skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't like it, but I don't fault them for it. My exact thought when browsing their Cyber Monday deals was: "Oh, looks like they're mostly promoting their own stuff. Meh." close tab

I don't get all the fuss over it I suppose. I don't expect Amazon to be impartial. If I want an unbiased source for the best deals, there are plenty of shopping blogs that aggregate that information.

EDIT: Actually, I guess I could see the argument that 3rd party sellers are getting the shaft due to this behavior. I'm not sure what the solution is though, as I still feel Amazon should be able to promote their own products on their own platform. Tough call.
Birth Control Pills May Be Shrinking the Brain's Hypothalamus in Women
Well, if we're doing American politics

Candidate A: A career criminal who has devoted his time in office to mass corruption, stealing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for personal benefit. Not satisfied with creating the most corrupt administration in history, Candidate A began extorting foreign countries to make contributions to him personally, in the form of bribes to assist his campaign or else. When not stealing hundreds of millions of dollars and extorting allies to the benefit of our enemies, he is known for partying with notorious pedophiles like Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrews, and has over 40 credible accounts of sexual abuse or rape.

Candidate B: Believes that taxation, not monetizing debt, is the proper way to budget. Understands that the broken, bankrupting and failing healthcare system needs evidence-based reform to cost less and do more, like in dozens of other nations worldwide. Finally, Candidate B is the only Candidate at all that understands the importance of the Constitution, Rule of Law, and the freedoms of the Bill of Rights, and doesn't require special interests donations to "manage" his views on the subject. And finally, as with every politician from Candidate B's party for two generations straight, they understand how to steward an economy towards great heights not fueled by a wealthy minority getting wealthier, but by the working class getting the money and wealth they deserve.

If you're going to support a lawless, hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars stealing, Constitution-destroying, child rapist, then have the guts to call a spade a spade.
Americans: fix your healthcare system.
Have you used it? It’s the perfect example of Twitter bootstrap being all the rope to hang yourself.
When I was 8 and all I had were half a dozen cartridges for my Atari, I would have loved this. Now, this might be interesting to try on a game or two, but I can afford any game I want and there are so many good games to play out there.

I can see the novelty, but I'd rather spend my free time on a well-designed game than a scrambled rehash of something I've already experienced.
What's even more amazing, is that differential GPS works at all, given that it relies on measuring the timing of the underlying carrier signal. (As opposed to the pseudo code.)

It takes the advantages of digital signaling, and throws them out, instead measuring the analog carrier waves directly. That this can be done at such low signal levels is unbelievably impressive.

(The statistical methods involved in getting an initial signal lock are nearly as impressive.)

And the whole thing was a 1980s hack for land surveyors to get better than 100m accuracy while systematically eliminating uncertainty due to Selective Availability (SA).

It's a hack that improved the overall accuracy of the system from ~100m to sub ~1cm, and eventually sub ~1mm accuracy, when used with some other methods.

4+ orders of magnitude improvement! From a hack!
I think both of your responses here apply to both situations. Your comment about how people who felt attacked won't feel any less attacked applies to the British as well when it comes to the IRA. Your comment about how the British treated the Irish poorly applies to the US in the Middle East as well. Maybe not quite to the same degree, but still.
Well, it's not just that.

Basically they need a bunch of people who are really good at ingesting a ton of data, analyzing it, and summarizing it.

Turns out those are exactly the same skills involved in writing academic papers, which gets you good grades.

So these people really are statistically disproportionately the people in Ivy League schools and similar who also got high GPA's in those schools.

So there's some reality behind what you call a myth.

(Obviously you can still be awesome at that and not have gone to an Ivy League school, that goes without saying.)

Edit: in response to a comment below... also you can of course be at an Ivy and not be a good writer too. Which is why consulting firms tend to have extremely selective hiring on campus through interviews with many rounds where most applicants get rejected, and pay huge attention to your GPA at college.
It could have been if some software bug resulted in wrong calculations, but nothing points in that direction. AvE did a nice, but definitely not authoritative video on the subject.

His theory is that some structural part was missing because the bridge was in construction, and because of an obstacle on the ground the supports were not in the correct position.

Also a not-software-bug in this list is "Germanwings 9525 Locked Door". There is nothing software-related about a mad pilot locking himself in the cockpit and crashing the plane.
Genius sues Google over allegedly stolen song lyrics
>You’re going from getting perspective to getting directed by an outsider

Yes, but it's not like this outsider has no idea what they're talking about. This outsider has decades (sometimes centuries) of knowledge working with organizations exactly like yours, and they have seen what works and what doesn't. When McK goes to consult for the NSA, they likely bring along with them experience from doing similar projects for the CIA, or DIA, or DoD. Your own organization likely doesn't have much insight into the successes and failures of your fellow (sometimes competitor) organizations, while a consulting company does, and they can lend you that knowledge.

