skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That's possible in physics, chemistry, or biology just as well.

Yet it seems to happen far less often, or at the very least, in less publicly impacting ways. Part of this is the media, but part of it is the participants themselves. If you discover something new in physics for example, either the public doesn't care, or they don't really know, they just get a faster iPhone processor a couple years down the line when the predictions hold. The folks in your field are even skeptical at first glance, "do you have a 6 sigma result?". "Ok, well, lets talk then, but I still wanna see it reproduced". Psychology on the other hand, some person does a half assed 'study' and uses it to claim knowledge of some important aspect of humanity.

I'd really encourage looking at the Higgs discovery press conference as a perfect example. To my recollection, there was little to no mentioned of the Higgs, just cold hard facts, perhaps at the end there was a 'this is consistent with the Higgs'. Only months later were many of those involved even comfortable enough with their level of certainty to really say 'this is the Higgs'. They are searching out knowledge, and don't want to declare having found it unless they are certain. This is _good_, it's what we want science to be, the summation of our current, highly confident, view of the world. We don't want 'science' to encompass all untested and unproven hypothesis about the world.

The difficult point which I have to concede is that terminology is important. Certainly many folks in physics that maybe haven't hit on a predictive result would like to be recognized as scientists, and rightly so if they are on the path toward this endeavor. But the populous is simple, they want clearly defined words, they want 'science' to be known fact. Outside introducing new words, I don't know how to resolve this. If we don't define 'science' as denoting that which is rigorous, then we can't use "science denier" as a term, regardless of the topic.
Absolutely. That's the first thing I laughed at. Why are people downvoting you?

On the other hand, it may be just a big joke. But is it?
I took "disguised as editorial content" to be false information - which is mentioned in the two sentence at the top of the site.
My favorite bragging point: the code in the necdsp folder (and the CPU core itself at component/processor/upd96050) there was used by Stephen Hawking when they emulated his old voice machine that used the same chip.

http://pawozniak.com/emulator/

Pretty cool that the same NEC uPD772x chip was shared between a text-to-speech engine and Super Mario Kart.

If you want to know everything there ever was to know about the chip, I mirrored every PDF datasheet I could find on it on my site:

https://byuu.net/datasheets#uPD7720

It has one of the most wild ISAs I've ever encountered, using a strict Harvard architecture and 24-bit VLIWs (very long instruction words.) Every opcode can do over a dozen different things in the same instruction at the same time. Writing code for it is quite the challenge.
Found the real person!
Yes. the website says they spam a link to sms, and if user clicks drop a cookie. I'm skeptical it will work on iOS especially since most of these spam-y 'native' networks use 3rd party still it seems.

I've done similar 'hyper target decision makers' and I think they'd have more success using emails to match, @twitter handles, idfa etc, and or dropping FB's remarking code.

You might need to fake/expand minimum sized group to get spend but the value in reaching your top 10 decision makers outweighs also reaching another 490 or whatever needed to hit minimum match sizes.
Why Google's Quantum Victory Is a Deal–and a Letdown
The Paradox of Tolerance was penned in a work started in 1938 after the Nazis invaded Austria, and finished it in 1943. And it was written by Karl Popper who was of Jewish ancestry. This should get the setting (though not yet the context) to this, his entire quote:

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right to not tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

His words have been brutally twisted in contemporary times in part because many of the words connotations have changed over time. In particular Popper defined an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society." In an open society individuals debate and discuss among one another remaining critical, yet tolerant, of one another's views. In a closed society one believes what they're supposed to believe or what their collective believes. And running afoul of the collective is met with ostracism or other form of punishment.

And this is exactly what his quote is hitting on. It is speaking of philosophies that are intolerant of other philosophies. And where instead of meeting words with words, words may be met with violence. It is these sort of philosophies for which Popped espoused society has an obligation to remain intolerant for they end up becoming mutually exclusive to any other philosophy and trending towards violence and authoritarianism.

