skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The fact that we're making progress in acquiring knowledge doesn't necessarily entail that we're getting better at being objective or unbiased. I see no reason to think that we are. (Nor am I particularly convinced that objectivity and lack of bias are major factors driving scientific progress, but that's probably another conversation.)
would love to see a video of it in action :)
"I wonder if there's some way to do it in a decentralized way" - Everyone has that same thought until it's put into practice and you find yourself hosting stuff "from the community" that can get you dragged into court or prison. BTW... if you think "the community" is going to come together and help you through the financial and legal hardships you will be sorely mistaken. They will just pack up and move on to the next thing and you will be let to fend for yourself.
This is a weird way to think of it. All of these organizations have been putting up with Stallman's problematic behavior for a long time. This incident reopened a dark chapter in MIT history, too soon and Stallman has a history of, at best, minimizing the impact of pedophilia.

This was a final straw situation.
Climate change has a very simple cause, CO2 emissions. Should stand to rain that the resolution can be similarly easy.

I for one, want to get past this so we can move on to fixing our society.
It's a realistic attitude. When you have been around for more than a couple of these cycles, you just see the same things happen, over and over and over.

It's very difficult to sustain a technical solution in the face of human nature that moves at such a comparatively glacial pace.
> How could Minsky possibly have suspected that anything was amiss?

Reportedly, Minsky did suspect that something was amiss and refused the offer.
Presumably that was his actual views back then. People have relied heavily on that second quote to prove that he still holds those views though.
This is... tricky. There's two ways you can interpret the situation.

One is that Twitter has a desire to use the information warfare skills directly to manipulate the narrative on its platform. The other is that they recognise external actors are very likely to want to do exactly that, and this sort of hire is a great defensive move.

Twitter will never admit to the former and will always publicly state the latter. I don't think there's a real way to tell what the truth actually is — arguably it might actually be "a bit of both" — and I suspect most people will see this as proof of whatever theory they already believed in.
Fixing Getrandom()
Wouldn't carbon capture be a much better solution than slowing down production in the long run? We can potentially restore a large amount of ecosystem within forests as humanity move towards further urbanization.

I don't want to be too pessimistic, but even if the US and EU become carbon neutral tomorrow, China and India with their 3 billion people will cause an explosion of CO2 emissions as their population enter the middle class with disposable income. China is about to overtake US as the biggest air travel market in 2020, and India is just beginning its mass industrial revolution. No amount of external political pressure will make these countries to halt its GDP machine.
Anyone read the "shipbreaker" novels by Paolo Bacigalupi. Good sci-fi that deals with this.
It makes me want to completely avoid Amazon.

Then why don't you?

I seriously don't want to be glib, but I read so many complaints about Amazon, their intermingling of stock from various, partially shady sources, fakes, dodgy reviews, which they do shit-all about, etc, etc.

Personally I don't buy at Amazon since when they pulled a bait and switch on their privacy pledge, which was pretty much in the beginning.

Their predatory behavior, their treatment of employees, their not giving a fuck if you get sent fakes, their systemic viloation of privacy, their dodgy support of law enforcement and their overall creepy behaviour all just reinforce me in this and frankly: I can live quite well without buying anything at Amazon.

So I'm genuinly curious: Why do so many people still buy despite an avalanche of complaints?
Cryptoindex Daily Forecasts for 30.09.2019
Yep, rainforests tend to produce clouds, which raise albedo etc. etc.
I wouldn’t say that. Roman governance was distributed and the governors turned into petty Kings. Some held on to land and gold. Many affiliated with the church, etc. There are probably families in Europe who can trace back to those ancestors.

The difference today is that intellectual property is more highly valued. When law and order breaks down, software, for example, has zero marginal value.
What would be a good use case to learn erlang/elixir with that is not just a chat app?

Online gaming?

Collaborative tools?
There is study after study after study concluding that pretty people on average have it easier in life, are treated better, have it easier to achieve successful careers, have it easier to find sexual partners, get away with more things, etc...
This has been debunked at plenty of places, but I guess it needs repeating.

Quote from the article: "Around 0.9 billion hectares (2.2 billion acres) of land worldwide would be suitable for reforestation, which could ultimately capture two thirds of human-made carbon emissions."

This is wrong. The reason is a bit technical. The issue here is that about half of the emissions going into the atmosphere get soaked up by natural sinks, e.g. the oceans. However if you take carbon dioxide out of the air the reverse happens: The oceans and other sinks re-release the carbon.

This needs to be taken into account, but hasn't happened here. So the effect is only about half the size of what is claimed.

