skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not saying they're bad companies, just that they've been blown up to mythical proportions, Unicorns don't exist, their tears won't cure all ailments, they don't fart rainbows, and Wework is probably more reasonably valued as a property company, not a tech company.

Facebook fell after it's IPO by quite a lot btw.
You probably will need to take advantage of network effect in some way. I.e. if I have a $10/year paid account and I create a group, the person joining my group can join it for free, however if they are trying to join another group on their own then it would get them to pay. Or free for X period of time, because getting a person on the platform to start is hard.

I registered but I don't know anyone that has it so I have to convince people to set it up. Maybe allow public groups? Or maybe not.

Looks rather cool!
> We all know she is a media darling.

So what do you suggest? Bright spotlights and a hard chair? A smoking interviewer with a deep voice who makes her regret she even dared to start thinking about the whole thing?

For me Greta Thunberg is mostly a moral figure. Somebody who convincingly claims they have a stake in the message they carry. This is the reason why I am not that much interested in her – I don't really need any convincing on that topic.

And because she is a moral figure, everything starts to make a lot more sense when you see the whole Pro- and Anti-Greta followership through a moralistic lense. The former ones are the ones who needed her push to stand up or who feel they have to defend her and the latter ones feel their own moral self image threatened because there comes a child who tells them they are not as good as a person as they thought they were. And when somebody tells you that, attacking their character is _always_ easier than changing your view of the world and your place in it. It is quite predictable in it's entirety, but that makes it fascinating in my eyes.
“Nick Saban (Alabama's football coach) is probably the most underpaid state employee in the US.”

A coach that makes 5 million working with athletes that aren’t paid for risking their health is underpaid?
Maybe it would be a good idea to have an exception where an academic paper with a p-value that's right on the borderline can get published if he or she can find someone at another institution to replicate their results. At the very least it would ensure that someone else is reproducing their methodology.

There's a potential for abuse (as always), but perhaps you could curb it by mandating that you can only use the same co-submitter once. The other (likely bigger) problem would be figuring out how to get funding for it.

Full disclosure, I've never worked in a academia before, so please take this all with a grain of salt.
Wouldn't it be better to try and select artists (or at least genres) the Spotify user "likes"?
The thing is, the negative externalities are essentially the entire revenue increase, so that's tantamount to a ban.
> What about the athletes themselves who are taking years off their lives, while getting absolutely no compensation?

1. They are compensated with a degree, and not to mention the "luxury" benefits that come with being an athlete: better food, housing, tutors, golf carts for class, etc.

2. No one is forcing them to go to college.
And highly symbolic. It was a very defiant gesture.
Yet you have time to brag on hacker news haha
The U.S. Health Care System Found a Way to Make Peanuts Cost $4,200
The converse is also true: when divorce became easier and more common, there was much hand-wringing over one-parent families, but in the past, one-parent families were just as common. The difference was that it was usually one of the parents had died.

Around here in the Boston area, every town has a colonial-era cemetery, and they are all have a lot of graves of children.
Neat design! I tried this a few years ago by making http://bandsoftheweek.com/, but I haven't kept up with fixing bug or improving it. Perhaps I can finally take it down.
It's still a bit orwellian to manipulate students into installing a tracking app like that.

Couldn't they just have the students who want to opt in swipe or tap their student IDs as they enter and again as they leave?
Congress Is Investigating Apple’s Stranglehold on Repair
> I wasn't making a specific argument about Gutfeld though.

Yeah, you were. Your overall point wasn't about him specifically, but you most certainly did attempt to use him as a (completely invalid) supporting argument. You're generally doing a very bad job of supporting your position. That's understandable to an extent because showing convincing evidence of systematic bias requires gathering a non-trivial amount of data, but you could at least do us the favor of not bashing Google for suppressing stories that don't exist.

And there's still the issue that you chose a partisan search term as your example. Given that, it seems very reasonable that Google's news results would include more results from left-leaning sources, because they have more to say on that particular subject. It almost seems like you're arguing that Google News should be biased toward equal time/prominence for different factions even if that's not accurately representative of what news and commentary is out there.
Mobile phones, not smartphones. There’s no computer in sight in that quote.
I agree about the hunger part. There seems to be this idea imparted by parents into children that hunger is “bad” and should be avoided.

Of course we evolved with hunger being a regular part of our experience and only in modern times can the gnawing feeling of hunger be avoided almost entirely by many people, or addressed immediately with a convenient food.

