skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The denomination doesn't mean much. When the mixer pays out 5 BTC, it must source those 5 BTC from a transaction that gave at least 5 BTC to the mixer. In the example, that's all of the transactions, but if you wanted to pay out 15 BTC at once, you'd be limited to the first two.

A transaction has only one source, so that payout is obviously attributable to the source transaction. If the mixer gave you 5 BTC from Whore, you're holding Whore bitcoins. If the mixer gave you 5 BTC from Kingpin, you're holding Kingpin bitcoins.
The effort started out as "agile" and then turned evil six months to a year later.

Scrum planning sessions, scrum masters, funny hats, we had it all. It's not a stretch.
Good point. Given that there are 500+ officially recognized tribes in the US I imagine statehood is out.
Especially since Gorsuch recused himself.
>This is an assumption they make about me based on my race, and which some use against me (thinking me privileged in relation to school system).

Conversely, they might use it FOR you. They might assume you're smarter because you're white and went to a better school, and give you that promotion or that job or that loan.
OMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.
Biweekly is twice per week just like biannually is twice per anum.

Fortnightly and biennially are 'every other'.
These platforms (these meaning the ones with the most market cap) need to be advertiser-friendly in order to grow. They inherently require editorial bias.
The Big Bang was not (or not only) an expansion of matter, it's an expansion of space itself; the known universe is an enormous place that expanded out of a microscopic one. If there was space before the Big Bang, presumably it's been displaced by the sudden appearance of the entire universe as we know it. Not just the things in it but all the empty parts too, especially the empty parts.
What are the features that make something like Yahoo! Groups so appealing? Is it just inertia? Genuinely curious, given the recent spate of group-based service shutdowns (Meetup going paid, Google Bulletin Board shutting down, now Yahoo).

I guess I don't really understand why something more modern like a subreddit or even an old-fashioned mailing list couldn't take its place.
Yes, in these sense laws against theft "pollute" the personal liberty of thieves.
> There are many human-oriented cities around the world in which mass-transit reigns

All of which are densely populated cities.

This concept simply doesn't work in majority of America, where the average city is sparsely populated and quite spread out.

People living in Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Portland, Austin, Los Angeles, etc... quickly forget what life is like in say... Fiddletown, California.
I would REALLY love to read this, but space.com is one of those asshole sites that wants to take a gigabyte of memory (I'm not joking) and wants a full 30 to 45 seconds of CPU just to load the page.
I disagree. There are a variety of reasons to prohibit political speech in the workplace even if one desires to change the status quo:

* A company might find that it's employees become toxic when political disagreements happen.

* A company might find itself alienating people with minority viewpoints.

* A company may find itself losing customers because political views discussed in the workplace is attributed to the company.

This mentality that lack of political discussion in the workplace implies agreement with the status quo has negative consequences, and makes employees feel pressured to voice support for things they don't actually support in order to avoid losing face with coworkers.
So when a developer can’t pay the tax because they are too busy to help with overhead, they are forced to work on overhead even if they are still busy?

Why doesn’t this degenerate into the situation it’s trying to avoid?

Can the chips be cashed in every quarter?
Thanks, favorited! Especially this part:

> The in-your-face unapologetic advocacy, the constant motte-and-bailey argumentation, the extreme emotional reactions to any dissention, the preaching from a perceived moral high ground - these are not a conductive environment for changing minds.
At current difficulty rates, what is the profitability formula for cost of electricity versus hashrate?

example: if you aren't getting X Mh/s @ $Y kw/h, it isn't profitable?
I'm similar. I have the work laptop and my personal tower. My monitor has two hdmi inputs. I have a usb switch that handles my peripherals. When I switch over, I have to press the button on the usb switch and then change the monitor input. A bit more work than a kvm switch. A friend of mine used to have a pedal switch on the ground for his kvm, it was really nice.
Teddy Roosevelt was a rancher in North Dakota from 1883, and a good deal more 'hands-on' than many, but lost 60% of his cattle in the 1886-7 winter, and moved on to other things not long after. Some of his acquaintences from that time joined his Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war.

https://www.nps.gov/thro/learn/historyculture/elkhorn-ranch....
There's nothing saying that one should prefer wider audience to a smaller one. Ultimately, the quest of appealing to the lowest common denominator lowers a ceiling for possible enjoyment.
I don't quite know what to make of this. I thought it might be a trend due to people falling out of stable jobs and thus relying more on cash for payments, but the trend in hoarding large-denomination bills seems to refute this. The cash trend seems to be correlated with gold demand, but that too doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're fearful of economic disaster - gold is hedge against inflation or currency collapse. Cash is only really a hedge against bank collapse, but bank deposits are generally backed by the government, so holding cash only protects you against temporary bank runs.
I am confused by your confusion.

