skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I get where you're trying to go with this, but a core value of 'iteration' just means you don't have any values. Any value you may claim to have can be 'iterated' at any time into the polar opposite, which makes any statement of what GitLab believes as a group to be worthless. You should accept that your organisation stands for nothing. It's not so bad. Most people work for such firms.

Ultimately the values of a company must come from the CEO, as he is the only person who can enforce them. Your CEO can and does decide what the policy is, the fact that he uses PRs to do so is a distraction. But it appears he either doesn't know what he believes or his beliefs are so weak that criticism from some random journalist or marketing woman is sufficient to change them completely.

We currently use GitHub. Microsoft isn't perfect but its position on selling to customers is pretty well established: they sell to anyone who uses computers, and always have. Satya Nadella does not reverse his companies policies because someone filed a pull request. This is reassuring. I don't want to ever be in a situation where Chrissie Buchanan, a blog writer of no importance at all, gets to influence our business relationships because who the hell knows when she might decide that her personal "values" don't include doing business with us? What even are her values? She refuses to explain when asked: just more evidence GitLab makes it up as it goes along.

I have nothing against your software. Other than the fact you're a distributed company and make a GitHub competitor, I didn't know much or have any opinions about you before this incident. But frankly this looks astonishingly unprofessional. Businesses want certainty and you give none.
And did a few years at Napster.
> As for higher order functions you would write a function that does the 90% and accepts a function parameter for the other 10%.

Surely you see how this doesn't scale, right?

You would need to first write your code, then abstract every single piece of it as a call to a function passed in parameters. Now your function is accepting five different functions in parameters, and calls them.

This is a terrible and impossible to scale way to emulate class specialization.
I don't know if I'd go as far to say it's worse. Cable forced one's hand into paying for things they didn't necessarily want. At least with this model, we the consumer have the ability to pick and choose exactly what we want to pay for.

If a network has shows that look appealing to you, subscribe for a couple months. If there's only one show that looks appealing, buy it on iTunes.

We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model.
Very nice! It might slightly more comfortable to play if the dealer and player were differentiated better. Is the source code available?
> Pushing it off to the negatives does not solve the issue of overflow.

it allows for comparison with errors. Working with unsigned numbers is error prone... and I started with 6502 that didn't have signed numbers.

The idea is preventing the overflow by being able to check for negatives easily. Having negative gold is likely better than leaving someone with 4billons of. For instance stuff like "max(0, balance)" just doesn't work with unsigned ones.
It's impossible to be completely apolitical. Take your own example - blizzard - and tell me how they could stay moral without taking a political stance.
It is a disgrace that Hart is suing the car builder.He had someone build a high performance show car and then allowed a friend to crash it. He is now wrecking everyone's right to modify and build cars because of his own stupidity.
I totally respect and even admire dissenting opinions, but, on the contrary, this book is magic for me. For me, it connects programming to larger and vital human endeavor. K&R does that for me too, so maybe it's a me thing.
The problem is the entire "value system" of an AI is extremely likely to be designed around metrics to begin with.

How could it discard something that it solely values?

AI, even Diamond Hard AI is independent from what it values, intelligence has no bearing on it, consider humans that are extremely intelligent but highly value brutally murdering and torturing other people. No amount of intelligence is going to change the fact they value that.
Are people who are happy about this also supportive of pharmacists who don’t dispense drugs that terminate pregnancies because they have a moral objection?
> Haskell’s typeclasses and OCaml modules solve this problem neatly.

Neither do, really.

Imagine you have an existing typeclass with three functions. How do you create your own typeclass that reuses two of these three functions but your own instance reimplements the third one?

Try it. It's pretty much impossible, or at least not without a lot of boilerplate and forwarding.
It assumes none. It walks you through the very fundamentals of computation.
You are paying for it with Amazon just bundled into the overall price. Probably 10% more.

That's why cable costs so much the bundling of various properties adds up. For now streaming inventors are eating the cost but they expect that to change by 2024.
The decline in English majors precedes an overall decline in college attendance, I hope. Regarding STEM long term prospects, well, a lot of graduates there simply aren’t very good. Rigorizing standards would lower the STEM unemployment rate. But every school’s got to make a buck.

Maybe instead of English majors, these kids could spend a stint in the military. Or join an orchestra. Or work in sales at a car dealership. Something that involves developing a skill and exercising discipline.
Cool visualization of price per square foot
Always interesting to see the scale you have to hit before rewriting from one language to another saves money (relative to engineering cost).