Sources by some climate scientists explaining this:
https://twitter.com/pepcanadell/status/1147066574299377664
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1147190442145898496

To be clear: There's nothing wrong with planting trees as one solution to the climate crisis. However this study was presented in a way that overestimated the effect massively. (Also I have some doubts that planting trees is "easy" given the political situation in the countries that have the largest potential.)
Good thing that they drop seeds and that their death triggers a prolific growth of seedlings then.
>Yet, somehow people in Europe think that a huge deforestation is taking place.

That's because they have empirical knowledge on the ground -- for example in my country there is tons of deforestation taking place, and has been going on for decades.

Note that statistics can be misleading, especially when governments want to paint a greener picture: e.g. areas can be de-characterized (from "forrest" to available for construction and commercial use, etc), after which cutting trees there is not "deforestation" anymore...
I've been donating to Trees For the Future for the last few years. Here's a blog article I wrote on it recently: https://automicrofarm.com/blog/2019/03/solving-climate-chang...
No, but I find myself gravitating much more towards the negative reviews. Not only are they more likely to be legitimate reviews, they tell me the reasons someone didn't like a product, which I find more valuable. Often because a failure for one person might not be an issue I care about: For example, if a reviewer for a book says, "Author spent too much time on the individual people and not enough time moving the plot forward" then I might view that as a positive if I like deep character building. It's a legitimate complaint, but from my perspective it's a feature, not a bug. Or I just might not care: "Item arrived broken" is not something I care much about when it's something that's easy to return/exchange, unless many people are also saying even when it arrived intact, It breaks too easily on use.
I don't know, there doesn't seem to be any documented instances of that I can find. Doesn't mean there wasn't any, but as I said, disincentives to reporting are high.
"verified" means "good citizen of the platform"
> For companies that truly need them, "time" and "effort" are never a consideration.

I'm not sure that's true. Sure, a few of the most famous software companies in the world have built their own at considerable cost. But numerous other huge, important companies are dependent on large-scale distributed systems whose major drawbacks (reliability and maximum scale, usually) and major benefits (simplicity, time/resources saved on not having to hire tons of specialists, quick development time) are based precisely in the time and effort constraints under which those systems were developed.
> drasticaly reducing emissions immediately

we all know this

and we all know it's not happening

you cannot divert a mass with that much inertia in the blink of an eye

reforestation and involving people in more natural lifestyle is probably a good way to start the curve IMO
Exactly, we need to consume less, a lot less. Personally I've already started since a decade a minimalist lifestyle. I also plant trees when I go riding and hiking, even if it seems insignificant
They guy had managed to inflict himself punishment at no cost to taxpayers. At least victims will have some relief, otherwise it's a waste of time.
Well, that is a strategy to deal with large/long projects, break them into smaller/shorter ones.
I would be okay with the moderation if there were some constraints to non-community mods. I find these kafkaesque processes unacceptable where same people downvote, close, dismiss flags and delete.

It's just impossible that they don't make any mistakes judging the questions but SO makes it near impossible to fight back or correct any mistakes you might've made (mistakes they don't really tell you, keep in mind).

In the end StackExchange owners should decide on what's the point of SO, if it's meant to be a historical archive about solutions that are often outdated and pedantically kept like that, citing vague rules. Or do they want a site where people can ask questions, actually get helpful corrections and to get up-to-date answers - basically as the smaller communities are where people haven't accumulated reputation in (tens of) thousands.
I also tend to check the one-stars but sadly I’ve become so untrusting that I always think it might be a competitor trying to undermine the product.
Can sort by Target to see the (sometimes) multiple synonyms for a particular tag.
I don't think there's anything I can say to reply to this, since the strawman you've raised is not at all similar to what my views are. And I generally think it's a cheap trick to assume that other people disagree because their minds are too simple to comprehend.
Simple doesn't mean easy, unfortunately. There's more than a few sources of CO2 emissions, and some of the significant ones arent even (directly) manmade.
Who else would be the best to test new phones, software and features, and understand how they may create bugs with 3rd party apps?

In fact it’s critical to do so.
Can intellectual phase lock apply culturally, and if so, what does it look like? For example, I wonder what techniques can be used to avoid it.
Uniqlo in Thailand at least seems to be more expensive than in London as far as I recall
> "ban high-score users who do not like my low-quality questions"

Thanks for telling me you're part of the problem. You're not nearly as infallible in your judgement about what's a "bad question", it's plain and simple hubris most high-ranks have. The system should not allow such consolidation of power, there's a very good reason most democratic countries have separated the three powers.
Feel free to read the Discord engineering blogs instead of demanding answers on HN mate.
I personally decided to boycott the site for several reasons explained here. In short, the site allows dicks to run rampant and I find more answers on GitHub these days.

http://bit.ly/2mfUvCs
Elon Musk Sets Out SpaceX Starship’s Ambitious Launch Timeline
>Do you expect this to convince sane people?