I am no biologist but my own experience and some reasonable assumptions would point to the idea that there are biological processes taking place during hunger pangs which are part of our overall energy systems.
Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?
I wonder why there are so few billiard (Russian billiard) [0] places in US? When I lived in Ukraine, where I'm originally from, we usually got together with friends/co-workers to play billiard after work and it was a hell lot of fun. There were usually 10-15 billiard tables for adults and 1-2 pool tables for children. For comparison, this is the size of a pocket in Russian billiard [1]. When I moved to US, we had a few team outing events at a pool hall and the game was pretty boring (at least to me). I could easily pocket all the balls without giving a chance for the other players to even start playing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_pyramid

[1] https://i.redd.it/tbph52kvpngy.jpg
India's New Startup Capital
You can quite easily if you're going at the right speed. I recently drove across Canada where the speed limits are absurdly slow and I was getting 8 hours on a tank easily.
If most folks are getting similar rankings then the impact of the pollution is minimal though.

Are you getting different results?
Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't change the calories in calories out equation.

If your metabolism goes down, so do the calories out. That's one of many reasons that counting the calories out is extremely difficult.
>If you eat 500 calories and burn 600 calories, the energy has to come from somewhere.

Yes, hence "you have to balance your chemical equations", but we need to agree on what we're calling "eat" and "burn", here.

Burning 600 calories can just as well "work up an appetite" as it can "draw upon fat reserves".

We're used to thinking of weight loss as a behavioral problem withy metabolic symptoms ("he eats too much, so he got fat") whereas there's reason to consider it as a metabolic problem with behavioral symptoms ("the kind of food he eats signals to the body that fat should be created, so his body signals for him to eat more").
Your bodies absorbsion of nutrients and yes calories is not a system in a vacuum. Nor it’s decision to store excess calories as fat. There’s a wide range of how much different types of foods affect different people. I had a friend who would eat (we counted) 4000 calories a day and couldn’t get over 120lb. Turns out they had a soy allergy and their bodies didn’t absorb the food.

Simplifying it to calories in calories out is a generalism of a generalism.
> It is still just calories in and calories out.

The problem with this line of thinking is the "just".

Sure, physics says it's calories in and out, and we all agree that mostly makes sense.

But -- how do you measure how many calories are going out? Sleep is known to have an impact on weight. How does one translate their sleep quality or sleep issues into a better "out" measure? How do you know how many calories are going out during all of the other things you do during the day? What about the thousands of assorted complex processes going on in your body that you aren't really aware of?

For the "in"... ok, so you studiously track everything you eat. What's the efficiency that your body absorbs all of the calories from the food you ate? How many of those calories pass through and aren't actually consumed? Is eating 1000 calories of lettuce really the same thing as eating 1000 calories of pork?

If fixing this for people was just about "the equation", weight loss would be a lot easier to solve.

"Calories in, calories out" is one of those things that sounds great, but is not nearly as practical for people to actually implement as people like to imagine.
I want to expand a little bit more: The body can be simplified down into an input/output black-box - almost like a thevenin equivalent. But most people unaccount for lost energy in the output. No two bodies are alike and no two bodies share the same efficiency in breaking down food, absorption, conversion, and excretion.

Yes, you can collect the excrement and analyze the output. But that analysis doesn't tell you much. You don't know how efficient the black body is so you don't know how much of the waste could have been utilized or not. Not only that, you don't know if the body's efficiency is static or dynamic based on inputs and outputs.
Hi All,

Excited to share the launch of our ai-powered bot. Our slack-bot does all the things you'd expect a bot to do (help setup meetings, add agenda items, etc)...

BUT what we're launching is additional intelligence (conversational insights and analytics) with a completely rewritten user-experience.

Happy to answer questions here or on Producthunt! (https://www.producthunt.com/posts/ai-meeting-assistant-by-so...)
I wouldn't have categorized this as AR, but perhaps you're right. Would this instead be called a "heads up display"? I guess not, since it's not something that's shown on the windows you're looking through.
>> The FDA checks less than 1% of drugs for impurities or potency before letting them into the country.

> For a regulator body who's job it is to make sure medical products are safe and available. These comments, if true, lend credability that the FDA is more regulatory capture than actual useful regulation.

I wonder though if this statement misrepresents the facts. If they check only 1% of the entire import volume at random, that is totally normal and what I'd expect them to do.
Show HN: Qanairy – test web apps and websites for bugs with AI created UI tests
This debate isn't that simple. The other side of this isn't that everything magically just gets more accurate. The cost will be withholding true discoveries from the medical community for longer.

Imagine you've done a study of something else and you accidentally discover a (properly FDR controlled) correlation between some drug and heart attacks, significant at 0.03 and with no big contrary prior.

Should you publish or wait 5 years for a follow-up study to complete?