I merely said that I regard blizzards behavior as reprehensible because I find the Chinese government reprehensible and ergo I would not be buying their products.

This prompted a variety of whataboutism and odd segue where my moral commitment was variously questioned for buying Chinese made goods, watching football, eating at chick filet etc.

An astute observer would note I didn't bring any of this up. I don't give money to the NFL, I don't give money to chick filet, it's unrealistic to avoid all Chinese made goods as a US consumer.

There is no thing particularly wrong with trying to vote with your wallet while doing so imperfectly. It beats not giving a damn.

To quote myself for clarity.

>Furthermore sharing all of my morals isn't an apt requirement for concluding someone has morals. I and a republican can disagree on gay marriage while sharing contempt and horror of organleggers building concentration camps.

The NFL, police misconduct, chick fillet, Chinese made goods are all current affairs of note but none of the above have anything to do with boycotting blizzard.
A step in the right direction maybe, but it's missing half of the equation. And this seems a space where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: we aren't half way there. You may be using your hands to gesture, but you aren't feeling or manipulating anything. Every single picture in that post has a physical thing in the hand. This product never has a physical thing in the hand.
Top Téléphone Portable pas cher sur Amazon
I’m saying in my experience there is no such thing as one singular “decent solution” for search. It varies enormously from use case to use case, customer cohort to customer cohort, etc.

To even know if you’re buying a decent solution from Algolia or not, you’d already have to hire pretty much all the same staff you’d have to hire to more cost-effectively build it in-house.

I think the fundamental myth, just like with Rekognition, is that if you ship off your data and the third party trains some model (most likely fine-tuning a base model), then you’re done, problem solved.

Even for businesses where search is not a core part of their direct value proposition to customers this is flagrantly untrue.
> If you don't like your company's ethics-- change companies

Why is that the only recourse? Attempting to change your company's mind is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You may find that you're unable, and then would prefer to quit, but quitting in protest should always be the option of last resort.
Hah, that moose one is new to me. We have a history of some big cat sightings here around Sydney and NSW. The usual story is some US military people brought it (them?) for some reason and it escaped, I think. Though there are many stories and explanations as you'd expect.
One trick I found that youtube and google use is to make the light grey text not #777 (min allowed contrast on white background), but rather like rgba(70,70,70,.8). The alpha lightening makes it have enough contrast even if presented on a light grey background.
I like cost of electricity. While Chinese plants are subsidizing the BTC network right now, we can estimate the cost of "unsubsidized" BTC in the future based off of electricity costs today.

--------

With regard to the Lightning Network, it seems that it requires a bit of supervision to be secure. https://themoneymongers.com/lightning-network-watchtowers/

That supervision probably will have a cost of some kind.

> You can hire watchtowers nodes for a fee and design the revocation transaction in such a way that the watchtowers will also receive their service fee when you get funds of the other party as a penalty.

So we're adding many, many more middlemen to the picture. Not only do we have to pay for the final transaction (which requires a large amount of electricity to be "mined" into the blockchain), we have to hire watchtowers to ensure that our Lightning Network transactions remain correct even if our counterparty tries to screw with our transaction history. (Remember: the full transaction history in the Lightning network is off-chain).
Discussing politics at work has NEVER been a routine thing for me and as far as I know that's always been the cultural norm, at least where I live. It's handled very carefully. So I just assumed that this was the norm and discussing politics at work was the exception.
Where is there a rescindment of usg public dnssec requirements? It's still a requirement even for fedramp-low.

https://www.fedramp.gov/search-results/?search=dnssec
Because tech culture has skewed so insanely towards the authoritarian left that any challenge to the orthodoxy your post suggests is immediately weaponized. There is simply no way to honestly discuss the points you bring up without putting one's reputation and eventually career in danger. The Damore memo is a perfect example of this. The only safe thing to do in our culture right now is virtue signal and nod along with the rest of the mob. Perhaps one day the madness will pass and we will be able to again ask hard questions in public and try, together, to get to the bottom of things. Until then, lets just not talk about these things, so that a great many of us are not forced to wallow in hypocrisy for the majority of our waking hours.
But that was not determined by this SCOTUS case and remains an open question to the best of my knowledge.
"Don't discuss politics at work," is a political statement. It rules particular views in bounds and rules others out.

Similarly any business ends up making moral choices. It's unavoidable. To act in the world is to have impact. To consciously act is to intend particular impact. Commerce is inherently social; you choose to serve certain people in certain ways, with particular outcomes intended. These choices are inherently moral.