I don't expect this to convince insane people. By which i mean you're insane. You take people using inclusive language as automatically dismissible. Clear sign I'm wasting my time.

>Oh, and for some reason pretty much everyone in these threads is either mistaken or deliberately lying about his recent comments about Minsky.

These threads are mostly dated 2018. The one tweet that isn't is referencing a talk from August. I don't know what you're talking about.
Discover the most untouched places in Thailand
That's a good point. I think you are definitely correct.

However, I think it's also true that some of the other solutions are likely to happen "on their own" eventually. E.g. technological advancements in alternative energy and electric cars are likely to eventually allow them to replace alternatives (if the environment survives long enough).

A lot of the other parts of the solutions don't have good ways to accomplish them. For example, I don't see a good way to reduce travel or population growth.
Have you actually read the contents of the Guardian article Stallman linked? No? Here come a few quotes:

> If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm.

> A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them.

> And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

> Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

So why nobody attacks The Guardian for publishing such statements? Yes, these things are against common sense, against natural feelings, and I refuse to believe them. But Stallman was just repeating what someone else researched.
In practice, I expect most people will, if nothing else, find it hard to give up a likely fairly lucrative job in an on-demand profession to get a PhD. Golden handcuffs and all that.

But, sure, it's possible.
Our laws allow for two types of paternity leave; one is 14 days, the other is 6 weeks for a single child and taking it reduces mother's maternity leave. This makes it impossible for a man to play shenanigans that make them stay on leave while employed for couple years.

Definitely there's a lot of work to be done on parenting in Poland, both in regulatory and social fashion. Currently it's a tension between the traditional family model and the desire to allow women to have equal career prospects to men.
Which makes me worry about MIT the organisation then - a healthy organisation would have processes in place to minimise those disincentives.
I disagree with the zero-sum assumption that often seem to permeate environmentalism, and climate politics in particular. Half the time it seems that effectiveness is judged by inconvenience, negative economic consequences and such. I sometimes think it hurts the cause more than outright anti-environmentalism.

If the only "real" solutions are things like reducing human energy use long term, you might as well stop caring and just hope for the best. It won't happen, and even if it does than the long-term^ consequences might be worse than climate change.

The actually sustainable solutions are those that are cheap, positive sum, and lead to humans thriving.

IDK if this is a solution (or meaningful part thereof) for climate change. It's not really an easy solution though. Land politics are tough, to put it mildly. They always have been.

^Operative term.
Yes, also what I thought.

For me it was as simple as installing mesa-vulkan-drivers
and re-launching rx. It is a very nice and minimal editor - well done
RabbitMQ is written in erlang and is popular, so perhaps a queueing system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RabbitMQ
Because for being such a minimalist editor, it requires something that a lot of hardware out there doesn't have and that often requires proprietary drivers.. even though it doesn't need it.
While it might be a bad rule as stated, I took it as a tongue-in-cheek way of getting at a much better rule: Avoid Learning Everything New. Or maybe, for the sake of a better acronym, Stop Learning Ephemeral Dreck. It's certainly good to expose oneself to new ideas. Sometimes it's worthwhile to dive deeper into something different. The problem is that a lot of programmers make neophilia into a lifestyle, forever distracting themselves and never learning anything really well. Scratch the surface, get some quick wins at something that's still new to everybody, move on to the next thing. Avoid any domain or technology where true experts can show you up. That's just another way to succeed as a poor programmer. Good programmers have at least some breadth and some depth in a few areas.
When will Twitter re-open verifying? It's been closed for 2 years...
Alternatively “top revenue generator, except where we disagree with them, except when we make special exceptions”.
I don't know. Have you ever read Stallman's appearance requirements[1]? I mean, yeah, it's probably a joke. But I wouldn't be shocked it it were true either.

[1] https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/rider.txt
This is a great example of exporting your forest needs. About 1/3 of the UK's renewable energy is wood pellets shipped across the ocean from the US [1]. So yes you can have reforestation but for that to happen at the same time as your demand for wood pellets increases you have to burn a lot of bunker fuel to ship that wood across the ocean.

But of course in the end you get to claim that you are using more renewable energy and increasing local forest coverage!

