skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not a rigorous argument to begin with, but your understanding is missing the point. "Stock values", and the assumed market values of everything really, are the measuring sticks by which we measure leverage. You can use stocks as collateral for loans, you can trade them for money, etc... The "Buffet Indicator" is measuring the relative leverage of the economy -- how much of our money is "real" (i.e. reflective of control of the means of production, to borrow a phrase) vs. how much of it is based on an assumption of market prices (a "bet", to borrow another). And it's out of whack, which really isn't surprising given that we're at the (presumably) tail end of a decade+ expansion.

You're just saying that if everyone ignored the stock market and kept working and buying and transacting as if nothing in those numbers mattered, that everything would continue to run in a steady state. And it would. But that's not the way real economies work.
A valid defense would just be that there was at least one legitimate advertisement that they saw. Just because one sign is illegal doesn’t mean they all are.
The Small Things Are Big Windows Into Who You Are
> Bill Clinton did pave the way for HMOs.

How? I rather thought that Nixon (or Ted Kennedy, the principal sponsor of the bill) did that with the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, the federal law that required employers with 25 or more employers to offer them if they offered traditional insurance plans, almost 20 years before Clinton took office.

What Bill Clinton did do after he big health reform failed was HIPAA.
Maybe something like "The last sentence in Chapter 8"
"Fourth sentence in chapter 9"
and so on.
I have no idea why you made that post.
I don't have any references for this, just the farmers I have spoken to, so take this with a grain of salt. The massive mono-crop farming apparently have the draw-back of not following some of the recycling processes that old school, small farm farmers did to keep the soil rich and diverse in nutrients. i.e. rotating out crops, bringing in animals to eat old crops, flowers, provide diverse waste product as fertilizer. Now it is all just bags of specific minerals added back in by machine, based on the bare minimum that they are required to by people that test the soil. Depending on who I talk to, I hear that there may be less than 60 harvests left before crops basically have little nutritional value. I've also heard that this is basically already happening, in that, crops have less nutritional value than they did say 50 years ago. But again, I don't have any references so this could all be nonsense.
Maybe it got canned because the pickup dates are not predictable. If I place hold on a book with e.g. two holds on it already by somebody else, the book will be ready in 2 month if each person keeps the book for 1 month. If each person returns it on the spot its basically 2 days. Good luck planning your holidays ard that.
This is a really cool product. Very impressive that you were able to build to many integrations with such a small team. Any advice on how you did that?
doesn't work because these trolls would just seed pirated copies of the book to their group. Even if you force people to use a credit card to register, they'd just buy prepaid cards for nothing, just to keep trolling. These people are cruel and in large numbers.
Kink.com | Senior Systems Administrator | San Francisco, CA | ONSITE | Full time

Kink.com is seeking a Senior Systems Administrator to join our awesome team at our offices in San Francisco's SOMA district.

We're the Network Operations department of Kink.com. We manage the physical and virtual infrastructure for kink.com, related business IT resources, and the Armory Club. We support and maintain all networks, storage, and servers, from the bare metal, through host OS, including docker and VM-related management.

https://hire.withgoogle.com/public/jobs/kinkcom/view/P_AAAAA... - mention where you saw the job posting in your cover letter.
This reminds me of a related point: Almost always when I find of the "We will buy your car" cards on my car's windshield I wonder what to do with the card. I don't want to litter the streets, at the same time I never asked for the stupid card. To this day, I am still not clear what is -from a morale standpoint- the right thing to do.
When I read this article, it looks a lot more complicated than that.

> Khosla, in legal filings, said he “was willing to give the business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business generated.”
This is potentially very useful for IP. It's a great way to provide some proof that you had an idea before anyone else.
Railwaycat on github: https://github.com/railwaycat/homebrew-emacsmacport

A list of differences: https://bitbucket.org/mituharu/emacs-mac/src/f3402395995bf70...

> Official repository: https://bitbucket.org/mituharu/emacs-mac/overview

> This is "Mac port" addition to GNU Emacs 26. This provides a native GUI support for Mac OS X 10.6 - macOS 10.15. Note that Emacs 23 and later already contain the official GUI support via the NS (Cocoa) port. So if it is good enough for you, then you don't need to try this.

> If you'd like to install with Homebrew, please

$ brew tap railwaycat/emacsmacport

and then

$ brew install emacs-mac

if you using cask

brew cask install emacs-mac or brew cask install emacs-mac-spacemacs-icon

To disable this tap, please:

$ brew untap railwaycat/emacsmacport
I am not an aeronautical engineer. A year or two ago I read a comment here that certainly seemed legitimate that talked about airplane design and it went something like this (paraphrased because I can't find it now):

> As soon as you move the engines, you probably need to move the wings. As soon as you move the wings, you need to redesign the airframe. As soon as you do that you're designing a whole new plane.