The notion that we should ignore that sometimes is of course a strongly political view. And when it pretends to be non-political, I think it's also incoherent.
1) I doubt the NYC merchandise itself is the advantage, rather it is the concentration of Hasidic entrepreneurs which provides invaluable networks.

2) The need to support a growing family from a young age with no formal education, propels many to try their hand at business.
The consequence of being guided by your values is that you intentionally forfeit opportunities to enable things that are contrary to your values. Even with the championing of today’s moral relativism, I struggle to understand how that is an ‘absurd’ result.
Automobiles kill thousands of people every day.
You're 100% right. Wasn't clear to me from the first read but we are. Going to leave my comment up just for the elaboration on the theme...
> If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.

I am interested in discussion that does not add to what I've said based on other kinds of people that may have beliefs similar to me. That is surely not too much to ask for. What maximally loaded phrasing have I used in this discussion? Certainly suggesting the native americans get countries shouldn't be met with accusations of not wanting to provide them whatever compensation should be deemed necessary by treaty. The two issues (sovereignty and aid) are not necessarily related, as has been suggested.

I'm honestly quite curious, because I often do use loaded phrasing, but in this instance, I don't really see what is loaded. Perhaps something is loaded for you that is not loaded for me?
I'm afraid that the moment you chose to use the word "wasteful" it became a philosophical discussion and they don't typically have final words at all.

The stripped down reason you see it as wasteful is that you have some set of beliefs about what is "right" and "meaningful" (many of which, I'll take liberty to say, most likely likely NOT consciously thought out) and since the core technical principle behind Bitcoin is simple enough, it's easy for you to see it does something that seemingly does not contribute to the fulfillment of what you consider "meaningful" (i.e. performing tons of computation that essentially compute nothing "meaningful").

Technical principles behind markets, industries or your own existence are not simple enough, so you cannot see through them and decide at a glance that they are "wasteful". And since you generally avoid falling into philosophical discussions (rightfully so), this is good enough for you. This doesn't mean that they achieve something that will turn out "obviously meaningful" to you (I'm cynical enough to assume they actually not), it's all just too complicated to tell at a glance.

If this is all too abstract, I'm saying that Bitcoin is actually doing something, and this something is much more complicated than the technical principle you can easily see behind it. You should take this into consideration when thinking about what this giant CO₂ emitting machine actually is. It is not a machine for computing hashes, as it might seem from a purely technical perspective.
Darkweb, murderers, VCs and drugpeddlers can help run this network of "decentralized futuristic currency" or whatever buzzcrapwords people use for Bitcoin ...
Even then, you're not going to be running on a wildly different set of architectures, I'm betting; it will be a finite set, of course, so you can attend to all the common optimizations and give the virtual machine what it needs to optimize the best it can.

No one is going to write a single piece of code that runs on both a z80 and a 56-core Xeon, for example.
Common sense states that it's okay to talk about politics insofar as it relates to workplace productivity.
When was the last time a city was incorporated in the U.S. that grew to a large, thriving population?

I'm guessing it's been some decades. I grew up playing a lot of Sim City and imaging building cities, but I don't think we build cities anymore - we just expand existing ones.
I didn't realize facebooi owned 90%. If you exclude twitter/reddit what's left snapchat?
Why is this getting downvoted, I'm curious as well.
It feels ironic, I searched "Algolia" from both, today's news is ranked as #7 in Algolia powered HN.
From Algolia: https://imgur.com/a/atRMnwj
From Google: https://imgur.com/a/d3EKdUp

Some people says it's popularity based, but if I change it to date based, it's broken? https://imgur.com/a/HGzL6fO
Yes! This is the kind of response I would like to have from my coworkers. Attack my models, my assumptions, my arguments. Don't just silently disagree and then label me a sexist afterwards.

Your presumption that I have some agenda and it wasn't social ignorance is a little offensive but whatever. "Ignorance of facts" should not be used as an insult but an opportunity to educate. The social fact that I am guilty of not knowing is that this a commonly parroted argument instead of the first logical model you come up with.

I do think you represented the argument I had at the time very well. The difference is that I used competitive programming as my example for something more controlled (plenty of stats going all the way back to high school level and on the internet no one knows if you're a man/woman/dog). Your counterargument that it isn't predictive is still valid.

Regardless, my current stance is that the question of "whether it lowers the bar or not" is not a relevant question to ask.

The only point I was trying to make with my story is that you can evoke very passionate attacks just for talking about the topic.
It is the norm, in the non-SV world.
Not to quibble, but this is household income, not necessarily a single individual's income.

