skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is an underrated comment IMO and hits on a critical point that people complain about but don't really understand.

That is, "The people at the top don't know what they are doing."

For IC's and other people actually doing most of the work, they interpret this as base incompetence on the part of leadership. It's certainly fair to say that there is a lot of incompetency at the top. However, even for very competent senior leaders it's often completely unclear how to get from "Here" to "There" because the organization may not be positioned to actually get there.

It's an extension of the technical debt problem, what made you successful in the past may not be what makes you successful in the future - and as a senior leader, it's your job to help the organization make that transition. The costs/risks to getting "There" might be considered impractical or devastating to the current organization. You can see this with any major company that fails to capture some huge new market.

On one hand you want to take care of your people, and a complete pivot with a 20,000 person organization might see huge layoffs or "restructuring." Is doing that, not knowing if it's going to work in the long run the right plan? We praise those who made the right pivots, but forget those who mistimed them, so corporate survivorship is real - and it's not about pure genius competence.

Now, try and communicate all of that to everyone on the team, considering all of the market dynamics, funding personnel issues etc... for context, and it's just not something that is feasible to communicate with everyone in a way that doesn't totally spook the whole organization.

That said, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Communicating WHY smaller decisions are made and what the assumptions and context behind them are made is something feasible at some levels generally. This is where competence and maturity do play a huge role, and where great leaders distinguish themselves.
They were ok with making porn, just not if someone seen it they knew... Got it.
> Although I will say it always had a kind of grim, penitential air to it

Yeah. A weird vibe. The wood. The faux “luxury” trim. The yellow. Dudes in cheap looking suits trying to corner you so they can “ring up your order” for their commission.

Yeah. Fry’s was a weird place. The branding just didn’t match the service or experience at all.
Pat Helland at QCon SF
For minor issues it can take weeks to get an appointment from a single doctor. One Medical solves that problem.

I use my PPO plan to get a specialist directly if I need one (usually sports medicine/getting too old for this shit).

If I had chronic/serious health issues I might seek out a regular PCP and use One Medical for the routine stuff (physicals, vaccines, cough/cold/flu etc.) Depends on if you have PPO or HMO plans of course.

Their raising fees every other year is beginning to stick in my craw though.
> It’s also very insulting to imply that all some group of people is likely doing all day is throwing heaps of coal into a furnace.

Indeed. Not to mention that no one has been doing that for a very long time. That's not what coal miners, nor has it ever been what coal miners do.

A guy who shovels coal into a furnace was called a "stoker", and that unskilled labor job was automated out of existence about a hundred years ago.

A coal miner is a skilled laborer who (nowadays) uses advanced machinery and technology. Look into how "longwall mining" works. It's pretty cool.
What's a reliable alternative to Newegg nowadays?
I feel if google had brought android to desktop, with terminal and all, it would be a good developer experience and also nice for normal user. There's sandboxing, it requires less and less maintenance than other OSes and UI is quite intuitive. Plus all the google integration.

Sure some of people here do not like google integration. But in a practical world, it solves many problems to normal people.

And android the OS is really better than what people seem to think.
Ruby pulled ahead of Python in speed in version 1.9 and has stayed ahead (most of the time, in most tests) since.
> The point of bitcoin is that everyone should have a copy of every transaction (excluding lightning network transactions).

Is that the point of bitcoin? Satoshi said:

> Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

(He also didn't say anything about "lightning network transactions".)

> If we all wants to store every transaction in the way the parent of my previous comment alluded to (increase block size), each of us will need our own mini server farm i.e. exponential storage growth.

The BTC blockchain is currently 250 GB. If blocks had been 10 times bigger, the blockchain would still be less than 3 TB, and blocks would almost never be full, which would reduce transaction fees and help to onboard more users. I don't think that storing 3 TB of data requires a server farm.
He doesn't know anything about coal mining, either.
> and often times yearly taxes to operate on public roads (but merely possessing them on public roads does not).

In my jurisdiction one may not "move" or "leave standing" upon a public road an unregistered vehicle, in addition to not being permitted to "drive" it.
It's not really software for a pc but...

I would sure love to see some open source firmware for my smok x priv e-cig, or any other e-cig mod. I would love to add a timer function to it than would gradually increase the time interval between allowed puffs until I can quit.
Licious raises $30M to grow its meat and seafood e-commerce platform in India
I strongly suspect the people funding this don't know anyone who don't buy a flagship phone.
> Also, more than 20% of global emissions are emitted by countries with lower overall emissions than us [1]. If they all used our excuse [2], do you think that would be acceptable?