With node.js: 800 containers, with each container processing 250 messages per second

With golang: 340 containers, with each container processing 650 messages per second

Say each one of those containers cost $0.02/hr then that's order of $100k/year saved!
Not to be facetious but water isn't wet.
What was your exposure to the book? I have gone through it twice with study groups, and have done all the exercises, and feel if anything it's underrated.
I think you are contradicting yourself here. If the quality was good they wouldn't have mentioned not having big releases as being the reason why their subscriber growth was slow.

No, I’m saying that Disney’s library content has value and doesn’t have to be hit driven to be successful. If Netflix’s only way of gaining customers is by keep getting in debt to fund new content, it has an unsustainably high customer acquisition cost. If customers don’t care enough to stick around to have access to its library content, the lifetime value of a customer is low.

Either Disney is severely undervalued or Netflix is severely overvalued (or both).

Why does Uber and Lyft have any value at all when they are losing billions and have no hope of having profits that justify their value? Dropbox should also be valued at zero. Market cap is not a substitute for sound business fundamentals like actually having a profitable business model.
I found the notation here non-standard and confusing.

In my opinion, the wikipedia article is more concise and provides more intuition (especially the multiple ways to derive the closed form solution).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_least_squares#Alterna...
This theory, if true (which is nigh-impossible to prove) seems to lead to percentages that align with the theory of the disposable male.

That theory, last I glanced at it, was that 70% of females expect to reproduce in any given generation compared to 30% of males, and was then used as explanations for higher risk behavior in males.

What that was based on (species used, or timelines in human society, etc) I do not know.

It was also attached to some dubious headlines like "the myth of male power" which undermined IMO the theory, but the core theory seems to explain a large amount of strange things in society, even though technology has upended the conditions from which it arose.
There is an excellent "hidden brain" podcast episode about TMT.

It is not conscious.

One of the consequences is that it makes you want to belong to a group and makes you chastise people that go against its moral norms. One of the experiments was to determine the amount of an amend (or was it bail?) a prostitute would have have to pay.

The expected amount is $100 and that's what the control experiment got, but if you remind the judge of their own mortality before asking that question, the median amount jumps to $400.

edit : link to the expy : http://people.uncw.edu/ogler/Experimental/TM%201.pdf
CNG is available and common in fleet use.

The big complaint is about performance. CNG cars aren't generally as quick or fast as their gas
counterpart.
I'm looking at option 3 as the logical choice. I admit I don't know, but you really think the added cost of the fingerprint sensor is significant on an $800 phone that's really meant as a flagship device to help keep Android relevant against iOS? Also while HN is certainly not the market at large, there's been more pushback for thicker phones with larger batteries, so the added thickness could be seen as a benefit.

I don't know how Google weighed it or how they chose their priorities so I can't say whether or not they made the right call at the time (hindsight is 20/20). But based on your list, option 3 is the obvious choice to me.

There's also the question of how long they had from the hardware cutoff date to the software cutoff date - I'd guess many months. Why not allocate more resources to help with the facial recognition software? That project by itself for a company at Google's scale should not take that long. Like I said, this is no longer cutting-edge tech.

I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I think Google really fucked up the Pixel 4 and I bet it was a Product Manager who is responsible.
So you want more regulation? You mean like the monopoly cable industry regulations?

You think breaking up Disney is the answer? Then you have 10 streaming services to subscribe to instead of 5
>these explainers often miss is the context around music theory, and what it means to be consonant or dissonant

Manifestoes always have something like this, an implied "if you're like me..." that covers all of the assumed knowledge and context.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been listening to two people talk to each other and they both have no idea what the other is saying.

I'll understand both people and know that the response doesn't follow what was just said by the other person, but then the other person will respond in kind with something equally or more ... non sequitur for the lack of a better word.

Then I think, "How many times have I, myself, been in such a conversation?"

How much of what someone is saying to me do I think I understand but really didn't? How many times has someone said to me, "You aren't understanding what I'm saying." and I say, "No I get it!" But I don't.

And then what do I do in that situation? I used to say stuff like, "Wait a minute, you are talking about Looper and you're talking about Inception and you both think you're talking about the same movie."

But then I just decided to let them talk and not worry so much about miscommunication. It seems like such a high percentage of communication that I realized it doesn't really matter. Talking to someone isn't about communicating ideas, it's mostly about the comfort of having someone to talk to.

Likewise, podcasts, youtubes, etc are more about the background noise than they are the content.

People just don't want to feel alone.
Crate engines are a neat concept I only learned about recently. Suppose you bought some awesome old car from 70s and its engine was on the way out. What if you don't want to risk a junkyard buy? You get a crate engine, that's what.