I can't even remember if this was talking about the Max at all.

So it seems to me the core problem here is Boeing had reached the limit of what they could do with a 50 year old airframe while maintaining the common type rating and aircraft and engine design have simply changed. Airbus may eventually have that problem with the A320 family. I really don't know. But they don't have it yet.

Part of controlling costs at a budget airline is maintaining a single fleet (in type rating terms). The two choices here seem to be the 737 or the A320.

The Max came about because there was a huge captured demand for it from the likes of Southwest. Would this have happened without the MD merger? I can't say but I'd be surprised if it couldn't given the demand from budget airlines.

Of course people like to take an issue like this and tie it to whatever axe they want to grind too.
Ask HN: What are some interesting but obscure niche SaaS companies?
This seems to be more a concern on the terms rather than the instrument. You can structure any financial instrument (ISA, loan, whatever) to be predatory if you're willing to play with the variables sufficiently.

I don't know if those are real terms in your example, but they do seem pretty bad. (Although still better than a predatory loan IMO, since they are contingent on the student actually having a somewhat successful outcome).

By contrast, something like Lambda's ISA ($30k max payment vs $20k upfront tuition; 15% of income for two years; min $50k/y salary as software engineer) strikes me as not predatory in any way -- I would guess they make less money from their ISA students on average than from their tuition-paying students.
I've got a huge issue with all the stories about the "software" being supposedly at fault. The problem was never about the software per se; it was about the avionic specs on system level.

You can do very complex things without even involving software - including non linear things - or by involving it but not necessarily in a primary characterizing way. What happened here was in no way a software failure except if you generalize the meaning of "software" to include the whole lifecycle of the domain it's applied to, and the comprehensive corresponding engineering. And that's what tons of "purely" software people (by that I mean people working in a field where the non-software components are only ancillary to making the software run, in huge contrast with what happens in avionics) are doing too often in that case. Except what failed here was good old boring engineering, risk analysis, and properly conforming to regulations. The software "worked", in the sense that it did precisely what it was designed to do. But what it was designed to do was stupid. And deciding what it should do was not a "software" thing. It was an avionics one. It is not possible to conflate the tech and the domain in this area, in contrast with what you can do for e.g. some websites or some smartphone apps.

There was software involved, but it is not more interesting in this case than noting that there was electronics involved. And it could also have been done through a mainly mechanical apparatus, but the only reason it did not is that software is more convenient. But that's an implementation detail that played very little role in the tragedy (unless Boeing is waaaay more fucked up than we are even all discussing about, but I actually don't expect that).
> One obvious test: is the per-capita rate of publication increasing?

It definitely is, in biology at least. My graduate mentor was really interested in publication metrics (as in, he published studies on them). The main driver is not necessarily crappy journals though, it is the increasing number of authors per paper.

I have no idea how you would evaluate something like "the average quality of papers is decreasing". I actually agree with GP that it is, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
> I used to go to parties, drink too much, and then act like a jerk

Alcohol doesn't make people worse, it just make more evident what they really are.
I'd assume most people that know about HN know about the Chaos Computer Club.
#2. With Discord, I would love to have it move in the other direction, from being a game-centric network to more of interest-centric network. Parts of this already exist — there’s a way to search through open invite communities — but it’s not as explicit as I’d like: most of times to find a niche discord group, you first have to visit its respective subreddit and find the invite link beneath all the clutter. Sometimes, there isn’t even a direct subreddit: to find a summer intern group, I had to dig through numerous threads of r/cscq. The downside of this type of network is moderation: subreddits now can self moderate but with chat, it’s higher volume and no filter by upvoting enabled.
Congrats to Freshpaint on your launch. The product looks super-cool.

Disclaimer: I am the founder of Rudder (https://github.com/rudderlabs/rudder-server/), an open-source Segment alternative.

We have the feature that you are asking for. We have an auto-tracking JS SDK which captures all events and dumps into S3. You can map these dom-level raw events to virtual events via a simple javascript transformation function. We also have replay so you can retroactively do the mapping and send old events to different destinations.

What we don't have is the nice UI to create virtual events from the raw events, that Freshpaint has built. Looks super cool!!
Let's say you buy houses for cash and I put up a sign with your number on it. The police call you and find out that you do, indeed, buy houses for cash. They throw you in jail and I snicker, knowing that by breaking the advertising law myself but with your name I have put you out of business.

While I'm at it, I leave your business card at the scene of a heist.
> I think -- and I could be wrong -- that Rust sacrifices more than it has to just to achieve that soundness, by also paying for "zero-cost abstractions," which, for my taste, is repeating C++'s biggest mistake, namely sacrificing complexity for the appearance of high-level abstraction that may look convincing when you read the finished code (perhaps more convincing in Rust than in C++), but falls apart when you try to change it.