At least, that's what is supposed to happen (and indeed it does happen if you are diligent about the specific team of consultants you hire). I have increasingly witnessed a lot of deception and bullshit in the consulting industry, so it's completely understandable to me why people are skeptical.
Probably highly unpopular opinion, but as a user I've never had anything but positive experiences with AMP-enabled sites. They load massively faster than normal sites, especially on poor mobile connections where main sites sometimes hang indefinitely trying to load javascript, ads, etc.

While content publishers are continuing to overload their sites with further trackers, ads, javascript, remotely loading assets which slow down performance, AMP seems like one of the few counterbalances and is pro-user, even if Google's endgame is self-enrichment rather than benevolence.

Content publishers could easily fight back by independently improving their own performance and not forcing mobile users to suck down megabytes of trackers on shaky connections, but they seem to be choosing not to.
Yeah, love this feature, will be a definite time saver. I like all of the updates.
I don't believe that laws are responsible for this plateau in distracted driving, but instead the fact that hands-free phone integration in new cars became pretty common six or so years ago. So now, even people buying used cars are buying cars that have hands-free usage. My two cars from 2013 the barest base models available of already cheap cars and they both have hands-free support.

The graph showing the downward trend in distracted driving starting at ~2013 is solid evidence in favor of this explanation.

If laws were responsible for the reductions, then the article should point out that states who didn't pass new laws also didn't see reductions in usage.

I do agree that this is a problem, but misidentifying the cause of the downward trend is actively working against a solution. Perhaps we should be passing laws that mandate vehicle-phone integration standards rather than punitive traffic laws.
Sounds a bit like a lot of "machine learning" actually (when it's done blindly).

But do you have any specific references for the kind of thing you're talking about? It sounds plausible, but if I had a dollar for every time something plausible-sounding was completely wrong...
It's a computer running GNU Linux. You install GNU Linux apps on it.
The main problem that I find with current SBCs is their limited DRAM. Trying to compile stuff I can't keep all cores busy.
This type of stuff is endemic to all bureaucracies.

Managers are too scared to make decisions so they look outside in order to justify any decision.

Its maddening as these are the very people who are paid to make these types of decisions, yet they dont. And due to their employer being a public entity, they are not held to any real standards nor limited by such pesky matters as profits and productivity.

It happens in local government,it happens at the state level and its absolutely enormous at the federal level. The waste is astounding, as are the underlying causes.

Its so simple to solve, yet as long as we have the fox's guarding the hen houses, it will remain.
My wife just got a new iPhone, and it now comes with this feature where it blocks texts/calls while you're driving. It's pretty cool.
That's not the context of what I replied to. The context was what they got in trouble with, which was was they do today, but with some exclusivity clauses.
I have a two-pronged proposal which, though unrealistic, is technically feasible today and could probably work.

1. Force people seeking a driver's license to undergo classes, regardless of their prior self-education. In my opinion, a significant amount of irresponsible and incompetent driving stems from the early failures in parents teaching their kids properly. People not only don't learn everything they need to, but they don't respect driving as the dangerous activity it is.

If someone succeeds in obtaining their license, they must then re-test every five years to maintain it, regardless of their age and driving history.

2. Augment the new mandatory classes with virtual reality lessons. The VR headsets will ostensibly drill driving skills before they're practiced in a real vehicle.

But the real reason they'll be used is to force candidates to experience high fidelity simulations of hitting and killing people while in the vehicle. They will be exposed to the immediate trauma involved in hitting a family in a sedan, or killing a pedestrian who was adhering to the rules of the road. It might also be helpful to force them to watch footage of people being seriously injured and killed in vehicular collisions.

This recommendation comes from two hypotheses of mine. As the article states, people overwhelmingly know distracted driving is dangerous, but they can't help themselves. I believe this is because 1) they have no way to activate empathy for the potential danger they present to others, and 2) they do not take driving seriously enough. It is treated as an innate right with loose rules, not a dangerous activity sustained only out of necessity to keep urban society functioning.

