skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50821327:

Scientists say they have discovered a possible underlying cause of the neurological disorder, motor neurone disease (MND).

The University of Exeter team says it has found evidence that MND is linked to an imbalance of cholesterol and other fats in cells.

It says the research could lead to more accurate diagnosis and new treatments.

MND affects around 5,000 people in the UK and causes more than 2,000 deaths a year.

Motor neurone disease is a group of diseases that affect the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that tell your muscles what to do.

Also known as ALS, it causes muscle weakness and stiffness.

Eventually people with the disease are unable to move, talk, swallow and finally, breathe.

There is no cure and the exact causes are unclear - it's been variously linked to genes, exposure to heavy metals and agricultural pollution.

Scientists at the University of Exeter say they had a "eureka moment" when they realised that 13 genes - which, if altered, can cause the condition - were directly involved in processing cholesterol.

They say their theory could help predict the course and severity of the disease in patients and monitor the effect of potential new drugs.

The theory is outlined in a paper, published in Brain: A Journal of Neurology.

Lead author Prof Andrew Crosby said: "For years, we have known that a large number of genes are involved in motor neurone disease, but so far it hasn't been clear if there's a common underlying pathway that connects them."

The finding particularly relates to what is known as the "spastic paraplegias", where the malfunction is in the upper part of the spinal cord.

Dr Emma Baple, also from the University of Exeter Medical School, said: "Currently, there are no treatments available that can reverse or prevent progression of this group of disorders. Patients who are at high risk of motor neurone disease really want to know how their disease may progress and the age at which symptoms may develop, but that's very difficult to predict."

Dr Brian Dickie, director of research at the MND Association, said the work raises some interesting ideas.

"At the moment, it is unclear whether the imbalance observed is a cause of MND or a consequence of the disease. We look forward to seeing the outcome of further research in this area."
Open source projects are particularly tricky for Wikipedia. There are tens of thousands of them. Their owners are often passionate. They compete with each other, so there's incentive to write hard-to-adjudicate competing claims. Many have commercial backing, which further warps incentives. The projects themselves are highly technical; many, like Arrow, are software development tools and components. There are few authoritative sources that reliably track open source projects. Keeping up involves directly following bug trackers and message boards and then synthesizing a narrative, which is the definition of "original research", forbidden in the encyclopedia.

It's likely that Arrow does deserve a WP article. But Arrow's sponsors misunderstand more about Wikipedia than Wikipedia does about Arrow. Writing a defensible article about their project will require work; in particular, they're going to need to spend the time tracking down authoritative sources for why Arrow is notable, and those claims will probably need to be something more persuasive than "hundreds of companies use it"; hundreds of companies use all sorts of things that don't, and shouldn't, be featured in their own encyclopedia articles.

I understand the impulse behind "this project is important; it should have a Wikipedia article". But when you take a step back and accept what Wikipedia actually is, rather than what you think it should be, you're left with the question: do we really need to feature this particular piece of software in its own encyclopedia article? 20 years from now, will people still be getting value from it? Whatever value that might be, will it outweigh the 20 years of other people's volunteer efforts to maintain the article, keeping it free of vandalism and ensuring that it doesn't surreptitiously turn into a promotion piece for some company or another?

The answers might be "yes". But I don't see much evidence in this piece considered the questions.

Lots of things that don't seem deserving have in-depth Wikipedia coverage. Many of those things probably really don't belong in an encyclopedia! But there are two sides to this problem: the merit of the topic, and the cost, in volunteer time, of including them. A marginal topic can be defensible if it's easy to reliably cover it. A seemingly important technical topic might not be if the only way to say anything interesting about it is to write original research directly into its article.

Late edit

A useful tip for getting your open source project covered in its own Wikipedia article: don't have the Chief Marketing Officer of the company that owns the project write the article.
No. The op means: now a non admin user can trivially get write permission on sudoers file and become root.
Berklee has a course on edx

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-music-theory-2
I agree with you that there really is nothing virtuous about handcrafted HTML, and it's for that same reason that I've spent very little time on it as you can probably tell. Rather, the point of the article is to assert that you don't need another tool, fancy theme or dependency to write and share something online. As for the RSS feed, there is one you can find at https://zainamro.com/feed.xml, which I've also mentioned in the final paragraph. And regarding your point on navigation and search, I've noticed most users naturally find their way around my website without any explicit navigation links. That being said, I have considered adding an "Up" link that takes you to the parent directory which I think may suffice.
Thank you for writing this up Reginald. I appreciate seeing the journey that someone such as yourself has taken in learning these ideas, and the perspective that it has imparted along the way.