The compliment of 20% is 80%. Those countries could all drop their emissions to 0 and any problem from emissions would still be 80% there and so still be about as bad as it ever was. So yes everyone smaller than us can use the same excuse. What matters policy-wise is the leadership in China & the United States.

> We also have among the highest per capita emissions in the world [3].

Yeah. We don't have any nuclear plants. Puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. We should fix that up too and build some. Labor needs to be more vocal about supporting nuclear energy.

There is a link between counties that make heavy use of nuclear energy and countries that have low emissions and air free of coal dust.

> Australia is already suffering from the effects of a climate emergency, with conditions predicted to get orders of magnitude worse this century. We should be taking a lead in the decarbonisation effort so we can urge the rest of the world to do the same, for our sakes, as well as theirs.

Germany already did that, it didn't impress very many people; it looked expensive and didn't actually help their emissions much. We should restrict ourselves to trying things that are likely to work and actually address the issues we are facing, which decarbonisation does not. There isn't anyone here who can seriously argue that Australia decarbonising would have had any impact on these bushfires. If Australia were completely decarbonised and had stopped exporting coal they would still have happened.

A positive actions in anyone's book happens to be just waiting another decade until it becomes economic to build photovoltaic solar; according to the Finkel report.
I've been a CS course instructor and you brought up a great point. There is always a balance between not to discourage students who could achieve, and the reality that there are those would be much better off doing something they can actually succeed in and feel much better about themselves as a result, instead of repeatedly trying and failing. I stopped teaching a while ago but I heard that this has become more prevalent ever since the "everyone can code" propaganda.
> If the point is to be reachable by a loved one in an emergency and nothing else, this seems like a reasonable option.

Not even close. You can get a basic phone plus sim card for like $40 or less and then pay a few dollars (or less) a month on prepay to keep it connected to the network.

This is a toy secondary phone for those with disposable income, not a valid low-income alternative.
I did it last time I was out there..., I had fun and some time to kill before my flight.

The tour guide makes the tour interesting. The actual sights are cool but you're effectively on a guided tour through maybe a few small blocks of buried sidewalk. It is not earth shattering stuff though the history is definitely cool.

In the end it was worth the ~$40, $20 for the tour I think, and I felt generous so I gave the guide a big tip since he was hilarious and took us on a slightly extended route according to some folks who had done the tour in the past.
I considered the morality of eating meat for a decent portion of my life. The conclusion I came to is such things like ethical vegetarianism is an ethical and intellectual dead end which disregards the nature of the beast, and the beast is the most violent and violently omnivorous apex predator to ever grace the Earth. If there’s a landmass we haven’t walked, it’s because it is literally underwater having been foreclosed upon by some glacier or the Ocean, and we’ve walked some of those lands too once upon a time.

If the way things are isn’t right, then it is besides the point because the way things are is so deeply rooted into our psychology that you can’t change it without violently changing what it means to be human, so you essentially have to have humans become something other than human, and that doesn’t seem like a winning survival strategy in the long term.

When we’re not eating God’s creatures, we’re burning down the forests and fields they live in and pouring concrete over them so we can sleep better at night in little towns and villages and hamlets with other people who participated in the festivities, or at least their ancestors did, or at least they bought the house from someone whose ancestors did etc. We also do it to grow more food, all those plants we’ve selected for over the entire history of agriculture that we’ve deemed to be beneficial to us to keep around? We burned down other species, even to extinction with no regard as to whether the burning mass over yonder was plant or fungus or animal flesh or insect.

I can’t seriously consider ethical vegetarianism or ethical veganism a serious argument for not eating meat because it goes so deeply against the violent nature of humanity that it disregards what we are entirely. Given it is probably the most defining characteristic of Homo sapiens, it is a fairly massive characteristic to overlook.

I can seriously consider reasons for eating less meat that include things like “this meatless dish is delicious”, only you don’t emphasize the meatless bit, or “methane emissions are a pretty serious concern, is there something we can do about that?” or “cows actually use up a large amount of resources that might be better spent on something else.”

I can consider those seriously, I just don’t think they’re winning arguments. But, at least they’re willing to try to work with the nature of the beast rather than against it. People who consider themselves “ethical vegans” can make a better case than starting from a position that eating meat is morally wrong, even if you believe it! It’s okay to believe something like that, I don’t agree with you, but so long as you or someone else isn’t trying to use state force to enforce their belief on me, I think we’ll get along just fine.
Battling Against Demeaning and Abusive Selfie Sharing (BADASS) has a lot of experience helping people get the content legally taken down from hosting sites. https://badassarmy.org
I just got home, I got some chores to finish up, but I see your comment and I will read and respond.
You significantly overestimate people’s level of self control and also the amount of money time and effort companies put in to make these technologies addictive.
Yes, Tesla has not been a paragon of good. I never claimed or excused this. I am specifically talking about my experience with the Model 3.