[1] http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16053/uk-bioenergy-c...
My favourite Steam review: "Did not load on my machine. Please help."
I'm observing (I may be wrong) that more and more photos are getting posted as part of the reviews, which I assume it's caused by buyers reacting to this problem.

That's no foolproof solution, but of course, it increases the cost of fake reviews.

Also, language is not taken into account. It's probably more expensive to buy fake reviews in, say, Norwegian, rather than in the standard English, so non-English speaking countries have an advantage.
Yes entirely plausible, I guess we'll another data for that soon then.
Groovy DSL for Declarative Reactor or RxJava Streaming Graphs
What is subscription based open source?
Something strange I’ve seen on more than one occasion and on multiple platforms is 1-star glowing reviews and 5-star bashing reviews.

Also, when looking at overall reviews for a given thing there is usually a pattern for fraudulent ones, kind of like students having to summarise from the same text.
Entering the Era of Computational Agriculture
The pale skin guys were the catalyst. The Spanish rounded up everyone who hated the Aztecs (ie. everyone who interacted with them) and used that with their horses, guns and crossbows as shock troops to defeat them.

Future conquests (Inca, etc) were aided by the devastation of disease that wiped out stove populations.

Our situation isn’t so different. Look at how quickly the Soviet state degraded into near anarchy and what happened when the pieces stabilized.
My understanding is that the train of events that resulted in mod Monica Cellio’s demodding from SE started with a gender-related complaint tweet (https://medium.com/@cellio/dear-stack-overflow-we-need-to-ta...). Companies are now very sensitive to this pattern, esp. true for SE due to the ongoing changes there.
> The astronomical news community would do the public a very big favor if they started stating clearly which pictures are taken by telescopes and which are cgi.

I agree that there ought to be clearer indications of which images come from sensor data and which are purely simulated, but all sensor images are heavily processed. I worked on Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, MRO, LRO, and other NASA missions, and wrote image processing software for various instruments on those spacecraft (primarily infrared cameras).

They're not simply snapshots like you'll get from your DSLR. Even the most DSLR-like cameras tend to image in many spectral bands (e.g. 11 bands ranging from infrared through visual into UV). An image you see in a magazine typically selects three spectral bands and assigns them to red, green, and blue.

Almost none of the images you see are true color, in part because almost none of the instruments have 3-band RGB sensors like you might see in your DSLR. There are many reasons for this, but the two biggest ones are that much of the universe is opaque to visual frequencies (you need infrared or other sensors to penetrate clouds of dust), and much of the scientifically interesting data isn't present in the visual spectrum (infrared is used to determine mineral composition, like finding hematite on Mars, which is evidence of water in the past).

Images of the surface of planets comes from a complex stitching-together of long, thin strips of data (again in many non-visual frequencies), which are taken from different angles, at different times of day. In order to create the uniform, visually-appealing (and also scientifically-valuable) images of the surface of Mars that you see, the images are heavily processed to balance albedo and adjust other anomalies. One little-known fact is that gravitationally, none of the large, rocky celestial bodies are spherical; the moon in particular is a very lumpy potato shape. This means that an orbit around the moon is nowhere near a perfect ellipse; it wobbles up and down all the time, which means the distance of the camera from the surface changes all the time. All of this has to be compensated for. During processing, everything is stretched to align, and hundreds/thousands of images of the same region from different times (over many years) are averaged together to get the final product.

All of this is a long way of saying that literally every astronomical image you've seen is computer-generated and heavily processed. There's value in knowing which images started with sensor data and which are pure simulation, but there's no value in non-computer-generated imagery.

It's hard to explain this quickly in an image caption. We used to have to deal with conspiracy quacks all the time, demanding that we release the "real images" rather than our "manipulated images" so that they could find the aliens on Mars, but the simple truth is that there are no "real images". It's all sensor data in a form that is completely useless without extensive processing.
I did, and according to theory he should have gotten better after stopping eating grapefruits- how could a longer talk with a doctor help in this case ?
I guess it makes sense that you'd want for a position like this to have someone with a deep understanding of social media in general, how Twitter is used in Middle Eastern cultures, how to discourage radicalization on the platform, that sort of thing — exactly the sort of thing you'd learn in the 77th Brigade. And yet — it's not a really comfortable sort of thing, is it? It's an admission that, at the very least, the platform is trying to manipulate its users, and at most, engaging in that manipulation on the behalf of governments it supports to the detriment of other groups.
I agree, it's also pretty easy to weed out the comments that are obviously just angry people trying to 'get back' at the company over something minor.