skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree that global warming is real. Global warming is a problem. However...

> If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will.

That's an amazingly stupid comment. This is why global warming deniers exist, because people make these types of stupid comments. A hurricane strengthening and stalling on land is not linked to global warming. It's always happened and always will. What was hurricane Andrew then in 1992? What about Katrina 2005? How about in 2004 where 4 hurricanes hit Florida in a 6 week time span? I lived through that one.

Hurricane Lorenzo, right now, is a better example due to where it's at in the Atlantic and its strength. Still not a great example, but better than Dorian. Dorian was technically a normal hurricane. Nothing that special or different. Devastating yes. But devastation is not an indicator of climate change. A higher number of hurricanes and higher than average number in Cat 4 and Cat 5. That's an indicator. And to be honest, this year has been pretty chill when it comes to hurricanes. Only one FL scare. Most years there are 3-5 scares by the end of September. We're only on L when it comes to named storms. Bad years in the past are around S by now. Hurricanes are named in order of the alphabet if you didn't know. In 2004, we went through the whole alphabet, plus some.

I agree global warming is happening. But this year's hurricane season does not show it.
I think the solution to climate crisis is in Oceans since 95% of the world's oceans and 99% of the ocean floor are unexplored
Where did DirectX code names come from?
> If the summer heat, followed by Hurricane Dorian, hasn’t convinced you that climate change is real, probably nothing will.

If you think the "other side" is a climate change denier, you don't have a grasp of the issues involved and I'm really suspect that your op-ed is preaching to your crowd rather than actually trying to engage the problem.

The issue has never been denying the scientific fact that CO2 reflects infrared light, causing a greenhouse effect. It's a question over the scale of the problem, the timelines in which it plays out, and the panic and alarmism exhibited by one side of political debate.

Moving off fossil fuels is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to be substitutive spending, not the growth-building kind. The Green New Deal, if enacted as specified, would send us into a prolonged, generation-long recession. Is is worth it? Is it necessary? That depends on how alarmist you are in your global warming predictions. And that is where we disagree. I've lived through two major economic recessions, and seen the effect that has on young people and opportunities. I wouldn't want to wish that on an entire generation. Millennials think boomers gave them a bad break, but wait until their kids see what opportunities their climate change policies leave them with...

We need to move off fossil fuels. But we can do it in a way that is gradual and growth-positive, while exploiting the warming climate in a way that boosts agricultural yields and adds living space for the growing population of the world. That requires a healthy debate about trade-offs and choices, and recognition that this is a complex, multi-faceted issue that people come to with multiple opinions and that's okay.
Negative reviews can also be compromised. I was reading through Borderlands 3 metacritic user reviews when I noticed at least 3 reviewers made identical complaints of boring, "repeative" gameplay...
My best guess is it's attracted a culture war brigade for some reason. But it was a good a reminder to keep my guard up even on negative reviews- the same sockpuppets companies use to pump up their own products could be easily redeployed to undermine a competitor's.
Imbalance is bad because participation in civil society, to include employment, should be representative of society as a whole.

Besides, inclusive and diverse workforces have been repeatedly shown to be better for the bottom line because organizations are more able to serve a wider market when they are made up people more representative of the total market.

Revenue for the division I work in at my current employer exploded when we started hiring people outside of the traditional avenue for new hires. Until a couple of years ago we had been staffed by traditional government/military-focused scientists and engineers with narrowly-focused aerospace engineering backgrounds. Our customer base was 100% domestic government/military because that's who we knew and had relationships with. Outside consultants recommended non-"traditional" hires, and we followed their recommendations.

New hires in the environmental sciences (mainly women) and personnel with foreign language experience opened up market opportunities that we had been unable to see before and by diversifying our workforce we were able to diversify our customer base to include foreign environmental management organizations, agricultural, and natural resource-based markets.

My employer develops and sells a pretty unique Synthetic Aperture Radar system with capabilities not found in competing platforms. We had been trickling out systems to the Navy and Air Force on a onesy-twosy basis every year.

People with a diverse background said "hey we can sell this to oil and gas companies, departments of agriculture and environmental science all over the world, and we can work with all of these universities on terrestrial surveying projects and make more money".

And we did.

I imagine for mass-market consumer products and services the impact of understanding the needs of the market by having a workforce representative of the market as a whole would be even greater than what we experienced.
I like the game theoretic framing. Winners and losers. Currently a zero sum game. Where we non-zero sum games, filled with win-win outcomes.

Robert Wright's book Nonzero, which advocates for these kinds of reforms, deeply influenced my worldview, way back when.

https://www.amazon.com/Nonzero-Logic-Destiny-Robert-Wright/d...