Unfortunately, this proposal will never happen. I know parts of it are extreme, but I don't see an alternative for fixing such a systemic problem which isn't extreme.
Ah, I understand what you were saying now. Your original comment doesn't quite read like that to me so I misinterpreted it.
Nice, that's one of the most insightful and concise summaries of social media I've yet seen. Well worded.
Generically referring to the Misuse of Statistics doesn't really add something to the discussion though. Is there a specific critique of the statistics regarding texting while driving?
There's definitely not enough training data being used here. In particular, the GPT2 output:

> YOU ARE IN THE PIT, SO TO SPEAK, BELOW THE RAMPARTS. THERE IS A NARROW PASSAGE FROM EAST TO WEST AND A STONE STAIRWAY LEADING DOWN. THE ROOM IS DEAFENINGLY LOUD WITH AN UNDETERMINED RUSHING SOUND. THE SOUND SEEMS TO REVERBERATE FROM ALL OF THE WALLS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT EVEN TO THINK.

is largely copied from the Loud Room in Zork 1:

> This is a large room with a ceiling which cannot be detected from the ground. There is a narrow passage from east to west and a stone stairway leading upward. The room is deafeningly loud with an undetermined rushing sound. The sound seems to reverberate from all of the walls, making it difficult even to think.

Similarly, the response to "kill the spirits":

> THE SPIRITS, SENSING A GREATER POWER, FLEE THROUGH THE WALLS

is a direct quote from a similar (and much more dramatic) scene in Zork 1:

> Each word of the prayer reverberates through the hall in a deafening confusion. As the last word fades, a voice, loud and commanding, speaks: "Begone, fiends!" A heart-stopping scream fills the cavern, and the spirits, sensing a greater power, flee through the walls.

And a lot of the more original output from GPT2 (like "ROAD NEAR BRIDGE" and "THE SHAPEK FAN") is simply incoherent. So this isn't really a very good showing, overall.
Is there a place where I can read about these cases?
I know software isn't a panacea, but how hard would it be to design the cars so that if you are alone in the car (and therefore obviously the driver), mobile devices shift into hands-free-only mode?

I realize if you had multiple passengers it seems like a much harder technical problem to detect whether the person using the phone is also driving.
Companies trust capital expenses more than operational expenses for some strange reason. I don't know why.
I urge you to attempt to condense your replies into more coherent prose. I'm not entirely sure what my takeaways from the above should be.

You seem to have moved the goalposts again from "OOP requires mutability" (which I think you have given up) to "OOP is different from FP":

>THE CORE DIFFERENTIATOR IS MUTABILITY

Aside from the fact that the above is not true (the core differnetiator is all of those "features" listed in the OOP wiki), I have explained a couple of times now that I did engage in this to argue about the differences between OOP and FP. There are numerous differences, and they have very little to do with my (or your) original claims -- other than the fact that you keep trying to move the goalposts to this topic as a means to say that because OOP is different than FP, `noun.verb` must also be different than `verb(noun)` in terms of modularity/dependencies. You are broadening my claim substantially (straw-man).

Again, this is the claim you made:

>If that method was never unionized with state, if we used smaller subdivisions in our code where state and functions are separate entities then this would be much less of a problem. The function would not be tied to state and that function can be executed in the context of anything.

to which myself and two other commentors sought to clarify. The `function` above cannot be executed in the context of anything. It _must_ be executed from a context that has a reference to `state` (because `state` is an argument to `function`). Notably, this is the _same_ context required to invoke the `method`. Similarly, the context of the `function` and the context of the `method` are the same -- they both have access to the same variables (dependencies). So yes, `noun.verb` vs `verb(noun)` is just semantics; both the surrounding and internal contexts are the same. Choosing one approach to express the behavior over the other makes no difference in terms of modularity/dependencies.
Car manufacturers are legally barred from owning dealerships, it’s the individual dealership groups who decide what to sell. Car manufacturers selling directly to the public decreased competition as the manufacturers didn’t have any incentive to undercut their own prices between dealerships selling their own products.
it's the political cover to make changes they knew they should make all along

No argument here. Every single time that I've been in an organization that has brought in management consultants, the results of their work were almost exactly in line with advice that we had been feeding upper management for some time.

It's infuriating to have the right answers to solve problems while people at the top ignore good advice and then spend huge amounts of money to get that good advice repeated to them by other people.

Even worse is when upper management acts like the consultant advice is the first time they've heard those recommendations.
Probably more unpopular, I think it should have worse punishment than DUI. Or maybe both need to get worse punishment equally? Texting and driving to me is the ultimate sign of vanity. A person is knowingly breaking the law, and putting their own desire for instant communication/social media above the lives of others. As in, 'me posting to instagram is more important than whether you live or die'. I'm hoping most don't feel that way, but their behavior says otherwise...
If I were writing the constitution for a representative democracy today, I think it would include mandatory sunsets for all legislation.

Yes, this would lead to the legislature spending a lot of time just reauthorizing existing legislation, but I would argue that the majority of new legislation being passed in modern representative democracies would be better off as revamps of existing legislation anyway.
Unpopular anecdote:

I used to have a great system for texting and driving, before it was made illegal in CA -- I generally drive with my left hand, so I would hold my phone up on the steering wheel with my right hand (at 3:00) and I would text as needed with my right thumb. Since I was holding the phone up on the wheel, I would never take my eyes off the road to text. I did this frequently for years and years, was never really distracted, got very good at it (quick at thumb typing), didn't have any issues to speak of.