His words were not suggesting intolerance of anything except [insert political view]. Quite the opposite - they were suggesting intolerance of any view which starts to place itself about debate and skepticism; especially to those views which trend towards responding to such skepticism or debate with violence.
This file is no longer accessible. Could you repost?
What if your consciousness is an illusion created by your brain?
How does your criticism apply to this scenario? The conclusion of the study (if correct) would in fact provide some predictive power: one would be able to make some predictions about a random child's generosity given their religious upbringing. It should also be repeatable, assuming the methodology for gathering and analyzing the data was published.
I'd rip you to shreds on that one. It's my second favorite question and after an innocent opening of "What project was the most exciting one you recently did?", I'm usually launching a barrage of follow-up questions that zoom in and out all the time, like:

- Why were you selected for the team and who selected you?
- What were the biggest challenges the team faced?
- How did you measure you were doing the right thing and you did good work?

And on and on, always drilling down on their answers. It's close to impossible to come up with BS on the fly at that speed and pressure.

This really splits the wheat from the chaff and pure talkers and "team players" who didn't actually contribute anything to their teams' success stand there naked.
Whats wrong with stoicism. Feelings are fleeting in general didn't lead me to positive places. I think we should put a high value on people that can handle their own problems.
Almost every black market drug has brands in one way or another: molly pressed with little logos, LSD dripped on blotter art, meth dyed with color, etc. The problem with brands in black markets is once a brand is successful other suppliers in the chain will clone the branding onto sub-par drugs.

Well-organized communities have popped up to combat this, track brands, and help users identify fake drugs: https://pillreports.net/

On the acid side of the house Blotter Barn has a stunning brand/art archive dating back to the 60s: http://www.blotterbarn.com/
I've recently been very intrigued about executive pay.

Because your average work makes like, what, 1/1000 of what an executive makes. But those 1000 workers help that executive earn very high compensation, but then I guess managing 1000 workers is 1000 times more valuable than the work those workers do.

But all that sounds like an idea an executive would invent to justify earning 1000x more than what an average worker makes.
This is probably a good idea, using testers closer to your target audience should improve results a degree.
However, I think this is kind of missing the point. Wasn't the problem with the MCAS system on the max that the system was added to the airframe without re-qualification required? Shouldn't the solution address how Boeing and the FAA qualify aircraft for qualifications, not how the aircraft itself was tested?
One might argue that being allowed to dig a well on your land for drinking water is a human right. Clean water was once the natural order of things.
People have told me their Uber/Lyft drivers offer to be their personal driver for the trip when they pick them up from airports. Not sure how common this is.

Back in the day I used to drive a shuttle and once in awhile I'd get pressured into taking a passenger that wasn't related to the business I was employed by. It's pretty harmless but still a big no-no since you're technically breaking some laws since there are certain loops you have to jump through to take on fares like that (got screamed at by towncar drivers when I arrived at the airport. I'm sure they were thrilled when Uber became a thing). Anyways the passengers paid 40 bucks for a 20 minute drive. That was the going rate they were used to paying back in 2008. There's a LOT of incentive to cut out the middle man.
I think you could, and should anyways, make the data anonymous. Just give every participant a GUID for a participant ID and add a step to purge personally identifiable information. Then you can share records without identity.
Am I the only one who sees men sharing their feelings all the time? To me it seems like men simply process things differently than women, so women and the feminized psychiatry field don't recognize it's happening.

We live in an age where men are being villainized at every turn, and this is just another way men are being told they don't measure up... because they aren't sharing in a way that women recognize. With all due deference to my trans friends, men are not simply women with penises.
I've seen New York City municipal water sold in supermarkets on the west coast. The brand was something clever like NYC2O.
Lit-Element solves #2
I like the intro water texture, is it procedurally generated or artistic?
I’ve always payed rent in cash. Landlords seem to like it more than checks.
Gibraltar has 5 connections! Can anyone find a lower number?
I believe that the only way to effectively protect privacy in a world where the effects of the aggregate privacy violation are severe, but individually privacy is not as "important" (i.e most of the people don't care enough to pay for it) is to make privacy-preserving technologies the de-facto default.
arundo analytics
Barbaric? To provide sanitary fresh meat to the entire populace at affordable prices is barbaric? To replace that with some lab-grown monstrosity that requires the entire fragile technological stack of our civilization for maintenance is somehow better than a system that mostly relies on grass, water, and sunlight?
Its fine to be stoic and self-reliant, the problem is that occasionally even a stoic man needs to voice concerns, and he is then looked down upon by his peers for doing so. This is why having an unbiased, third-party therapist to just listen can be so healthy.
You pretty much torpedoed any chance of a productive discussion on the subject when you opened with "religion should be classified as a mental disorder." That comment is weapons-grade flamebait on a discussion board and probably not something you'd say in mixed company in real life either.
People have called Brad Pitt "creepy". Would you rather live in a world where Brad Pitt had never acted so that some people wouldn't have to see his "creepiness"?
No man is an island. And it is hard to know if you ARE "handling your own problems" when you do not seek other people's input.