--

I'm a treehugger. During the 90s, I volunteered at Wetlands Conservation Network (WetNet), a short lived Audubon offshoot trying to save the Pacific salmon.

During my time there, I somehow got the impression that all environmental (ecological) challenges could be fixed with better accounting and fair markets.

More than just addressing externalities.

With our salmon, the (economic) winners were timber companies and developers. Who reaped outsized rewards for developing habitat. (Timber companies were turning second growth forests into urban sprawl thru their subsidiaries.)

Other beneficiaries were power (hydroelectric) and some farmers (irrigation).

The biggest losers were the commercial & tribal fishers, anglers, and the hard to quantify "culture".

But for some reason, beyond my experience and understanding, commonsense structural reforms were completely out of bounds.

For instance, (I'm told) that water rights in the West are "use it or lose it", so potato farmers in Idaho continue to grow an oversupply. Whereas if they somehow rent (or transfer) those water rights in an open marketplace, that water could be put to better uses.

--

Note that I've been out of the treehugger game since 2000, so I don't know what, if any progress, has been made since.

Also, I continue to be surprised that Wright's Nonzero thesis apparently hasn't gotten any traction. Neither with the libertarian Freedom Markets™ cultists. Or the weirdly regressive leftists who reject markets and incentives, and continue to conflate corporatism & cronyism with capitalism.

Oh well.
I don't understand your comment.

How is Vulkan more portable than a software renderer? And if you need hardware acceleration, OpenGL is more portable than Vulkan.
Who do you think directly benefits from that industrial pollution?

Consumers.
Not assuming, more like hoping. I'm willing to bet on it, because I think it's a good bet and I think the alternative is a sure loser.

Lets narrow this down to just energy consumption. I'm skeptical that we can reduce energy consumption^ enough to meaningfully impact anything. National/global energy austerity (like economic austerity) hits a wall very quickly. Whether that is at 5% or 20% doesn't matter. It certainly isn't near enough. Therefore, it is not a viable solution. If we are paying (via unemployment, etc) to avoid climate change.

OTOH, clean energy obviously is possible. Reforestation is possible. Various geoengineering projects are possible.

What makes them viable is, they carry the possibility of allowing us to massively increase our energy consumption. That is what cheap means, that we can afford more of it and be wealthier.

^Voluntarily. Obviously a major plague or somesuch could.
I didn't mean "not taking no for an answer" in the sense that he'd get mad or force himself. I mean in the sense that people would tell him they weren't interested, and he'd just keep hitting on them.
When I was a child, my parents were in a dooms-day cult.

When people threaten your future with vague notions of impending, and irrevocable doom, there is only one answer:

Live for today.

Why don't climate dooms-dayers not see that their very tactics of spreading irrational fear (instead of rational solutions) is antithetical to their desired outcomes?

(there's a post about planting trees I haven't read yet, seems reasonable to do _something_ that everyone agrees with instead of trying to ram down ideas very few people agree with)
Because "socialism" and how ingrained the effects of the red scare still are
"Diversity of thought" means "I think that white men people have experienced every perspective."

Ridiculous, ain't it?
SE does not profit from its community websites (eg the ones we all read) aside from a vague "getting traffic to its enterprise product" which is probably not worth what they spend on hosting.
1. They are not lifestyle changes, they are fundamental reductions in carbon footprint.

2. They are proven to reduce your impact at a level that most consider manageable

3. The other poster said AND - eat less meat AND get involved in other mechanisms for change

I dont have any interest in virtue or signalling: i just want people to impact the planet less so we dont trigger any unwanted changes. Is that a valid enough reason to ask everyone to try their best or do we keep having to have philosophical arguments about how individual free choice (shaped often by the corporations themselves!) trumps any imperative to collectively sacrifice?
RFC-4180 is dated 2005 - so your statement that a standard "doesn't exist" has been out of date for 14 years.

Yes of course there was no recognised standard before that. Just like before Greenwich Meantime there was no recognised standard for universal time coordination ...
Show HN: Zigpoll – Embeddable polling widget for websites
We might be getting better, but it’s not hard to find examples of this. Nefarious or not, dropping “outliers” because they don’t fit the narrative is common. It’s one form of p-hacking.
did you use Vert.x ? IMHO that has the closest cognitive match to Erlang.

it regularly tops performance benchmarks - https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r18&hw=... and super simple heroku deployments - https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-examples/tree/master/heroku...

Also Kotlin !! https://vertx.io/docs/vertx-core/kotlin/ (kotlin vertx on heroku: https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-examples/tree/master/kotlin...)
Like many here, I have a PhD. First, I did this because I strongly wanted to do it, and I don't regret my choice at all.

