarify what you mean by 'face value' in this sense?

I guess you mean that a position taken for the purposes of intellectual discourse (e.g. devil's advocate) could just as well be the person's "real" position?

Is there actually a difference in practice, if they're not in a position to act upon it anyway? (Or is the issue that by engaging in the discourse they are acting upon it?)

I think I understand your basic point - everyone who's a public figure is subject to the opinions of a huge number of people who might want to attack them (politically, physically, whatever), and that limiting expression of opinion is a way to protect against this. But doesn't that ultimately result in all public figures being "soft", "tame", basically politicians?

> “I have to confess, when me and my friend, sort of, used to run through the fields of wheat – the farmers weren’t too pleased about that.” - Theresa May, UK prime minister, when asked of the naughtiest thing she'd ever done
I think most regs were driven by events or behaviors at the time of their creation.

To revert them I'd hope there'd be a compelling case as to why the catalyst that brought the regs into existence no longer applies or will not reappear in the future.

I'm not sure that it's an easy process.
Oh, yeah I forgot to mention the “global-first” memory management style. So scary.
Zillions of electronic artists use Ableton.

Although I like Imogen Heap, I don't see why she's so deserving of a special mention.
The Distinctly American Ethos of the Grifter
Errr... our government isn’t far right, and the disaster of the nbn was created by the left, and made worse by the right. The narrative being repeated in this and other left wing sites like reddit of “the nbn would have been good if it was all fiber” is just wrong.

The nbn from its conception was a half-baked, last minute idea made up by Kevin Rudd. If any public network was needed, it should have been wireless. The nbn discounted any possible future that resulted in wireless being a viable way of delivering the internet to everyone. Wireless is also necessary because things aren’t stationary. Cars can’t use fiber internet, for example. Fiber to every home is ridiculously expensive, with a large percentage of homes not even using any more bandwidth than is required to stream Netflix. Fiber also excludes rural areas, and any lower density areas in general.

A public wireless network would be utilised much more, as even a lower speed wireless network that is available everywhere and cheaper opens up more possibilities than a limited high speed network. It isn’t just speed that is important. We also have the issue of data caps. High speed connections that have 20gb per month data caps are pretty useless, yet a large percentage of the population can’t afford any more than that. The nbn, whether fiber or not, would always just result in a product a large percentage of normal people couldn’t even utilise.

The liberal party made the nbn worse, but it was a terrible idea to begin with. All the political parties are corrupt.
Wow yeah I was not aware. Definitely not a good look and those older comments are completely reprehensible and nonsensical to me.
As sibling commented, Voda is distant third in Australia. The incumbent is Telstra, with ~50% mobile share and was the dominant fixed provider pre-NBN.

Telstra's mobile footprint is vastly superior to the other two MNOs in terms of geographic coverage.
Starship – a cross-shell prompt written in Rust
Could be a lucrative way of eliminating that problem.
> Last week, Motherboard published the full email thread in which Stallman wrote that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims in his campaign of trafficking were “entirely willing." Stallman also argued about the definition of “rape" and whether the term applies to the victims.

The link to "email thread" points not to the thread itself, but the previous article in the Motherboard series:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-sci...

Scrolling down, the thread is published. The top (last) message is:

> No one on this thread has accused Giuffre [Epstein's accuser] of lying. Rather, the discussion has been of whether Giuffre actually accused Minsky of sexual assault or not. I will not step into that discussion, but will instead ask the following meta question: "if someone in csail says in this discussion group that Minsky was accused of sexual assault, a very serious accusation, and someone else in csail thinks that he was not, should the latter person refrain from saying so in this same discussion group out of concern that the conversation will leak and be misconstrued by the press?"

>

> The "s" in stands for "science". The job of scientists is to evaluate evidence and seek truth. We have a social responsibility to do that as well. I hope that we scientists will never evade our social responsibility to seek and defend the truth out of fear that the press will misconstrue our search. That would not be a reputation I would like attached to my affiliation.

The idea that no question is off limits is a recent arrival thanks to science. Human history has shown just how fragile this stance is. It's shocking to see how quickly things can devolve, driven by the rage of people who I suspect have the best of motives.
CSAIL is not a role, it's the institution: "MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory"
Cotton totes are pretty much the worst replacement for plastic bags
WeWork parent pulls IPO following pushback: sources
Nothing in that feedback loop will allow people to spend money they don't have. A big chunk of the money you spend on groceries, car payments, insurance, medication, etc is going into those companies' marketing budgets, and that ends up as the ad revenue that finances the web today. You don't have that money to give to website owners directly instead, as you've already spent it on those goods.
~20 min of googling didn't turn anything up unfortunately - I could only find recordings from the year before.
So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile, not merely somebody with a long and established history of being tactless? Because I'd say there is a hell of a lot more evidence that he's tactless due to being neuroatypical. Maybe that makes him a bad leader, but it surely doesn't make him evil.
There's nothing particularly American about grifting. Cult leaders worldwide engage in massive scams. Pyramid schemes operate around the globe. Heck, you may find yourself eating fake eggs in China or that your grandmother has sent thousands of dollars to Nigerian scammers.
No, free in this context meaning they aren't paying upfront with cash. So yes, ads do work, and they allow people without other means to monetize their attention in real-time.

They also own their attention and are perfectly capable of spending it however they want, on whatever they want, without any approval of what they need by you or anyone else.
I feel it's similar to Russia, an insane regime but fantastic people and people generally seem to be smart and civilized, both in IT and outside of it.
Whistleblowers in the US are almost universally abused by the system. If the US wants whistleblowers to stick around, it should consider treating them with the kind of respect they deserve.

It's crazy to me that in all the talk of punishing snowden, there's never a mention of punishing those who betray the country by spying on their own citizens.
Ah, my bad, I'd read prescriptive. The brackets were because I couldn't figure how else to make the quote read sensibly in a sentence.
Intellectuals have fueled the rise of plenty of terrible ideas and outcomes. People -- even deplorables and bitter clingers -- are right to question intellectuals and in some cases raise barriers that are difficult for them to overcome.

Sometimes the mumbo-jumbo is bullshit or dangerous.
Are you referring to a particular debate, or debates in general? If the later, I strongly disagree. There are many debates in which both sides argue rationally in good faith.
> So you believe Stallman's statements indicate he's a pedophile...

I think you're mixing me up with another commenter.
A lot of it is due to ramifications of Brazil’s Operation Car Wash:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash#Peru
Could you cite those studies?
There is a middle ground that is at some level really stupid but functional in that edge case.

You can buy BT to 3.5mm adapters that charge with USB-C. Most of the time charge isn’t an issue so you get the benefits of wireless headphones but in a pinch you can charge the adapter off your phone.

Is it dumb to use BT for two devices physically plugged into one another — yes. Does it work for the few times it’s needed — absolutely!