"When we admit we know nothing, then we are free to think anything."
I wouldn't be surprised if RSUs were not included in payroll taxes.
It's a sad day when the tool you are using to call an API over HTTPS has to be supported by AWS for people to use it.
Smarking (YC W15) is hiring a back-end tech lead to scale infrastructure
If the freelancers aren't around who is going to write the articles? Or is journalism just going to give up and die?

Or maybe we'll instead only get corporate written propaganda pieces masquerading as citizen journalism from people pulling down a steady paycheck.
Is this adjusted for inflation?
As opposed to the thing I said it was opposed to: Stable employment.
1394TA was open as far as I remember
Because lighting carbon-based molecules on fire creates thousands of carcinogenic components that are difficult to enumerate.

Vapor, on the other hand, (theoretically) contains only 3 chemicals: glycerin, propylene glycol, <nicotine/THC/active stimulant>. In practice though, vapor has probably thousands of compounds as well due to "flavors", additives, and side effects of the heating coil on those things.

It's all about perception though. Lighting something on fire and inhaling smoke is perceived as dangerous compared to inhaling "vapor" (which everyone does every day in the shower, right?)
Generally the more advanced principles are the second, third, and fourth order principles. Questioning the fundamentals usually leaves you making a bunch of basic mistakes, as Elon has done, over and over.

It turns out, though, that if one of the first principles is, “though shalt not lose money” then Elon Musk has indeed disrupted it. It turns out you can do thing nobody else is willing to do if you’re willing to lose more money than anyone else is.
Optimizing First-Frame Bitrate for HLS with Serverless Edge Compute
Hold up. How exactly are part-time employees harmed by this?

And the question is the answer to what to do about freelancers: make them part-time employees.
> The decision to close North America was made based on two extremely complicated realities. The first being the volatile state of the global mobility landscape, and the second being the rising infrastructure complexities facing North American transportation today - such as a rapidly evolving competitive mobility landscape, the lack of necessary infrastructure to support new technology (including electric vehicle car share) and rising operating costs.

This is difficult to parse. It looks like they're saying:

1. operating costs were too high

2. we don't know what is in store for lyft/uber, scooters, etc

3. there aren't places to park and charge the cars
Technology companies are able to dodge much larger amounts of taxes because their IP-heavy nature allows them to use constructions like the "Double Irish", which Walmart and Exxon can't do. It's worth mentioning that tax dodging is widespread, but also worth pointing out that tech companies can engage in the same behavior to a greater degree.
Generally the more advanced principles are the second, third, and fourth order principles. Questioning the fundamentals usually leaves you making a bunch of basic mistakes, as Elon has done, over and over.

It turns out, though, that if one of the first principles is, “though shalt not lose money” then Elon Musk has indeed disrupted it. It turns out you can do thing nobody else is willing to do if you’re willing to lose more money than anyone else is. Welcome to the new secular era of cheap money.
Yes, John Siracusa now known mostly as a co-host for Accidental Tech Podcast said that if he actually calculated all of the time he spent writing his 100+ page reviews of MacOS for Engadget from 10 to 10.10, he earned less than minimum wage. He did it more as a hobby.

I had a part time working hobby as a fitness instructor for over a decade that definitely wasn't worth the money once you took into account the prep work, travel, etc.

Edit Correction: Ars Technica not Engadget
another vote for rails, bootstrap, and a sprinkling of jquery.
This argument could be made for any ~addictive~ product. Minimal requirements can shift the burden off of every single consumer.
Combusting and smoking anything is a known carcinogenic path. The draw away from that is what's attractive about non-combustion consumption methods.

That said, induction-based direct vaporization of dry flower is the best of both worlds.
I was going to say "Do. Or do not. There is no try." but your quote was better!
> cut [...] freelance jobs

Is that not a contradiction in terminus? You dont "cut jobs" when you terminate contracts with other businesses, that's what reducing the amount of freelancers comes down to.
O_O

I posted it in that thread. What the fuck?
Thanks for the info. I've been considering a new console purchase and had basically ruled out Stadia immediately due to the subscription requirement. This changes things a bit but I still don't like the fact that I can't play something without a connection to the big Google. I suppose this is just what it feels like to be part of a generation falling out of the marketing window.
https://trasfer.midrive.io/
gives me a "server not found"
I used to be married to a lobbyist, and the actual events are closer to this: Company lobbyists take a group of legislators out for dinner and drinks approaching the cost of rent for most Americans. Company lobbyists and attorneys (the venn diagram here is almost a perfect circle) write rules. Company lobbyists give company-written rules to legislative staffers on a relevant subcommittee. Company lobbyists attend 4- or 5-figure political fundraiser for legislators and discuss desired rules. The next day, legislator sees the agenda for the week, with a topic relevant to Company, and "draft legislation" already available. Company then takes the most economically favorable interpretation of rules written ~90% by them in the first place.
Daimler seeks majority control of its main China joint venture
Population of potential US customers: 650 million
Population of potential world customers(minus US): 7.1 billion

But sure, let's pretend worldwide subsidiaries of those companies should not turn a profit outside the US.
You may want to review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Acceptable — sure, sometimes. Perfectly — no. It’s a strongly discouraged practice.
Yes, it just shows how effective the misinformation campaign has been. If you haven't followed the events closely it's easy to get the wrong idea.