In your case, since you don't like the environment where you are and where you would pursue your PhD, it seems a clear no! You want to do a PhD because you either want to stay in the environment where you are (e.g. your lab internship during M.Sc.) and you want to continue doing more advanced research with the same people. Or you have been in (remote) contact with a team or a researcher and you badly want to work a few years with them and make their research topic yours. If you feel none of these situations apply, you'd rather go (working) in an environment where you will thrive.
Gotta pay the rent, gotta buy food. I hope to retire one day. I went to a good university, I always assumed I would have made more career progress by now.
The bigger problem is that it's an absurd amount of trees.
Well, then, I suppose I was / am condescending, with a dose of pity and sadness:

- If your message is "I vehemently disagree, with every bone in my body, with the idea of having cops instead of cameras" - sure, that's a valid viewpoint we can have a lot of fun productively discussing, even if we never in the end agree.

- If your message is, as you repeatedly indicate, "I literally don't understand [the other point of view]", there is no discussion to be had. From where I'm standing, you are either unwilling, or incapable, of making the effort. A physical/sociopathic lack of empathy, or inability or willingness to process and examine different perspectives, or incredible amount of stubbornness, whatever it may be. If details of other side are presented to you, and you still "literally don't understand" it, then... I don't know, discussion is done one way or another? We are failing on point one of the pyramid of productive/honest discussions and arguments [1].

[note in this framework, understanding, and agreeing, are entirely separate considerations]

1: http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindnes...
Apologies. Punishment is not a deterrent.
Exactly. People (not necessarily the parent comment) love to focus on the lifestyle choices because they allow them to paint those advocating change as hypocrites, and so dismiss the entire message.

The vast majority (~80%, [1]) of the greenhouse gas emissions do not come from "lifestyle" choices such as eating meat, but from transportation, industrial use and electrical production. These require changes at the policy level that individuals can't create by themselves but only by calling for action by legislators. Planting more trees on a national scale can absolutely be one of the many policy changes that we call for to help balance the scales, because we will never get those three sectors down to zero.

As for the specific question of meat, it would undoubtably help for everyone to eat less meat, but in fact if every single person in the US went vegetarian, it's estimated that it would only reduce the US's CO2 output by about 5%. [2]

1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/climate/what-if-we-all-at...
The GH readme file is alot easier to fix than a website. It likely evolves naturally as people open issues to complain that a command doesn't work or that instructions for platform X are missing. The author reads the issues on GH, commits fixes on GH. It's easy to forget the website part.
Funny enough, worst hurricane in recorded history (according to some metrics) happened in 1935!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane
FWIW I tried uniqlo in tokyo (biqlo store) and it was nearly identical to the stuff in london
They had spent what I’m sure is many visits finely honing the dosages of his various medications. The efficacy of those medications combined with grapefruit was different than it would have been without grapefruit.

Suddenly stopping grapefruit caused a drastic shift in the levels of those medications in his system and caused catastrophic problems.

In short: it works both ways. Grapefruit screws with levels. If your levels are tuned to a non-grapefruit diet you shouldn’t start eating it. If they are tuned to a grapefruit diet you shouldn’t stop eating it.

Either way his doctor should have spoken to him when he started the drugs and discussed the grapefruit factor, and absolutely should have been mindful of whether or not his patient had been eating grapefruit all along when telling him to stop eating it. It’s the same as being on another medication, he shouldn’t have discontinued it immediately, he should have tapered off.
>Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it.

What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?
Nitpick: “piqued”, not “peaked” (though it’s a homonym)
> the dumbest, most priggish, humourless beaureucrats

Clearly you've never been to reddit...
They don't actually own any property. The business model just doesn't work in the long-term.
A Canon V-20 for 5€, believed to be a keyboard by seller.
I would assume it is posting pics and/or video from Snapchat sessions.
Isn’t the bigger issue that it actually matters whether Obama was a Muslim or not?

All of the polls show that Republicans and Democrats are not that far apart on non social issues. Trump went after people who wanted to “protect their culture”.
> victim blaming

Not. We need to use the correct terms. Victim blaming would be suggesting that the woman triggered the situation somehow. I'm not saying this at all.

I'm talking about the reaction. IF that history was real [and not just a silly rumour] then we must notice that there is more than a people acting weird here. To freak out and carry an antiviolator house plant because you received a twisted visit card with dirty humour, once, well... this is not normal either, IMHO.

> They're in a professional environment, they shouldn't have to deal with this.

Fair point. 100% agree with that, but if you put several adult people in a room, they will inevitably try to develop relationships.
Rx has a bit of a "namespace collision" with the functional reactive programming library ReactiveX, which has implementations in many different languages. Often these libraries are called Rx(Java|Swift|Ruby|PHP|js|$LANG).

