skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Tech for testing is a good idea. You get the same adrenaline rush playing “race the teacher” type math games as in a live classroom test. You are timed, you know exactly how long you work on each problem, you can identify your strengths & weaknesses, & there's no need for a proctor to walk around the classroom. These are objectively good things.

I run a math site for 6-8 year olds & it’s an absolute delight to watch kids challenge each other to be the fastest at fun algebra & geometry puzzles. Several teachers have told me in person that kids who ace the puzzles on my site are ready for college. These are little kids in elementary & middle school! So it makes me very happy to have built something which is so powerful for reinforcing core concepts.

But then, some of the parents ask me how to get their kids to score higher. How to work some of these tests. Which youtube videos to watch. I tell them not to waste their time on tech.

If you want your kid to learn math, the best is one on one instruction. I sit with my kid for a few hours every week and we work problems on a whiteboard. Kids like markers & sometimes they will doodle with red & green markers while trying to think. This is incredibly fun to watch and it’s an awesome bonding exercise. I write a problem with a black marker & each kid has a color marker & they quickly start writing on different areas of the whiteboard and soon we have a solution. The $20 walmart whiteboard is an absolute godsend. We have a ton of markers & 3 whiteboards, one in basement & living room & upstairs, so whenever we feel like it, we can indulge in math. That’s the height of technology I’ve used.

Give your kids time & attention. That’s really all they want.
And been that way since the days slavery was politically correct rather than having to jump through all the debt slave hoops it has to now.
I it is not about opt-in, it is about getting both money and traffic from google. This quote from the parent linked article is very telling:

> After the passage of the law Google asked German publishers to explicitly opt-in or be excluded from search results as protection against liability. Publishers opted-in but filed an antitrust complaint, arguing they were effectively forced by Google to waive their copyrights.
At this point I just put PWA frameworks all on my resume side by side just so clueless recruiters can hit keywords, even if I was only using one in a particular role

Vue.js (React, Angular)
^truth, insofar as you cannot detect the flicker
> The change means French users will only see the headlines and not the first few lines or a thumbnail image for news content unless European publishers specifically request to show previews, the company said.

I'm guessing some publishers will give permissions and eventually forcing others to follow suit when they start losing traffic.
I wish I could say you are wrong. I definitely saw people on both ends, but I can't say with certainty which is more common.

People is US had a joke about wiretaps and a variation of the joke returned.

People change based on stimuli.
iPhone X is barely 2 years old. It works on the vast majority of iPhones in use today.

For those it allows complete data extraction except the Secure Enclave, correct? I suspect this would have been valuable.
Feel free to point out the spin and misinformation, instead of drive-by downvoting.
Assuming for a moment that we can trust our smart phones at the platform level not to lie to us, the problem of targeted backdoored builds could be mitigated somewhat if the platform implemented Binary Transparency in a clever way:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency

When you install an app (whether through an app store, or side-loading) the app should state the location online of an append-only log that lists all the releases (with timestamps) for that app. The phone OS could periodically check to see if an upgrade is available, and security researchers could check that the log doesn't contain references to versions which aren't available to the public.

Ideally there should perhaps also be a way for users to anonymously report which version of any app they are using, so that people with particular security concerns could configure their OS to only update an app after, for example, 50% of users have already installed the update.
At the hour of my posting this comment, all of its siblings fail to appreciate that the parent points out an irony (one that absolutely is there by the way) and does nothing much else. It's not a policy recommendation. It doesn't mount a logical argument as to relative priority of problems. All of that stuff has to be inferred by the reader. Some of it perhaps we are intended to infer, but the writer's intent also, would have to be inferred by the reader. It's not even really a piece of 'logic' at all; that square peg has to be round-holed by the reader. The only thing it actually says (and I encourage people to try to mostly stick to that in general) is to point out the irony, which I think is absolutely worth pointing out given the well-meaning but frankly ridiculous context. The thing that makes it ridiculous in fact is this very irony. It sucks to have your Saturday feel-goods about the emancipated orangutan shit-upon, but after a while you learn that life is full of these little ironies, and it's an acquired taste, and like anything that's worth doing or living or having, the contradictions make it richer and you appreciate it more.
Almost mandatory link for any informed quatuom computation discussion:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/
NY has made it illegal to call someone an “illegal alien”
Ah, I was including anocracies in the number because they are technically democracies and still an improvement over autocracies. Should have rephrased as "70% live in at least a partial democracy"
There's some evidence to suggest that more policing leads to more crime (drops in policing are correlated with a lower # of major crimes). If you're going to be hassled by police anyway, why not go large? Hence the old proverb 'might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.'
A short story about React Native
That is a complete useless waste of time.
While the article is kind of slog in the beginning to establish its context, this struck me as especially true/relevant:

“When innovative companies begin making decent profits, landlords raise the rents to adjust for the new ability to pay. As a result, these additional wages are neither reinvested, nor reflected in the disposable income of employees. This is the dynamic behind the mystery of stagnant wages. When workers in a particularly well-paid sector begin pouring into a city, landlords likewise raise the rent to absorb these incomes. It isn’t gentrification, but absorption through monopoly power.”