Straight from the factory, ready to drop in a 50 year-old vehicle, and infinitely better made than they were back in the day. GM alone has dozens of engines available. They're not cheap--$8,000-$10,0000 isn't unusual--but what a cool option for a real enthusiast.
> raised in tubs and selected from a narrow genetic slice

I have volunteered at a large hatchery in BC, located near the headwaters of a small river. Every fall salmon are trapped next to the hatchery, their eggs & sperm are extracted for that year's batch, are mixed together, and the resulting fry are released in the spring.

So they aren't kept at the hatchery very long, and the genetic selection is limited to whatever made it back upstream.
You really don’t think that would make the news? Why would you have to depend on the PR department? It sounds like another panic without any basis in reality.

And now, that phones are moving toward face recognition isn’t kind of a moot point?
Yep, same here. We architected our services so that a common layer could be used which reduces service duplication but still we have over 700 projects for just one company doing end-to-end ecommerce and fulfillment. At some point you even start running out of names so you end up with people using acronyms from their specific fields which quickly ends up being unfindable. Not because of search but because you no longer know what to search for.
Of course. But they could try to provide some circumstantial evidence that they were the same. Similar trade sizes, similar execution patterns, etc.. There are way they could have attempted to make their case. If they cared at all about making a case, that is.
Fuzzing the Z-Machine
Routine plea: please link to abstracts (Šuvakov and Dmitrašinović - Three classes of Newtonian three-body planar periodic orbits -
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0181) rather than directly to PDFs. (It is an easy click to get from abstract to PDF, but not vice versa.)
>Its been beat to death but Freedom of Speech is a limit on Governmental Power to silence citizens.

I don't know why people keep saying this, because it's obviously not an accurate description of how people are using the term. Freedom of speech is a principle that certain people believe in and that the US government implements in the form of the 1st amendment.
Easy Biscuits from Scratch:

Step 1) Plant a crop of wheat
>And unless the women want to date down they have to accept it.

And, these women. They are so averse to the "date down" idea in your view, that they are willing to contract HIV to avoid dating firemen or truck drivers?

I'm probably too old to understand anymore. But I'll just say that in my day, more women were in college than men. Even so, that idea of risky sex because a guy has a degree would have been patent nonsense. Very few women in my day would have been willing to risk their lives to have sex with you. A guy's degree was just not that attractive.

I find it difficult to believe that women have changed very much in that regard. But, hey, I guess if you guys say so.
'The perfect combination of art and science': mourning the end of paper maps
Don't mistake metrics for strategy!
Imgur no longer supports NSFW subreddits because they put its ‘business at risk’
Beautiful read.

For my part I recommend to answer the title of the article with "while listening to "Nindinugga Nimshimshargal Enlillara" by Equimanthorn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5egyvsfNJxc
> They also quote the stock price and earnings per share as evidence for the decision being positive.

No, actually. There's a tiny but important distinction here: the author is merely saying that there was a certainty that there would be negative effects, and that the expected negative effects didn't happen.

The author even grants that there isn't a certainty that this decision caused a positive outcome:

"Of course, there are many other factors that have contributed to CVS’s ... stock performance."

The article's only point is that ideologues and demagogues often assume with 100% certainty that there will be some negative outcome from some company changing some policy or another, but that this is a flaw in their thinking, because they're imagining the market to be something much more limited, simple, and rigid than it really is.
90%? Disney doesn't really own a lot. They have huge brands in some niches but overall not much % wise. They refuse to touch anything adult in nature and that is the vast majority of content.
That's not how it works.

For one, it's the age-old anticonsumer situation, but a fully distributed edition. People value movies and shows by title, not by distributor. Platforms aggregate orthogonally to that. The end result is, even if you ranked all the movies/shows by how much you wanted to that and restricted yourself to top 10, you'll likely end up having to subscribe to all the mainstream platforms to get them.

Secondly, wrt. not having to watch anything, you sort-of do. Popular entertainment becomes popular culture, and if you want to participate in the society and build relationships with other people, you kind of have to be at least aware of some of the current offerings of that popular culture.
FYI: most cars do not have an “oil level” gauge. They have an oil temperature gauge.
Card counting schemes have almost nothing to do with the cards of others. I have no idea who you were watching but they sound like frauds. It's trivially easy to verify that counting systems work in theory. If you have a sufficiently good counting system, you will know exactly the cards remaining in the deck (Suppose I knew only 8s were left in the deck. I just never hit and let the dealer bust continually). Even the best human-capable counting systems only have an edge of 1-2%, meaning that you still need to get lucky or have a ton of time and a near infinite bankroll (minimize risk of ruin).

Having more players at the table hurts the efficiency of the count because more cards come out between when you place your bet, and when you receive both of your cards. This means that the correlation between the count when you place your bet, and the hand you receive, decreases.