"Handling your own problems" a lot of the time means "making other people responsible for my emotional well being."

I do love stoicism though and I think meditation and stoicism are excellent paths to understanding yourself and managing your internal state.
Yes, please, go on. I am sure you realize that when talking of insane, or otherwise, interest in Tesla, showing numbers for Tesla alone is absolutely useless. According to [0] Tesla doesn't even make it to the top of the second page, and quite a few companies well ahead of it are real large businesses and household names.

Repeating the few tired talking points ("it's the shorts!", "you just didn't drive one", "pecking at 5 buttons in random positions on a touch screen is easier than pressing one physical button") just gives a pretty unflattering impression of Tesla's fans.

[0] http://highshortinterest.com/all
I think the implication is that this happens subconsciously, not on purpose.
I think we're starting to hit a critical moment with this.

As men we have an unbelievable amount of expectation on our reactions, communication, behavior, past behavior, and others behavior. (Their friends and their partners)

On top of all of this: Men spaces have been mostly eliminated.
Kinda, on the first point. Many courts/states have different rules for bondsmen than they do for us, where the bondsman is only required to put up a fraction of the amount that you or I would have to put up for our own bond.
> 9. How do you maintain a work-life balance?

Pretty sure the candidate is supposed to ask the interviewer that one...
You should try tasting distilled water and see for yourself if water is tasteless :). The tastelessness makes it pretty hard to drink.

Pure water is tasteless - the one we drink has a bunch of stuff.
Yeah, I get that and my post was kind of an implicit difference between what they "are" versus what I think they "ought to be" (admittedly easier to be in my armchair investor seat than Softbank's).

But their returns from Uber, WeWork, and Wag kind of support my point, whereas ARM and Nvidia support yours/theirs.

My broader point is that most informed technologists would've said three years ago that the ARM and Nvidia investments made more long-term sense than Uber and WeWork, yet Uber and WeWork are a disproportionate amount of the portfolio.

So if the Vision Fund isn't even going to succeed at the "scale big companies globally" approach, I'm not sure they would've done much worse going with the approach I suggested (or doing more deals like ARM and Nvidia, maybe they could've taken a huge activist stake in IBM or other large existing tech cos).
That didn’t work for the AOL research several years ago. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/09/your-secrets-liv...
Tengai Makyou Zero (SPC7110 + RTC-4513) suffered much longer, and the fan translation of it even longer still. Absolutely worth the wait though.
> Sometimes being strong means to become vulnerable.

This is true so long as you appear vulnerable, not weak.
Like I said, we need to have everyone working together. The planet doesn't care about fairness and China, India, and many other countries will continue to pollute unless they suffer some sort of consequence.

You would rather have poverty, death, and destruction now instead of coming up with a solution later? This is what would happen if we wiped out fossil fuels now.

...And countries like China wouldn't follow the same rules and their economy would be just fine.

I don't think I would want to live in your world.
> gender equality

The way it's going about right now is "equality for me but not for you" by using over exaggerated claims.
Every social issue has islands where it's nonexistent, islands where it's bad, and islands in-between. Groups alleging unfair treatment are usually both right and wrong depending on where you look, for example there are places where everybody is racist and places where nobody is. By analogy, a person lucky enough to live somewhere that nobody was racist would probably not see any point for affirmative action. Does the NYT have a birds-eye view that can see every island? No, absolutely not, their articles are all written by individual people with normal human-sized social networks. But stories like these can provide some insight as to what other people's lives are like.
Agreed. That's what I'm trying to do with my startup :)
For a lot of the work I do, this is heavily grounded in context and therefore useless to the interviewer.