The housing affordability crisis is really a crisis of land owner cartels, especially in major urban centers. Short of some massive investment in public housing, there’s not much that can be done to course correct.
The thing with closed-source is that the binaries can be backdoored by the vendor on behalf of the NSA. This is not a new practice. With open-source code this venue is less likely to work and needs an additional layer of deception. Sure the NSA may manage to plant vulnerabilities, but flaws will not be persistent in the same way as when they're planted in cooperation with a vendor.

There's currently a push for reproducible builds which further hardens distros against such attacks.
what does it do
Ahh yes, makes sense.
Barry is a VR human whose sole purpose is to be fired over and over again
> The WH is fighting will almost all major economies (apart SA, Israel, and brexit Britain),

I suspect us mugs here in Brexit Britain are simply being buttered up so we can get properly buggered against our wishes, and it won't be on some artsy Parisian floor, it'll be on the world stage with our pants down.
In this particular case, I'm not sure if it would have made a difference in the end (him resigning). But had he shared his feelings adequately, I suspect a lot more people would be defending him now than they are. Had he shown empathy towards the trafficked woman, while still presenting the very view he did have, it would have been more challenging to attack him.

Is it crappy that you can't express your views without showing empathy and then be judged for it? Definitely. But this is nothing new, and not unique to our age. Wishing for things to be different is wishing for humans to be otherwise.

Is it crappy that in an academic setting one cannot discuss things objectively without invoking feelings and get burnt because of it? Yes. But this wasn't that situation. One side was very clearly not having an academic conversation, but a very emotionally loaded one (protesting). It was Stallman's mistake in treating that situation like any other academic one.

Demonstrating empathy[1] is a key aspect of a relationship. Validating someone's feelings (without agreeing with their narrative) is central to demonstrating empathy. Unfortunately, the common mistake people make is assuming that validating one's feelings means you agree with the story in their heads - it doesn't.

I would often be upset with the way the world was. My having a discussion about X doesn't mean I agree with X or advocate for it. Yet people may view me as a horrible person for it. I'm just trying to have an academic discussion, and exploring ideas, damn it! Isn't that what fiction does? Etc.

But once I learned the dynamics behind all this, I couldn't help and look back at my earlier life and realize I did not behave all that different. Indeed it was easy to find examples where I listened more to one side because of their behavior (showed empathy, discussed instead of debated, etc). It wasn't that I didn't weigh different perspectives objectively - it was that I didn't listen as much to one side as the other. And I've realized I haven't met anyone who is perfect at dispassionately looking at all sides regardless of who is advocating for them. Understanding the factors that go into play will make you better at being able to listen to all sides so you can evaluate them objectively.

Showing empathy with the person whose view you find offensive/wrong is going to make it easier for you to understand their perspective and not let your own emotions get in the way. It will help the other person not be defensive, sarcastic, etc. These are things that bring about strong emotions and eliminating them from the other will help them explain their perspective better.

So yes, it does suck - but it's the same type of suckiness as the existence of bacterial diseases or the fact that I'll starve if I don't eat. Dwelling on it is futile.

[0] Note I said demonstrating empathy, not feeling or having empathy. I don't doubt Stallman has empathy for the trafficked person. Sadly, it's not what you know but what you can show.
There are a few cases where syntax compilation is split up cleanly, but when you dig into the internals of preset-env, transforms are rarely that isolated. That being said, "watch this space"...
What exactly leads you to believe that posting your credit card number on hacker news is somehow equivalent to not being outraged by the U.S. sharing _encrypted_ messages of suspected terrorists with the UK? Let’s not pretend the world is so black and white.
It's really not a question of how bad an economic model is, but whether there exists a better one we can use in its place. When people criticize (often rightly) economic models and point out their limitations, there is an implication that we should abandon them because they are so flawed. But this is wrong. It is not enough to avoid flawed models; we need something demonstrably better to replace them with, and this is where the critics tend to come up short.