House edge at good casinos is normally below 1%, and you're telling me an AI with perfect information couldn't beat a dealer whose moves are incapable of changing given new information?

Source: I've card counted for 6-7 years now
Didn't think of that. Granted, I've built guitar amps that run at 450vdc, but that was milliamps of current
It continually amazes me that people like you think they have found a legitimate problem after 30 seconds of thought which the experts never imagined. I imagine at least one follow up which includes a reference to 'appeal to authority' yada yada yada will appear.
> We're never going to have an affordable, legal, pay-once-for-everything model.

That possibility is a huge market failure. The demand is there.
I'd be curious to see what the stats actually are. What proportion of smokers are occasional smokers, and what proportion of soda drinkers are occasional soda drinkers? I would not expect similar distributions.
I don’t think that’s a good reason. HBO will likely not be an add-on in near future. Hulu allows you to add Showtime too.

CBS or Showtime have a good chance of not remaining with both products. Once CBS merges with Viacom [again]. Showtime and CBS’s new parent company will have to decide what to do about their streaming future.

Edit: Hulu has add-one for HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, and Starz. Hulu obviously counts so then Amazon should count too.
Or just _more_ light, and you don’t need to shoot because everything vantablack will be aflame...
No, it’s much better than cable.

Most people don’t watch that much TV and won’t need more than one or two services. Those people are saving a ton of money.

And a few people that are glued to their TVs will pay more. As they should.

I’m particularly happy that I no longer have to subsidize sports, which I never watched, to the tune of $20 a month or so.
I think we both agree, I don't what statement I made you are arguing against.

The interesting part of the streaming space is that the incumbents actually have an advantage over the upstart technology company. They are joining the party almost 8 years after netflix and will probably succeed just because of the massive repository of content they have accrued over the past 60 to 70 years.
Not sure what you mean, exactly. Could you sketch a simple example with some types and typeclasses?
It’s not easy for a company to give up short term profits like licensing content to other providers, start a money losing service that may take years to make up the difference. Business have failed to adapt to changing technology for decades. That is the entire thesis of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”. He could have not taken the risk, retired with millions and let the next CEO figure it out.
Very nice! The only thing I would recommend is after splitting, showing both hands even though the action is only on one of them.
I stopped using clojurescript around 2015, primarily because I was tired of searching for/implementing clojure-idiomatic wrappers around the many javascript libraries out there. Put another way, I left clojure on good terms, and often missed its core functions, immutable data structures and lisp syntax when writing front-end applications. However, since then, javascript has changed a lot, specifically in terms of execution-suspending operators like async/await/yield/yield*. Meanwhile, the core clojurescript team has almost completely ignored these developments, preferring the immutable seq abstraction over iterators, and the core.async channel abstraction over promises/async iterators.

For this reason and this reason alone, I’ve personally stopped considering clojurescript as a viable technology or recommending it to others. I have no idea how comtemporary clojurescript developers interoperate with javascript libraries and built-ins which are now overwhelmingly promise-based when async. I am also incredibly skeptical of the core.async channel abstraction as an alternative to promises/async iterators insofar as I think it is strictly inferior to both promises and async iterators because:

1. There’s no standard way to communicate error conditions.

2. There’s no logical separation between data producers and data consumers, and any code with access to a channel can take or put values.

3. There’s no way to communicate nil values insofar as core.async chose to use nil to represent end of iteration.

I do not understand the decision by the core clojure team not to support promises or iterators, because one of clojure’s main selling points was pragmatic interopability with host language features. Nevertheless, I infer it must be an intentional decision not to support them, insofar as it’s so easy to support new language features in clojure with macros. Maybe it comes from a desire to adhere to “functional programming principles,” but I’ve found async/await, promises, and iterators/generators to be incredibly useful, so much so that I am unwilling to give it up for clojure’s immutability or nicer syntax.
Technically correct, yes, but in a way that misses the point I was trying to make. (A way that I'm finding very difficult to articulate... Which in itself is interesting.)

If you want to know the difference between a machine and a human you need a human to compare to. (That's not quite it either, I think, but perhaps is a little less obscure?)
Compare sources. First, there is no long-term trend: https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/5057/vshow

Second, and more importantly: the GSS is an survey of 1,000 people. There were 396 people in this age range (https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/53/vshow) and 45% were men (https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/81/vshow). Seems safe to assume those variables are independent, so that's 178 men in the age range. You are hanging a sweeping claim that there's been a total upheaval in heterosexual sexual activity whereby a "large percentage of men are totally excluded from removed from the dating market" on literally 31 guys answering one question differently. The CDC studies linked above had tens of thousands of subjects.