The argument here seems to be that there is can be no real abstraction in low-level languages, so there's no point providing language features for abstraction. The premise seems clearly false to me, because even C has plenty of abstraction. Functions are abstractions. Private symbols are abstractions. Even local variables are abstractions (over the stack vs. registers).

People often argue that Rust is too complicated for its goal of memory safety. It's easy to say that, but it's a lot harder to list specific features that Rust has that shouldn't be there. In fact, as far as I'm concerned Rust is an exercise in minimal language design, as the development of Rust from 0.6-1.0 makes clear (features were being thrown out left and right). Most of the features that look like they're there solely to support "zero-cost abstractions"—traits, for example—are really needed to achieve memory safety too. For instance, Deref is central to the concept of smart pointers, and, without smart pointers, users would have to manually write Arc/Rc/Box in unsafe code every time they wanted to heap-allocate something.

> Language simplicity goes a long way, even as far as sound formal verification is concerned. For example, there are existing sound static analysis tools that can guarantee no UB for C -- but not the complete C++, AFAIK -- with relatively little effort. It's not yet clear to me whether Zig, with its comptime, is simple enough for that, though.

The most important static analyzers used in industry today are Clang's sanitizers, which work on both C and C++. The most important such sanitizers actually work at the LLVM level, which means they work on Rust as well [1]! The days of having to write a compiler frontend for static analysis are long gone. We have excellent shared compiler infrastructure that makes it easy to write instrumentation that targets many low-level languages at once. (Even in the world of C, this is necessary. Plain old C99 is an increasingly marginal language, because the real important code, such as Windows and Linux kernels, are written in compiler-specific dialects of C, which means that a static analysis tool that isn't integrated with some popular compiler infrastructure will have limited usefulness anyway.)

> It is my great interest in software correctness, together with my personal aesthetic preferences, that has made me dislike language complexity so much and made me a believer in "when in doubt -- leave it out."

Again: easy to say, harder to specify specific Rust features you think should be removed.

[1]: https://github.com/japaric/rust-san
Sounds like the farming equivalent of Cash for Clunkers. IIRC, Cash for Clunkers rendered the vehicle inoperable by destroying the engine block, and in this case it seems that they cut the axle.
Is something like this (http://www.ti.com/product/IWR6843) relevant? There are also older products such as this (https://www.digikey.com/en/product-highlight/a/acconeer-ab/a...).
Oh. Well in that case I'm sure this will be quickly resolved in the public's favor.

I hope it's not one of those 'feel-good' laws written like "All Californians should be able to access the beaches" (without specifying actionable frameworks like easements and such).
> If you aren't making a safe abstraction around your unsafe code, you're supposed to mark the surrounding function "unsafe" as well, and document its expected constraints in a 'Safety' comment block.

Sure, but now we're back to the issue that it's unclear what constraints `unsafe` code actually has to hold, meaning ensuring your abstraction is safe is just about impossible to do with certainty (And OS kernel code is definitely going to hit on a lot of those corner cases). You may think you have a safe interface, only to find out later you're relying on internal details that aren't guaranteed to stay the same between compiler versions or during optimizations.

With that said, while I agree with what you're proposing about marking surrounding code "unsafe", it leads to lots of strange cases and most people get it wrong or will even disagree with this proposal completely. For example, it can lead to cases where you mark a function `unsafe` even though it contains nothing but "safe" code. And at that point, it's up to you to determine if something is actually "safe" or "unsafe", meaning the markings of "safe" and "unsafe" just become arbitrary choices based on what you think "unsafe" means, rather than marking something that actually does one of the "unsafe" operations.

One of the best examples is pointer arithmetic. It's explicitly a safe operation, but it's also the first things most people would identify as being "unsafe", even though it is dereferencing that is the "unsafe" operation. Ex. You could easily write slice::from_raw_parts without using any `unsafe` code at all, it just puts a pointer and length together into a structure (it doesn't even need to do arithmetic!). It's only marked `unsafe` because it can break other pieces of "safe" code that it doesn't use, but it itself is 100% safe. You could just as easily argue the "other code" should be the `unsafe` code, since it's what will actually break if you use it incorrectly.

Perhaps the biggest annoyance I have is that the official Rust documentation pretty much goes against the idea you presented, saying

> People are fallible, and mistakes will happen, but by requiring these four unsafe operations to be inside blocks annotated with unsafe you’ll know that any errors related to memory safety must be within an unsafe block. Keep unsafe blocks small; you’ll be thankful later when you investigate memory bugs.