Suppose we get rid of economists and their models; then what do we use in their place to guide policy? Our intuition? No thanks. If someone has a superior theory of the economy, they must show it with logic and empirical observation. Until they do, we are stuck with our more flawed models.
> This is a good principle, but it assumes that inequality is due to the fact that people who work more earn more...

It doesn't assume that, it prescribes that.

> ... which most proponents of egalitarianism argue isn't the case in today's society.

Since most people get paid by the hour, those who work more (paid) hours do earn more. Of course not all work is equally valuable or productive, nor is all compensation commensurate to those factors.

Still, even if in our system more work didn't translate into more compensation, that has no bearing on whether it should.

If by egalitarianism you argue "equal pay for equal work", then that implies both unequal pay for unequal work, as well as income inequality for those who work less over those who work more.

If we reduce inequality down to a single number, we cannot asses whether that inequality implies unfairness. We can achieve perfect equality by giving everyone exactly the same amount of money - no matter what work they perform, or whether they perform any work at all. That would obviously be unfair.
Hmm... I think you are misreading his point. He seems to be pointing out that there are other things that are more important and that this seems to be a waste of time. Broadly I agree.

One problematic reply I think is:

>We should fix both immediate problems and the fundamental ethics issues that perpetuate an exploitative mindset. Animal rights are part of that.

Until we have a really good test for animal intelligence and some tractable way to map that to utility I think this is seriously misguided. At the end of the day the wants of a human supersede the wants of an orangutan, even if only by force. Do I think there is much utility in how this orangutan was treated? Not really. But am I allowed to exploit the orangutan? Yes, to the same extent I have a right to life.
>Imprisoned for decades for a crime he committed as a juvenile

So, for a single, first time, first degree murder, Pennsylvania gives "a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, including for juveniles"?

What kind of medieval backwater has such laws?

And how is that working out for them? [1]

Compared to e.g. countries which have much smaller sentences for the same type of crimes (especially for juveniles), in much more humane prisons, and achieve much lower crime rates...

For comparison, the guy who methodically mass shoot and killed 77 people in Norway, only got 21 years in prison (and in a vastly more humane prison, more like a Motel 8 than the hell-holes in the US, at that). Perhaps that's another extreme, and I'd be OK if he went in for life, but the Pennsylvania extreme is medieval, inhumane, and depraved too. Too much Old-Testament inspired morals...

[1] Rhetorical question, I've checked the Pennsylvania homicide rate: https://patch.com/pennsylvania/abington/crime-falls-u-s-here...
"Why do you insist the candidate reads your mind?"

The Guess What I'm Thinking strategy to dating, err, job hunting.

More fun than the brogrammer Mensa puzzle bar-raiser hazing ritual.

But whatcha gonna do? We still have to play the game.

My last crash and burn was in response to "Give us an example of a disagreement and how you handled it." So I did. I'm honest to a fault.

[Non-programming manager specified a buzzword compliant "architecture" that simply didn't work. We tried, but every JMS we tried failed under load testing, and the upstream wouldn't accept our PR. And we had run out of time. So I came up with something super simple which just worked, as-in couldn't fail. And it flew and was easy to debug and turned out great, a major selling point. But I kinda didn't actually tell the manager we didn't use JMS, at the time. Who cares? It's internal (non-customer facing). Further, the manager was an erratic maintenance alcoholic, and I just wasn't up for another food fight.]

These two interviewers lost their minds. Incredulous. Couldn't let this go. Repeatedly hammered me on this point. The shift in mood was dramatic.

Definitely not in the "better to ask for forgiveness" camp.

Weird, for a startup.

So while both party thought the other insane, I think the interview questions worked as needed, preventing us from working together.
Check out Nix. Deterministic source derivations of pretty much anything you might want to build, trivially re-buildable from source by anyone. It takes seconds to install the "Nix Shell" on pretty much any of the modern OSes.

Now, to avoid the "Reflections On Trusting Trust" exploit, building the C compiler toolchain from known-good "root" compiler/linker toolchains, and then comparing the output vs. self-compilation is quite a bit harder.
We could do a lot to reduce poverty without an extra dollar or redistribution. We could end the drug war, expunge non-violent criminal records, remove lots of occupational licensing requirements, and make it easier to claim benefits.
I'm a hobbyist when it comes to RPi/Arduino projects, and I always feel powerless when I do projects like these. There's always a better way to do what you're currently doing, without too much extra costs, and there's no way I could have found out on my own.