In coastal cities, a two income household making 250k each is not absurd, and can certainly happen with two doctors, lawyers, or even software developers.

I'd much rather see metrics normalized by the local household income, which would be much more representative of relative inequality.
The World’s Most Reputable Countries 2019
This is a interesting LARP. Cryptozoology can be fun.

What is also interesting is there was Cryptozoology fun that people said foxes had deliberately been introduced to Tasmania.

$40,000,000 later -

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/tasmanian...

LARPing is fun, and $40,000,000 is the cost of a movie. But it still seems wrong.....
Those are all fine points, but it doesn't entirely address this gender paradox issues of Engineers in developed countries.

Moreover, it doesn't address the underlying assumption that 'equality' actually has to imply 50/50 in every labour category.

I personally believe that anyone should be able to do anything, but that gender is so deeply ingrained into culture and society, that there'll never be 50/50 in most professions not matter what we do - and that we should consider accepting 'different strokes for different folks' - and that ironically 'diversity' means people will do different things. There can still be equality in the world even if people do different things, we might just have to look at things a little differently and make sure 'fairness' is applied from another angle.

In the 1920's, Lenin tried to abolish that utterly bourgeois institution of the 'family'. He banned 'weekends' and made Russia work on a 5 day work day. Everyone got one day off - but different days off were assigned to different workers. Husbands and wives would often be assigned different days off specifically so they'd never see each other, i.e. to wear down the coherence of the family. This is not some Netflix Dystopia - this was a reality for 10's of millions of people in a 20th century country.

It failed miserably because I think the hyper intellectual social egalitarian attitudes were at odds with the social reality of humanity. I believe much of our gender wars boil down to this as well: we have gender, it's never going away, and trying to kill it is absurd. It's ok, we can have real equality without having to wipe out gender - we just have to think a little bit about it.
It loads almost instantly without javascript. I can understand not using adblocking but why are you complaining about loading times when not using umatrix or noscript?
> Maybe someone else was unaware of the other's desired gender

Then it wasn’t purposefully doing it, so I’m not sure how it’s relevant to my question

> Maybe they don’t accept the idea that

Plenty of people don’t accept the idea that men and women should be accepted equally, or that you can’t ban black people from living in your apartment, or that men who have sex with other men need to be put to death. That you’ve drawn an arbitrary line doesn’t privilege your line.
We are talking about Multinational Mega corps that hide most of the money outside of US. They are an entities with a flag sticker attached to forehead.

>The interest of an American corporation is definitionally beneficial to at least some Americans

Benefit of few at cost of majority of the nation, thats good???

>The interest of a Russian dictator is untied to the interests of any Americans.
It is as you say "beneficial to at least some Americans".

>corporations have nowhere near the amount of resources to bear on influence operations as states have.

And that's why they pay even lower corporate taxes now, the biggest players skip paying taxes altogether through loophole that somehow no one wants to ever fix. Its common knowledge that Apples, Googles, Facebooks and other Amazons pay laughable amounts. And with tax breaks and incentives the are getting more money then they pay[1] in its nature its beyond grotesque.

Lockheed martin selling jets to Saudis so they can claim a new better jets need to be developed. Directly working against interest of the state so they can milk the middle case even more. That is literally selling arms to both sides so neither will win so you can stuff your pockets with blood money indefinitely.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that what you are saying is that state is this big monolithic structure that holds vast amounts of power. It has power over corporation as it can pass laws, and it controls the biggest army in the world. True, but in reality all of it controlled through 'handful' of politicians elected via popularity contest ergo if you have enough money you will buy yourself a ticket in. And who provides the money? Interest groups, lobbyists via more or less opaque means (superPACs or dark money pools).

So you can claim that the puppet is the biggest and strongest but its on strings and groups that holds those strings are in control. And no matter what puppet will dance as its told to no matter what.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-big...
Hi guys, I've developed Mr. Opus in the last few years (with big breaks in between) but I feel it's now in a good place to see the world.

Features:
- smart job requirements include professional field experience, education experience, language spoken and country of residence. If the applicant doesn't meet them, he can't apply.

- digital profiles so you won't have to parse cvs as word documents anymore

There's quite a few features I want to add in the future but for the time being, give it a try and let me know what you think! The first job opening is free.
The full text says "relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities".

"Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public; solicitations from parties without valid proof of exempt tax status or proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities; and political organizations that have registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."
I love their reasoning for choosing a three hour workshop.

> 2 hour-long workshop: most common complaint was "Too short!"
>3 hour-long workshop: only a few complaints that it was too short

There’s no other data or reasoning presented. Surely other factors must be important and it seems unwise to select a time solely on these two points.