Then, when it became illegal, I got like two tickets for doing this in two years. So, I learned to start hiding my phone way down low on my lap to text. Now, if I decide to text while driving, I constantly have to take my eyes off the road and look way down at my lap to text, for seconds at a time. Texting the easy and safe way, where the phone is held next to the steering wheel, has been punished and gets tickets. Texting the unsafe way, holding the phone down at lap level, rarely gets a ticket.

In the next couple years of holding my phone down at my lap level to text, I had not gotten any tickets, but I did have some minor issues doing this. Since I had to take my eyes off the road to text this way, I caught myself swerving towards the center line, or the berm, etc., multiple times. And I almost rear ended someone because traffic stopped when I was looking down at my lap for 1-2 seconds.

Because of these issues, I gave up texting and driving entirely, however, I doubt most people ever will, as I tend to have a lot more self-control than most people (I've completely quit drinking, quit smoking, quit gaming, etc.) Overall, I find it very ironic that the safe(est) way of texting, where you don't have to take your eyes off the road, is punished, while the unsafe, dangerous way (holding your phone at lap level) is not.

Banning texting basically made it far less safe than it used to be -- everyone holds their phone at lap level now, so of course that's a huge issue.
Ride like you are invisible. Assume you don’t exist and drivers do not know you are there. Even if you’re directly in front of them.
The previous navy / army prototype systems were roughly tractor trailer sized, and only got your position within a few kilometers.
Basically. It's a filter that proves someone who worked there is smart and hardworking. It also explains their virtually universal requirement for an Ivy league (or similar) background.
> Lots of people, especially teenagers, are starting to suffer mental health problems because they think the world is about to end

Can you source this?

> It's important that people understand what climate science really says before a teenager does something they can't come back from.

Are you saying that climate change is so widely accepted and feared that it's causing the rate of suicides to increase? Wouldn't a better indicator of the acknowledgement of (supposedly-overblown) effects of climate change be, you know, individuals and governments taking action to curtail those effects instead of walking out of global accords [1], or actively contributing to the acceleration of those effects [2]?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40127326
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/world/americas/brazil-ama...
At Kubecon this year, there were three different vendors doing ARM based storage. Two were capable with NVMe and one only with SATA/SAS. I am sure the answer to the article's title question is a no for right now, but in terms of disaggregated storage, I think the answer is yes!
It's not necessarily an easy calculation to make since there are other subjective costs in choosing between two locations. I also decided to live very close to work and pay higher rent. It's not just higher rent though there is also greater noise, pollution, etc. I still think it outweighs the commute though. Commuting >1hr per day makes working feel much more like an awful grind to me.
Well put, but I'd argue it's the Class B people who invented all the sub-classes for Class A. Class A just passively accepts those divisions thinking that it is of their own ideas and doing--it's not. This is a very important distinction. It's through these divisions that Class A controls Class B. These divisions are not just of social class but also of race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. Basically all the hate points of bigots are power plays by Class B to keep people in Class A down. Class A people that hate each other and create conflicts between each other are the bread and butter of control that Class B depends on to keep this charade going. Without those people stirring shit up, Class A might actually realize what's happening and call for heads of Class B to literally roll. It's happened in the past, but the same order reestablishes itself over and over throughout history.
> Any of these should result in an immediate ban on your license for a long time.

Although I agree the reason this has (and may never) happen is that (atleast in America) we have been forced in a world where cars are basically required due to car-first development, so to take away someones license basically takes away employment opportunities, friends, and other basic necessities. People will spend a lot of time and money fighting traffic offenses, just so they don't lose there ability to drive due to the detrimental effects it has.

We have to make it stupid simple to drive because we have basically made that a requirement to function in normal society.

The only alternative (which I think we need to do) is to transform our transportation and development policies to make cars either optional or not needed at all.
A lot of the React Suspense talks explore the concept of "rhythm" and Suspense was built to give the developer greater control of the dance and flow of loading states between components. From simply things that you could presumably bubble up into parent component state like "wait until everything loads, not just some of it" to much more complex dances like "don't show a loading screen at all if this part of the data arrives in the next 200ms, otherwise wait for this other part, show these three components in this specific order, then everything else as it comes in", with all sorts of things in the middle including basic buffering of things to particular timings of animation requested steps to lower "jitter" frequency of your UI as the Framework helps loading data clump into batches instead of individual component each individually signaling state changes for rerenders.