I have enjoyed my time with it and I’ve enjoyed my updates. It’s been great fun.

That’s all.
No neither of those are it, I'm familiar with those. I believe this would still be the same old Bitcoin, but there will clients that use these proofs to run a lightweight full node without relying on external sources or resorting to a lite wallet model.
The biggest thing I would tell someone trying to do that is - make the work engaging, solving real world problems - use real world problems to teach theory in action.

Too much of my schoolwork was hypotheticals that were questions no one would need to ask (and obviously so to me at the time), or by rote memorization of facts and figures, without teaching much understanding of why those things are important to know.
Google AI model screened mammograms with fewer false pos/negs than experts
This article was shared by a product person in my team who was genuinely motivated by it to "ship more, ship often" as he described it. People are gullible af.
Bought bitcoin at 4K, sold at 10k.
Each woman was seeking 2 million from what I've found online. The judgement ended up being a payout of 12.7m sum and that's for splitting between 22 victims with their representation. I wonder how much each person walked away with after their attorneys were paid. I've not witnessed justice in my life but I like to think they will be happy with the judgement even though it's a lot lower than they sought.
It said it would become mainstream, and in that process there would be commonplace integration. Also, I think there's some confusion if you think the startups would need to pay holders.
I just wish Apple make a modern thinner All Screen iPhone 4. ( Even smaller than iPhone SE ) The screen should be about 4.7" @ 19.5 : 9.

The smaller screen absolutely destroy all gaming and even Internet browsing experience. The UX is so bad you dont want to use it, but still give you the choice should there be a need. While retaining all the essential such as Email, WhatsApp, Calling, Uber, And Music etc.
It’s an interesting concept. The primary concern is that most of the costs for catastrophic medical problems will be incurred due to things like obesity, smoking, heavy drinking, dangerous lifestyles, etc. This creates one of two problems (or both?): either I’m left with the bill for others’ bad choices, or individual agency is under state / democratic control (e.g., salty foods banned, dessert banned, drinking banned, etc.).

Neither of those scenarios are ideal.

If the only question was genetic differences, that’s a risk I think a lot of people would be willing to take (e.g., that I might be healthy until 100 and then die in your sleep, theretofore paying constantly for others who have had medical problems for 70 years straight). I myself would be willing to take that risk / pay for that style of universal coverage, if not for the aforementioned choice part (smoking, etc.) playing so heavily into the cost, in practice.
I am very curious to understand better how this stacks up against the usual C++ WebRTC implementation when code size isn't an issue, particularly with respect to flexibility. (I work on a project that does VPN services over WebRTC, am doing stuff like WebRTC tunneled over WebRTC, have WebRTC routing over LwIP, and we are working on improving the congestion control algorithms.) My stripped down compile of that library--which admittedly is dropping most of the audio/video functionality as I only care about DataChannels, so maybe if I were doing video I'd be freaking out at the size of the stack (though I would imagine the video codecs would dominate the size, no?)--is clocking in at about 7MB, which is much larger than 200kB but nowhere near the point where I start to care: I mean, the default buffer size per channel in the library is a crazy large 16MB buffer, so I find myself not caring much about the size of my text segment ;P. (Are embedded systems really that constrained these days?)

One thing I have enjoyed about the C++ build is that it has tons and tons of knobs for me to mess with in the binding API... I have to reimplement the network detection and am using two separate socket implementations (which is all pretty trivial as just about everything can be subclassed and replaced), I mess with the offers and answers before handing them back/forth through the stack (which is easy as there is an object-oriented model for all of the data structures; I mean, it isn't a great model, but it is at least a model), I am able to easily assign work to occur on specific threads (and have been able to share a signaling thread while splitting networking threads across backends), and I at times reach into the heart of the system (without any code modifications, though with a really hilarious template trick to help me access private C++ class members) to pull up the SCTP stack internals. (Note that with only one arguable-exception we do everything we do currently without any modifications to WebRTC's code.)

Is this implementation going to be better for me, in maybe having fewer layers of abstraction between me and the underlying state machines, or worse, due to trying to target "embedded systems" in a programming language that tends to be less flexible (and so between those two considerations maybe leading me to have less ability to customize it without having to rewrite or hack on it directly)? I ask because I know a lot of other people see C and think "ah, finally this is simple", but I have not had any issues with the C++ codebase (the secret is to not even try to use Google's build system: just take all the .cc files you need--and only the ones you need--and link them together). (Oh, maybe even really simple: I bet this isn't going to support Windows?)
> What premiums?