Paradigm: http://reactivex.io/
Implementations: http://reactivex.io/languages.html

That being said the editor looks very cool! Congrats on shipping!
Lately I’ve been looking at the distribution of reviews. TripAdvisor and Amazon both have bar graphs of rating distributions. In general, I see these distributions:

Great products:
Generally a very good product will have between 80 and 90 percent 5-star reviews and then the remaining percentages will tail down with the lowest percent of 1 star reviews. This was how I picked where to go on my honeymoon on TripAdvisor.

Fake Products:
All 5-star reviews with zero reviews of any other rating.

So so products:
Similar to great products in that the number of reviews decreases as the rating goes down, but the percentage of 4 star reviews is significant and there are less than 70% 5 star reviews

Bad products:
Less 5 star reviews than 4 or 3 star reviews. These are surprisingly uncommon and feel quaint when I see them.

Mixed supply chain (Fakes) or serious quality issues:
What I refer to as the “1 star bump” where a product has more 1-star reviews than 2, 3, or 4 star review. Similar to “so so products” except you see the 1 star bar sticking out noticeably in the graph. The 1-star bump is my most reliable signal not to buy something. Unfortunately it’s very common on Amazon.
We don't need to imagine, we know how humanity reacted to plague prior to effective treatments. Very badly. With lynch mobs and singling out certain groups for persecution. Even having acne would do it...
Reading between the lines, it looks like a queer mod felt unsupported by SE over a long period of time, and SE eventually decided to make a code of conduct change. These mods disagreed with that change (some using language like "thought crime") which precipitated their resignations?
I agree with you, that's roughly what I was saying. The events of the last few weeks were the catalyst that allowed people to start externalising those things, small or big, which they had previously been withholding in the name of "getting on".
Why Hybris Is the Best Tool for E-Commerce
I find it very weird that the author chose to use the prisoner's dilemma and public goods as a framing for the article when the tragedy of the commons and common goods seem to be much more apt. Every ton of CO2 a country emits is consumption of a finite resource (the amount of warming we can endure before catastrophic effect) and you can't inhibit another country from releasing it. Therefore the problem is about a non-excludable but exhaustible resource.

I'd love to hear from someone more economically minded about why I'm wrong.
That makes complete sense for a reservist with a day job. I got the impression that this guy is doing his military psyops duty by working at Twitter, thus doing both jobs at once.
> And what we are seeing, for the most part, is that margins matter. Both gross margins and operating margins.

No kidding. Of course margin (and cash flow) matters. That is the very definition of valuation. The tricky part is timing. Are current margins likely to be the same as future margins?

There are some businesses that are investing heavily in their business to grow new categories (e.g. AMZN) or build the network. In those cases, you won’t see strong margin and cash flow early on.

Uber is a special case where they are losing money even at scale. Uber is a great idea, but far overvalued by investors like SoftBank. It needs to drop down below $10B. That will also mean laying off most of the employees and raising prices.

WeWork is the same. They just got their faster.
The article says he was imprisoned for "trafficking women and children." Assuming that's accurate and not Chinese propaganda, I'm fine with the idea of permanently cutting him off from potential victims.
a working circular saw when I was in the middle of a big renovation project, two pairs of hardly used ice skates and a bunch of high end fashion items in good shape sold for peanuts
That's a major assumption. Many get curious when a plumber or other blue collar worker talks on an hn thread. This isnt a secret clubhouse, its a new forum. Just...tech focused.
Pretty much this - I copy stuff over from the README once in a while. I guess the website could benefit from having some of the usage instructions though.
>Why do you think you shouldn't write that post? It's just an opinion, right?

Au contraire, I think you should write that post if you're of that opinion. And I think it would be beneficial to society to write it too.

What I wrote is that you shouldn't write it "and not expect to get fired" -- because that's what will probably happen. If it was to me, that shouldn't happen either. But a company is a private business, and the law allows them to fire people at will (I'd change that too, like we have it in Europe).

I stated though that you should not "lose your job [for your opinions], especially if it's totally unrelated with your opinions" (the job being unrelated to what you spoke, that is).
Not really, their product ranges and styles are fairly static and basic. Zara or H&M are fast fashion, Uniqlo is decent timeless basics
The average case of a PhD (even in machine learning) is that a handful of people will read your work, and you'll get cited a few times. That's it.

The analogy I've always used is that researchers are like miners in a gold rush. Most workers take their pickaxe, labour at the rock face, and come away with little more than sore muscles. A lucky few will strike gold (sometimes by looking in the right place, sometimes by working hard, and sometimes by being lucky). You need all those hundreds of people labouring away to find the gold, but the efforts of a single worker matter less than you might think.