Being critical to Bitcoin as money is of course fine.

I can join in on your contempt for BSV though.
I love roguelikes too but I tend to burn out in less than a week on games. I can't play rpgs for 60 hours like I used to do.

The older I get the easier it is to predict the end result of an activity and the easier it is to not start things that won't produce long term fulfilment.
I'm not saying this is universally true. There are a lot of decent unions.

But the longshoreman unions, for example, absolutely still work this way.
Units sold != success. Moviepass had a heck of a sales run without ever being successful.
Session cookies are allowed (without consent) if your site has something like login or stored settings. You don’t need consent if the cookie is required to provide a function to the user.

Only cookies that are used to track user behavior, and can be tracked back to that particular user are disallowed. So things like Facebook like buttons would require consent (since Facebook will use the info gained to target you with ads in another context) while basic Google Analytics or similar is fine as it only presents aggregated data to the site owner and does not leak data cross-site. Some GA features do require consent though (like demographics tracking) as it requires Google to cross-reference between sites. You can generally turn these off (I think they even are off by default?)

Note that implementation of the law also differs between EU countries. So a few are more strict. It is up to the national privacy agency to set exact rules.
If I understand your question correctly, capitalism has no goal. It's mainly driven by people whose goal it is to increase their own wealth. It's contributed to by people who want to provide for their families.

At times, capitalism has crushed people and kept them in miserable jobs in the interests of increasing wealth. It has overthrown democratically elected governments for the benefit of private fruit companies.

I am not anti capitalist, in fact I think it's better than all the other awful systems we know about, but just because it is doesn't mean it's optimal. I don't think a society built out of human beings can be optimal.
>"Do you think high-paying healthcare sector and patent R&D in the US creates more incentive for research and development of new medicine & healthcare technology?"

Yes, but there's a limit. Incentives have diminishing marginal returns. At the end of the day, a $2B pharma company is still going to doggedly pursue a 20 year monopoly on a potential $1B drug, even if it otherwise would have been a $1.5B drug if there was no Medicare for All. Moreover, the vast majority of waste in healthcare is with hospitals, administrators, surgeons, insurance companies, and doctors, not the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharma is closer to software in that one company can produce one product with zero marginal cost that can trivially serve everyone on Earth with a given condition. We can even leave Big Pharma as is and still realize hundreds of billions in savings, though I still believe that there should be some single-buyer negotiation for drugs. We can use empirical evidence to negotiate on drug prices without drastically changing the incentive scheme. Ultimately, I believe pharma companies would increase prices abroad if we implement price controls in the U.S. The U.S. is subsidizing the world's healthcare.
No payroll taxes.
It was deleted in 2005 for being a blatant advert, and again in 2010 for the same reason. I doubt it was actually a notable company in 2005.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&page=A...
The big thing we're missing for modern weapons is the nature of aerogel between the primary and secondary stages. You'll still get a nice boom if you screw that up.
Ah, the Espionage Act of 1917. One of the governments finest attacks on free speech. And it worked. The Supreme Court, in wanting to uphold a conviction against someone protesting a war they almost certainly agreed with, ruled it constitutional.

And do you really think the government will give him a fair trial? No. They almost certainly will give him a secret trial. How are those even constitutional?

And regarding the legality, we have a constitutionally protected right listed in the Fourth Amendment: the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The NSA’s indiscriminate spying is a search, no matter what Comey and the government say. If I steal documents off my employer’s computer and never read them, I’ve still committed a crime. Why is it different when the government does it? National security? What security am I receiving in exchange for them stealing data off my computer (and then saying they didn’t)?
Given the precipitous decline in the quality of published journalism, I welcome anything that helps reestablish the profession giving it a longer-term outlook than the current clickbaity garbage we have.
you're getting lost in the example and losing the idea.

The idea is this: You forcibly change the demand to change the behavior of the producer. And there are plenty of examples of us doing this as a society (successfully).
but doesnt it still affect you if you are consulting a california company?
I dunno. It makes me think of the Zen of Python's "Explicit is better than implicit." .. which is the point of the entire new Vista-style permission granting dialogues to begin with.
The market wouldn’t exist without the government. Who do you think introduces and enforced the rules around it?