The money you have to pay to enrol in the insurance system? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here. The agriculture policy was reconfigured a number of years ago. My farming career is admittedly too young to know how the way things used to be, but perhaps that is our point of contention? That you're remembering the way things used to be?

> This isn't really insurance

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

> because weather events that affect farm output are not rare

In aggregate across the entire country, sure. I doubt an individual farmer will have many claims in their career. Disastrous weather events aren't that common when observed within a single area. Areas that are naturally risker, of course, pay higher premiums. This is no different than any other type of insurance. When observed across the entire country, people make claims each and every day within the private sector insurance system.

> Yes, they do, since there are only subsidies for certain crops.

But the insurance – and thus the subsidy on the premium – is available for anything you'd ever want to grow. I guess if you want to start farming ragweed you might be out of luck. Is that something you see viability in or are we simply looking at made up hypotheticals that have no bearing in reality?

Besides, if you do want to start growing ragweed for whatever reason, since there is no government insurance available you can buy your insurance from the private sector at much lower cost, as you stated earlier in this thread. No need for a subsidy in the first place thanks to the efficiency of the private sector.

> In other words, you are confirming that small farmers are at a disadvantage compared to large agribusinesses.

I suppose that in terms of economies of scale, larger farmers have an advantage. The insurance system (and thus the subsidies we speak of) seems quite fair to me, however. There is no preference given to any farmer. You pay 60% of your cost no matter how big or how small your farm is. If you want to give preference to smaller farmers, I guess I'll take it, but I'm okay with things being fair. It is only fair.

> Do you think large agribusinesses complain that customers don't pay enough for them to make a living at farming?

I'm not sure why anyone would complain, to be honest. On a per-hour basis, on average, it pays better than software development, my other career. But it only takes me a couple of months out of the year to do all the work. Why would I sit around doing nothing the rest of the time? That seems rather silly. Why would you, the person who eats my food, want to pay me to sit around 10 months of the year when I'm happy to have another job to keep me busy? The big farmers have to keep busy in order to make ends meet. Should there be preference given to smaller farmers? And if so, shouldn't the consumer make that choice on their own by choosing to buy from the smaller farmers?
Not neccessarily. While the size of pointers and the size of general purpose registers does change between 32 and 64-bit architectures, there can be other significant differences.

For example, on X86_64, the ISA provides additional GPRs that aren't just 64-bit versions of the 32-bit register. For example, rax is the 64-bit version of eax, but IIRC you also have r0-7, for which there is no 32-bit equivalent. Furthermore, the ABI (at least on Windows) specifies a different function calling convention versus X86.

Additionally, I imagine there additional instructions/ops on x86_64 over x86. I dont know how else the cpu would distinguish add %eax, 1 from add %rax, 1, both of which are legal when the cpu is running in 64-bit mode.

I recall seeing a cool talk on how to confuse or crash many debuggers by doing something clever in assembly. The idea is you would write a block of polyglot 32 and 64-bit x86/64 assembly (i.e. binary that is both a valid x86 and x86_64 instruction sequence), switch the cpu from 32 to 64 bit mode at the end of the sequence, then branch back to the start of the block and reinterpret the same instructions as 64-bit rather than 32. You could use this technique to frustrate reverse engineering.
Does this apply to integer keys in the computational models that can do operations other than simple comparisons? In the transdichotomous model, I thought the best known sorting algorithms were O(n lg lg n) worst case, while the best known inversion counting models were Ω(n √ lg n), following “Counting Inversions, Offline Orthogonal Range Counting, and Related Problems”.
We certainly aren't changing the actual name "action" to "event" in the code or docs.

_However_, we _do_ have a new "Style Guide" docs page, and in that we tell people to "Model Actions As 'Events', Not 'Setters'":

https://redux.js.org/style-guide/style-guide#model-actions-a...

We'll be adding more pages with info on that topic as part of our ongoing core docs rewrite. I'd suggest pointing people to this style guide entry, as well as these excellent presentations that go into more detail:

- https://github.com/dmmulroy/talks/blob/master/event-driven-r...

- https://youtu.be/K6OlKeQRCzo?t=2626 (video) / https://rangle.slides.com/yazanalaboudi/deck#/ (slides)
We are in the unfortunate circumstance where we have high traffic but are budget conscious. S3 is cheap and Athena is as well. We significantly reduced cost moving from a fairly large elk cluster on ec2 to a handful of flume machines running morphline. We’ve looked at datadog and scalyr and even went so far as to implement a flume sink to scalyr but the scalyr quote was way too high.
Tezos raised around $200 million in 2017 and has had a current market cap of something close to $1 billion lately