“I undid some hacks that Dave who left two years ago had put in the test suite because he just really liked stacking Python decorators, and they were getting too complex to figure out when some test broke. I updated some documentation that hadn't been touched in 5 years and was terrifyingly out of date. And then I sat in for two useless meetings because leadership really likes holding them.” is not likely to communicate any positive messages, but it is the reality of what a lot of us do at our jobs instead of solving complex race conditions in elegantly designed distributed systems.

Not saying that that might not contribute some kind of signal to a potential interview, but it's very likely to be one that labels me as incompetent :)
I think a lot of what you are talking about is due to a huge amount of 'papers' being nothing but coloration tests. Again, I think terminology is of utmost importance when discussing public perception so I would rather not talk about this as 'science'. It's 'research'.

I don't see a "No True Scotsman fallacy" here because I think I define it quite clearly: Can you provide accurate predictions? I'll concede that there exists a bit of grey area in that question, but the answer is heavily bi-modal.
That is quite insane. Card payment fees are illegal in the EU for the consumer, and interchange fees are capped at 0.2/0.3% for the merchant. It should cost the merchant less than 2% all in.
I think that's politeness. I respect people for some achievement, skill, or contribution, for example. Respect is what we extend to some, and politeness is what we extend to everyone. It might sound like an asinine distinction, but the choice of words really does matter in a discussion such as this where the whole point is what words we ought to use to refer to trans people.
I honestly don't even know what I would answer for #2. It really sounds like one of those terminology questions to get people who think in the exact terms you use.
After Authenticity (2018)
>Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that.

The federal government passed a law in 1984 stripping states of their highway funding if they didn't put a floor under the drinking age at 21.
This is true but I think that is what close friends are for. Everyone needs support I just think the goal to be not to let your feelings master you.
An LPMud was my jams as well. I actually had reason to go back to DGD and it's technically a really interesting project.

Embedded text editor (a modified version of ed), live code reloading, JIT compilation to a VM byte code, translating data automatically between old objects and their new freshly compiled code...
uber has their own mapping. and no, it or google maps is decidedly not better than local knowledge.
I agree. I find that the healthiest people in my life don't seem to be the types prone to endless rumination.

I think this is where meditation (and stoicism) deviates from some types of psychotherapy and most support groups. Meditation teaches you to look at feelings dispassionately, which helps you lessen their power. This is very different than treating each emotion as if it is "correct" and in need of resolution via lots of introspection.
> Yet it seems to happen far less often, or at the very least, in less publicly impacting ways.

Does it? Do you have any data to indicate that, or even a good way to define your terms?
I always knew there were good reasons I prefer Audi.

Although to be honest, if not for the unconscionable amount of money they (or Navteq, I guess) asks for map updates, I'd be even happier just using the built-in navigation all the time.
This is exactly why consumers need ways to subvert and compete with markets beyond just making individual purchasing decisions. Without a continual pressure in the opposite direction, markets will eventually optimize to be the most exploitative version of themselves that they can be.

When people look at capitalism as a competitive system between multiple businesses, they're looking at an incomplete, broken system. Capitalism should be seen as a competitive system between (at least) businesses and consumers.

Open Source is one way that consumers are able to place competitive pressure on the software industry without starting their own businesses. Open Source products are available for free, often developed at a loss, and they subvert the expectation that software features have to be profitable to exist. Businesses are forced to compete with free, which forces them to implement consumer-friendly features that wouldn't otherwise be profitable.

Adblocking is another important force dictating online content rules -- it allows customers to directly reject a business model, by subverting the idea that profitable content can be forcibly bundled with unprofitable content. Then you have more grey-market pressures like piracy, which forces companies to compete on delivery mechanisms and not just on content.

This kind of subversion helps commoditize content, making it difficult for industries to monetize products that they'd otherwise tightly control. Industries describe this as a bad thing -- if a business model isn't profitable and if creators aren't making money, then something's wrong. But this is consumers doing what they're supposed to do. It is good for consumers to compete by circumventing business models.

In this case, what we'd like to see is consumers colluding to share coupons and deals, so everyone can get the best price. We want to force sellers to negotiate with consumers as a single group, not with each individual person. To a certain extent, we are seeing this, which is why you see certain businesses getting more aggressive about hiding their charges and making coupons harder to share.