What if three different groups stumble across this same finding? Should they all publish and maybe someone will realize 'shit this drug is killing people' or should they all wait to hit some other higher standard of significance?

The point is theres always a balance between specificity and sensitivity, a tradeoff in terms of costs.

I'd personally be happy with keeping 0.05 as the threshold for 'probably something here'. The real issue are about publication bias, incentives, naive interpretation of published work 'heres one study in Nature so it must be true'. I don't see any other purely statistical change, Bayesian (essentially has all the same problems, aside from taking into account priors) or whatever, that will solve these in any way that won't come without unacceptable sensitivity cost.
Amazon (ironically enough, given their counterfeiting problems) has been doing this for their Elements supplement brand.

Example: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Elements-Multivitamin-Cultured...

You can scan a QR code and get the test results for the specific batch included in the bottle.
It is. Perhaps it's not officially called that, but that's how it was described to me:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.crypt/gjYclOVJDrc/tiv4ic...
Who is Timothy Taylor? (The 'about me' on his Blogger page is blank, and Googling doesn't turn up results that are obviously about him.) This refrain is so well worn by now that it seems that one really ought to have something fundamentally new to say, or be so much of a heavy weight that one's own opinion might be enough significantly to swing the pendulum, before hoping to have another repetition of it make any significant difference. (On the other hand, I guess it's just a blog post, so I shouldn't spend too much energy ranting about how someone uses his own blog.)
Reminds me that the Inca didn't use to name their children until either 2 or 3 years of age, because of how likely the were to die.
This is very interesting... IIRC previous estimates were about 1m years before DNA degraded too much to extract useful information. This seems to push that back a little bit.

Still, a Jurassic Park scenario is impossible. Even deeply frozen DNA isn’t stable over millions of years.
I have. Occasionally one of them will screw up and say the quiet part out loud. Just last week for instance:

https://apnews.com/ba22eace0ec2414794c6722c5bfb5baf

Edit: and additionally, a lot of the majors they cry about have pretty good job prospects. Like gender studies or racial studies have good jobs. Some in HR, some in more self starting careers in community outreach and organization. Conservatives just don't like the politics implicit in those majors so they pretend that they're a drain on society without digging into the data.
One economic downturn and WeWork is history.

I wouldn't touch this one with a 10-foot pole.
What are you trying to tell me with that point?
Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that the advantage the genus homo had over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.
I generally agree today, but that says little about the long term.

As solar panels have gotten cheaper installation costs have become more important which has pushed up panel efficiency. Cheap but good panels are up to ~23% efficiency where they where ~18% fairly recently. What’s interesting is these trends seem to be continuing with serious research into various affordable multi junction cells going on.
> We let students major in theater, but not in football.

Well, we usually don't call it “football” specifically, but “exercise science” or something similar is commonly available. And Baylor has “general studies”, which despite the generic name is intended to support “general career areas of health, fitness, recreation, and sport”, and that's what most of their football players major in.
Good to know that the US health care system will impose these individuals with the cost. Shame on them for not properly researching the product. They should have considered their consumer choices against the possibility of cancer years later. No doubt the medical bankruptcy some will have is deserved.

Obviously sarcasm. This is, however, how the current US medical system behaves. It's impossible that these patients would have the capacity to evaluate medication sources like they would any other product. Many likely had no opportunity or choice. Yet the US supports a system that punishes an individual for aspects well beyond the individual.
I found this line interesting, everything else considered:

DevOps is NOT…easily achieved nor implemented

Debatable, at least IMO. DevOps isn't easily achieved nor implemented if you're trying to implement ALL THE THINGS to say you did and check-off a series of "We did DevOps thing x" boxes as so many companies appear to want-at least from reading various DevOps-y job descriptions lately.

It is easier implemented if, like Gene Kim tells us in "The DevOps Handbook"-we start our DevOps transformations with a small, sympathetic team and iterate outward.
Yes. Quantum encryption requires a fiber hard-line with polarized photons. You can't hand-wave that into a wireless network.
Shame on you for trying to deliberately mislead the readers here.

You are just trying very hard to trivialize and cast aspersions on the very legitimate concerns raised in the article by very selectively quoting from the article.

In fact, the actual point of the article is the very real and obvious issues of privacy concerns raised and described in the beginning of the article itself:

> Though pretending to offer privacy, Gmail's confidential mode comes with three major problems:

> 1. The emails are not end-to-end encrypted.

> 2. Google retains full access to the email even when you set a self-destruct timer.

> 3. If you password-protect an email, Google can link your recipient's phone number with their email address.

Privacy aware and concerned netizens like me avoid GYM (Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) email services precisely because we do NOT want to be profiled by these corporate so that our personal data is not used by them against us.