The government added new rules to the market. Some players like those rules: some don’t.
Why should the government get in the middle between people who want to freelance at a rate they negotiate and Vox? Both sides have intelligent adults.
If a bulldog clip is notable, why wouldn't an open source project that hundreds of companies use not be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog_clip

s/bulldog clip/many other random office supply items/

Edit: Swapped to bulldog clip as a better example of a less notable office supply.
No the manipulation is the story about the abandoned settlement. I don't think you understood my point at all.

The only assertion I made is that land being lost to the sea is not a new or outlandish thing. For that 14th century is sufficient - and even better in context of global warming, as there was no such thing in the 14th century. Also I am not a journalist publishing an article. So I mentioned the first example I remembered. If I was publishing an article, I would do more research.
Only 15% of the Basecamp operations budget is spent on Ruby
Wow, no kidding. I wonder how the mix has changed? Obviously I was wondering about overall going down, but I seem to recall there being like a change of short for long term assets or something?
I don't think that's true, other than the value of the RSUs being counted as an expense against earnings (like Salary would be).
Tylenol/paracetamol use should be sparing to begin with just because of its harsh effect on the liver.
All kinds of words that were common years ago, even just a few decades ago, are now considered to be not only inappropriate but slurs. Change happens
There’s no SIM card, the OnStar module is a closed box, easiest way is to just unplug the antenna, no permanent damage an easily reversible if you need your car serviced at the dealer.
The normal privilege UI of drag-n-drop indicating file access intent has been around for many years in macOS.

The tracking has been through signed bookmarks, with no specific place for apps to persist this info. Keeping it in an xattr for ACLs seems like a great solution, and the exact opposite of a “hack”.
The problem with these rules are, that they are so selectively enforced, it is a farce. They selectively assume bad faith, where, by all objective means is none, and brush over others, as long as it is backed up by random arguably non-neutral publications.

It's near impossible to put article's up over prolific female journalist for example, because all this can be enforced since, the publications are all from the same source (the publisher they work for) or are interviews or some sort of talk or award, where it's almost never for men, which get away* by linking to a podcast.

tldr: *WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
I'm curious -- what does HN think of factor investing [0]? It has been shown over long periods of time to outperform the total market, and has seen many new ETFs available. Does anyone here tilt towards small cap value? Do you think those effects will last, now that they're more widely known, or are the last 15 years evidence of them weakening? I've been looking into investing but I'm probably going with a total world stock market. Part of the reason I find those ETFs less attractive are the higher associated fees as well as the more "active" look. I have trouble believing anyone who claims there is a way to consistently outperform the market while charging me for it.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/factor-investing.asp
This seems like an argument that says that Apache Arrow is as important as the paper clip, which would be an extraordinary claim.

That paper clip article is itself extraordinary. Go look at it again. It delves into the history of the paper clip, covers different designs, has excerpts from paper-clip-making-machine patents, and describes an actual controversy(!) over its invention, all carefully illustrated (illustrating things on Wikipedia is a bitch, by the way, because of IPR rules). People went through a lot of effort to make a good paper clip article.

And Wikipedia considers the paper clip article to be a "C-class article" (C here means approximately what it means in school), and the topic of "low" importance. Just so we're clear on what the bar is here.

Compare that with the author's attempt at an Arrow article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow

It's a paragraph of promotional material, a brief comparison to other systems, and a citation to a blog post saying "I do not see any reason not to embrace the Arrow standard".

Come on.

I think there probably should be an Arrow article. The authors have found a bunch of reliable sources covering it; they just haven't distilled from them a defensible claim to Arrow's notability. I think it's a matter of putting the work in.
And it does that quite well. Thanks for this!
All regulations (worker protection and otherwise) exist because the required changes are things that wouldn't have happened on their own due to good will or market forces. They're always an above and beyond thing which costs someone money, potentially reducing the number of jobs available, increasing the end-user cost, or triggering automation efforts.

So it's a balance. There are probably also people out there who would happily drive a fork truck with no training or handle chemicals with no PPE, and resent that the government places limits on those jobs. But the reason we do it is because sane and safe work is in the end a commons— without some floor in terms of what's acceptable, it would be (and has been historically) a straight up race to the bottom. Banning certain types of contract work is on the same scale as limiting the number of hours a person is supposed to work in a given day or week.

Is that floor of acceptability in exactly the right spot at present? Maybe, maybe not. But there are good reasons to have your elected body and regulatory agencies "looking out for you."
It doesn’t really matter. It’s wrong. The Fourth Amendment is a thing regardless of what the government does or says.
As he said, a couple weeks.