It happens almost the opposite when building software (maybe because that's what I do for a living?), but it makes me think that maybe there's a different workflow that I'm not aware of when working on HW projects.
This isn't a good sign. And it's worse than the title says, too. There are multiple other things that they list as illegal, both in speech and in actions.

For instance, it's now illegal to discriminate against someone in hiring for having limited English. What if I need someone who's good at English, for a sales position or something? Now what am I going to do if an illegal alien with limited English abilities signs up for this sales position? I'm screwed.
The big difference between the us and china is the us doesn't require international companies building factories in the us to disclose their technology to required local partner companies here. That's the key problem with China (second would be outright stealing technology and hacking) and this first thing is the easy thing to hold against them (I'm aware this supposedly changed, tesla said they didn't have to do this for their new factory, but lets see if it is true). It's basically indefensible, just like the super low international post rates that Chinese companies have enjoyed until the recent agreement [0]. Of course china doesn't really operate according to international law unless it suits them, and so if you protest unfair treatment in China, your company won't succeed. That was all before the recent kidnapping of book sellers from H.K. (and billionaires). So to sum up my wandering comment, it's hardly surprising that there are less complaints in China, because complaining means the likely end of your chance to operate there.

Was Tibet the last place China invaded, that was more than 50 years ago though. It's true they haven't invaded any places people live, but they are taking over those atolls out in the ocean.

Every country has some protectionism (Canada and their milk farms for example), and everyone wants to help themselves. But the "proper" way to do this is trade off a few protectionistic choices against another countries and shake hands over it. China is of course the emerging great power and the us is handling it poorly at this moment. I advocate for the us to insist China stop doing the stealing by official decree, stop putting "holds"/prisoner-keeping on people at the border. If the us is able to get china to actually be a good citizen in terms of following international law, and we get back to mutually beneficial trade pacts, we'll all be okay and reduce the chance of war. I really think our insane period in the us with a nationalistic stooge will end, and we can back away from the edge of the abyss where we are now.

0. https://www.barrons.com/articles/international-postal-rates-...
When people say the GPL ensures freedom for the "user", they mean the end-user. Under the GPL, the end-user can always view and modify the source code of the software they use however they want.

Distributors of software, on the other hand, are prohibited from licensing GPL-derived software in a way that restricts end-user freedom. (And they're also prohibited from licensing GPL-software in a way that allows others to license it in a way that restricts end-user freedom, which is why you can't incorporate GPL code into an Apache-licensed project.)
Out of interest what is your citation for Signal being nutritious or having messages going missing?

Anecdotally speaking, neither I or my friends that have been using Signal for years have every had any messages go missing, so I’m just interested as to why you might be experiencing this.
There’s a nice chapter on Buffon’s needle problem in “Proofs from THE BOOK”, an Erdős-inspired attempt to collect the most beautiful proofs. You can find a PDF of the entire book easily enough on Google, it’s a good read although I would dispute the beauty of some of the proofs in it.
At some point surely there is a line when the whole headline is 'this is bad, I made my own'. That would be like me saying 'modern OSs are bad, I made my own' and it actually being a new task bar for a Linux distribution.

At some point people need to take responsibility for the titles they write.
>moves like this are to keep us safe

From the government's perspective, they are to keep "us" safe. It's easier to do that if no one's safe from us. :)

Granted, that's a little over-ominous because the government's mission statement is to keep its people safe, and it's also elected by its people. Either of these two facts changing is the way bigger danger; backdooring centralized services is stuff that happens in the meantime either way.
I agree with everything you said, of course, that if a crime is committed and nobody is left to look after the child, the child becomes a ward of the state. They don't go to county lockup, they end up in the foster care system. It certainly doesn't provide a free pass to commit crimes in a "you can do literally anything you want so long as you've got a baby on you" haha. Either way the consequences are negative to the child and the child is also innocent. That is definitely sad and unfortunate.

In the case of legitimate refugees seeking asylum, fleeing war-torn areas, the worst case outcome of ending up in a prison in the US may be a better outcome than near-certain death at home, which is why asylum seekers do so, and why the program exists in the first place. I think very few people in the US actually internalize and recognize this.

It's also important to remember that some half of all illegal immigrants in the US are visa overstays, and assuming they did intend to leave when they originally spoke with a border guard, merely being in the US while out of status is not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter, like a traffic ticket. This was addressed in 2012 in Arizona v. USA. Congress has repeatedly refused to criminalize unlawful presence. It's a criminal matter if you lie to a border guard, if you enter without inspection, or try to re-enter after deportation. [1]

[1] https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/15/fl...