In fact, I have made it a policy to always send password protected emails (from services like Tutanota, Protonmail, Mailfence etc.) to users of GYM email services. I do this to ensure that these services have no access to my emails and hence cannot collect data on me through it.

When some users of these services complain to me I explain to them while I have no issues with them using the service or willingly sharing their personal data with them, I refuse to consent to be profiled when I actively AVOID these companies.

I highlight this in particular so that more can be aware that "shadow profiling" of users by GYM and Facebook, all for-profit mega multi-national monopolist corporates is a genuine privacy concern and should not be lightly dismissed, and we need to raise more awareness and demand better laws to be protected against it. Till then, unfortunately, we will have to depend on valuable services like these.

-----

More on the extent Google (and others) will go to "shadow profile" someone: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joetoscano1/2019/09/03/google-h...

-----

The actual context that the quote you highlighted was said to point out something different:

> Information classified as confidential relates by definition to something very personal or top secret. It must be kept from any and every third party by all means.

> This form of secrecy can only be achieved with end-to-end encryption. Encryption guarantees that only the people holding the key to decrypt the information can gain access to it.

> This is why end-to-end encryption is an absolute necessity when communicating confidentially.

> When sending an email with Tutanota, you have the option to send a 'confidential' email - which refers to an end-to-end encrypted email, or a 'not confidential' email - which refers to a standard email.

> With this definition in mind, Gmail's confidential emails are just standard emails with some extra features like unprintable, unforwardable, uncopyable, and so on. However, this will not stop anyone from taking a screenshot from the unprintable email, just to print off the screenshot.
I'm not calling for or encouraging belief. I'm skeptical of the claims myself.

I want to see if the allegations are true and I support further investigation to bring all the details to light, because they are quite alarming. I don't support any narrative other than the truth.

I posted out of curiosity, because I wanted to see if others could contribute more to the discussion.

Meanwhile you have people that are flagging stories like this for an unknown reason, which is frustrating.
Types for Python HTTP APIs
Reminds me of the comedy(?) The Oath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LcVhhno-Uo
Thats called snooker.
How many hypothesis testing methods are there? So far I've seen only two.
> Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that homo sapiens' advantage over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.

No, it's evidence both for the general conclusion and that specific point, it doesn't require that point as an assumption.

Evidence is any fact whose existence makes a conclusion more likely than it would be in the absence of that fact.
It kind of is actually. Nobody escapes the law of universal conservation of energy. Sure some people due to genetics will store more of the energy they consume as fat than others. But if you have an energy deficit the body will consume itself to the tune of that exact deficit, period, end of. It will be a mixture of fat and muscle, but the body does try to maintain muscle to the extent you are utilizing it given there is sufficient protein to maintain it. So lift weights or do resistance training enough to keep the muscle you wish to retain and maintain a good amount of protein intake to support this as well, and the bulk of your body mass consumed will be fat. Other than that it is just maintaining an energy deficit, and the best technique is the one you personally can adhere to consistently.
So do you want to say that when some countries impose sanctions on, say, Iran, it's racist because there are nice people in Iran, and sanctions affect them as well?

Or it is not racists when governments do it, but is racists when individuals/companies do it?
Millenials == millennials. Let's see how that generation goes. Raise your Avocados. Make sure they cost alot. I am symphatetical, though, but this seems to be the first most naive generation since the stone age. Excuse my subjectivity. I really feel for and with them of course. You could write a book. What a generation. Has to go into history.
You're describing difficulties with precise measurement of inputs and outputs, but I don't think the difficulty of making those measurements refutes the core idea of CICO at all.

The difficulty of actually implementing CICO suggests we should have sympathy for those who fail. This doesn't refute CICO.
As functional programmers (or Buddhists) might say, statefulness is the enemy.
Proper sleep is most basic first step.
> if information pops up that’s relevant to our conversation, you’re still getting pulled out of the moment in an asymmetric way.

I agree with you there, but I'd argue it's less distracting than trying to pull something not readily available from memory. Sure having to read something is distracting for a second, but it's far less distracting that trying to remember something that's just on the tip of your tongue, or having to pull out your phone.

> popping up the right information at the right time is an extraordinarily hard problem to solve.

It is for a generic solution, but I feel like custom built solutions will be what really revolutionizes the work place. If I'm a UPS driver, I can have a custom UPS app that allows me to look into my truck and instantly see the package id of each box overlaid on the box. That's not a hard problem to solve with the proper AR tools and it instantly provides value.
My own anecdata supports the idea that amphetamines can cause me to forget to eat. If I take two of my dextroamphetamine pills, eating becomes a chore.