Which is just incorrect - memory safety issues are likely to be due to the "safe" code surrounding your unsafe code - when you're writing C code, the bug isn't that you dereferenced NULL or an OOB pointer, the bug is the code that gave you that pointer in the first place, and in Rust that code is likely to all be "safe". Point being, most of the advice on keeping your unsafe blocks small just leads to people making silly APIs that can be broken via the safe API they wrap (Even in weird ways, like calling a method containing only safe code), and unfortunately there are lots of subtle ways you can unintentionally break you Rust code that most people aren't going to have any idea about.
+1

This was my comment too on the last MCAS story I read here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21037572
Charity is commendable. But if you are being forced by law to do something, it is not charity.
I can't find anything about this in the docs except[1]. I also can't find any issues in their bug tracker related to clickhouse not using fsync[2].

I can however find code that actually calls fsync[3][4]. To be fair I haven't read enough to determine how this (doesn't) affect durability. Nevertheless I'm wondering do you have a source for this claim?

[1]: https://clickhouse.yandex/docs/en/operations/settings/settings/#fsync-metadata
[2]: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/search?q=fsync&type=Issues
[3]: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/blob/355b1e5594119e036a2d62988bfa42bc8b1a1687/dbms/src/IO/WriteBufferFromFileDescriptor.cpp#L113
[4]: https://github.com/ClickHouse/ClickHouse/blob/e765733a26cfc4cecc13c981686560338256a6b1/dbms/src/IO/WriteBufferAIO.cpp#L98
More revisionist history from millenials who weren't there to know that things like GURPS and Legion of Doom and other things mentioned in this article were unknown at the time, even to other "hackers" and BBSs and usenet. Journalists decided to write about them and hail them as heros years later, changing what was pop culture to the cyberpunk world of those days to whatever they see as nostalgic and romantic and interesting. And for the record, no one who was actually IN the cybperpunk world in the 1980s (including the year 1990) actually used the term "cyberpunk", regardless of whether it was coined or not. Once the term was out there, it was definitely not a cool word and anyone who used it or labeled themselves that way was not at all a cyberpunk.
Yeah you're probably right that VP, rather than SVP, is the more common cutoff.
My understanding is that Support Engineers following CI/CD & Code Review process can't be a "lone ranger" so it follows the spirit of Segregation of Duties.

But that laugh out of the meeting is real. I've experienced it too.
Schopenhauer: "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."

Goethe: "What is the hardest thing of all? that which seems to you the easiest: to see with your eyes what is before your eyes. "
I too work at a smaller tech company, market cap is near the ones you posted and one thing many people forget is the share price upside on those sized companies is enormous(also downside too!) I came in during a low point in the companies stock and saw my yearly RSU's go from being valued at 70k to over $200k a year. I don't think the large FAANGs will see even a 100% upside in share price(maybe NFLX though) in a year or two.
One doesn't need to be an aerospace engineer to know that Boeing planes crashed because the company leadership decided to forgo quality for the sake of profits. Before the crashes, I agree, there was no reason for customers to expect Boeing planes to be unsafe. However, now that this information has become public, any customer can decide to not fly on their planes.
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/documents/regulations-docs...

The main section on lasers starts on page 47. The rules are very complicated. See 6A995 d and f.

Lasers are also covered in other sections like 6A205. (I'm amused by Raman shifters being covered-- they're literally just pressurized tubes with hydrogen and mirrors at the end-- I can't imagine anyone qualified to use one couldn't have one fabricated pretty much anywhere).
That is not in fact how it is. Self-respect involves belief that you don't deserve harm. Entitlement involves belief that you deserve good things from other people, generally without proportionate giving in return.
It looks to me like the indicator has been above 2008 levels since 2014 and has been above 100% every year but one since 1998. The article doesn't give any kind of indication of what "too top-heavy" means, so it looks like they've picked a metric that has been above a threshold for a period of time that contained two market crashes, then just declared that said metric forecasts a worse crash.

The Buffett indicator may be worth paying attention to, and Buffett has certainly thought more about this than me. But given the data in the post, there's as much support for the record highs of the DJI warning of an impending stock crash as there is for the Buffett indicator.
2R is the right rear door; the overwing emergency exits aren't considered doors (presumably because they aren't doors).
There is a gate you can see in Street View. The contention started when Khosla started locking the gate and had security arrest surfers who jumped it.

Edit: here's a timeline: https://www.surfrider.org/pages/timeline-open-martins-beach
Since this is oddly on the front page I want to shout out the OPL for being a great place for everybody. I love libraries. There are so few places you can go with no expectation that you will purchase something.

OPL also has a $100k makerspace available at the Centerpointe location with multiple 3D printers,scanners, and laser cutters. All available for free (if you can book a spot!)
> After the break it only takes one beer to feel buzzed

Not sure if this was your experience, but at the same time hangovers get _enormously_ more painful!
The pests are at it again, classic O&A fans.
John Maynard Keynes published an interesting paper in 1930. "Economic possibilities for our grand children"
AMD’s 7nm Ryzen 4000 CPUs are here to take on Intel’s 10nm Ice Lake laptop chips
What a psycho