skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> She might want Coca-Cola to take big risks to crush Pepsi, and invest capital in new products and markets to do so. An investor who holds both, on the other hand, would prefer that Coke and Pepsi avoid price wars.

> So the way we can solve this problem is to outlaw shares ownership of competing companies? Seems like a fair solution.

Nobody cares about Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola and Apple aren't competing, so if Coca-Cola can somehow be in the same index as Apple, and Apple gets 2x the return as Coca-Cola (which it does), which is what really makes the index look good against an average active picker (who doesn't pick Apple), it's a moot point who's allowed to own which shares in competing companies.

There are two real stories about indices. The first is [1] -- sorting the huge individual winners into different indices so that crappy companies, like Comcast and AT&T, can ride up on the demand for the index they are part of. Then there's [2] -- that most demand for individual stocks is the corporations themselves.

When you buy an individual stock versus an index with that stock, you're really making two bets: (1) a bet that there are an excess of individual stock pickers for this stock than for the indices it is part of, and (2) a bet on how much cash a company can get from consumers (even if it is a B2B company) to spend on buybacks in the long term. When you buy the index, you are betting that an industry or corporate class (e.g. large cap companies) are going to sort winners into the index more favorably and claim large amounts of consumer cash from outside that industry / low camp & mid cap stocks. [3]

There are negative trending industries! See S&P Oil and Gas Exploration. The article is talking about Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which do not create new products, they are marketing companies, it isn't about prices at all for them, it is such an utterly dumb example. She should be talking about two fracking companies, whose stock performance is extremely sensitive to oil prices.

The opposite of what the article thinks is happening: people are exiting common ownership of the companies (e.g. the S&P Oil and Gas Exploration index) that, as common owners, they have the most to gain from anti-trust (e.g. agreeing on a price for gas and oil).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_services_sector_...
[2] https://thesoundingline.com/sp-500-buybacks-now-outpace-all-...
[3] there are low and mid cap indices, but nobody ever talks about those outside of trade journals
Or...there are engineers who realize this regardless of hacker news and push better design factors by communicating customer needs and impact on branding. Hacker news is not as influential as we may believe.
This is one of the things that people are thinking about when they ask you to rearrange your benchmarks and run them again. Sometimes the first or the last set run is the fastest, depending on how the confounding factors interact.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and people can be rightly insistent.
I wonder if an effective legal strategy is to intentionally create a patchwork of complex and conflicting state-level regulations.

That raises the barrier to entry and compliance so high that it strangles a lot of entrants.
Kimla Streamcut 5D 5 Axis Waterjet CNC Machine (2015) [video]
Tip for medium haters on Firefox: Click the link, ignore the popups, hit F9.
UK contractors, see which companies are outside ir35 friendly
It’s there for very good reason- to ensure that the models are adults.
Enough people falsely believe they are Native American - the "Cherokee princess" myth; http://www.native-languages.org/princess.htm - that I can't believe that simply saying one is Native American is enough to get easier admission.

Here's how I envision it. I write in my essay that "I'm proud that I'm part Native American. My grandmother told me that her great-grandmother was Cherokee. My ancestors were forced off their land, and I think that's a tragedy.", etc.

Admissions officer reads it, rolls eyes, then plops it into the rejection pile.

Do you have something more substantial in mind than just "saying" to get easier admission?
I started writing in Medium because it was easy. Unlike WP it requires no maintenance and it looks good.

After what happened with FreeCodeCamp I decided to not write there anymore.

> “freeCodeCamp is the biggest publication on Medium. Our open source community sends Medium about 5% of their total traffic. But over the past year, Medium has become more aggressive toward us. They have pressured us to put our articles behind paywalls. We refused. So they tried to buy us. (Which makes no sense. We are a public charity.) We refused. Then they started threatening us with a lawyer.”

https://reclaimthenet.org/freecodecamp-leaves-medium/
5400rpm drives are old tech hence the comment. Your inability to grasp this fact is noted.

Your comment reads as some kind of deadly notice full of hatred and thinly veiled sadistic glee at correction.

So you're essentially wrong.
> This just isn't practical though. Apple/Google/Amazon/etc would have to be broken up for example.

So happened with Standard Oil and others after antitrust laws were introduced. Was their split bad? Or impractical?

Don't you as a customer want Google and other companies to be splitted to AdWords, GoogleSearch, YouTube, Android, Waymo companies?
The HomePod has it’s own ios fw that is updated via OTA like all the other apple ios devices
I don't know what it means, but there was a blog post posted about this paper here yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22077591
This strikes me as weird:

> "This is one of the hardest problems we have. This is like we are going to Mars," Hitzinger said in a comment. "Maybe it will never happen."

First of all, it seems obvious that we are going to go to Mars, eventually. Maybe not any time soon, but never? Seriously?

But the bigger thing is that there is about 1000 times more economic benefit to self driving cars than of going to Mars, at least in the near term. To think we'd just give up on it seems absurd.
the truth is never the truth
Trust me, I've read every page of Zettlelkasten.de. It's a nice site (and I like their software) but there is no fleshed out examples that I've seen on it.

Again, I get the concept, but I want to see examples in use.
What if I believe that the overall market for cola beverages will increase but don't want to place a bet on a specific company? In that case it makes sense to buy both Coke and Pepsi.
I built a site for people to do this

www.yourstake.org
"Recycle mode" is intended for devices that people are trading up to newer devices. In return for enabling it, you get a 30% discount on any newer hardware, the idea being that you either ship the item back to them, or take it to an e-waste recycler.

Nobody is forced to do this. You're more than welcome to sell/give/etc your speakers to someone else.
How to take Smart Notes is a very good book that explains this technique well. Highly recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Take-Smart-Notes-Nonfiction/dp/15...
> All semi-automatics should be banned

My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test.

Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be one of an interpretation of the second amendment in the context of the argument. That's where I am having trouble. What is the argument being made in the context of restricting a right?

I know the intent or idea: If you can't fire at a rapid rate you can't hurt as many people per unit time. I get it. And this might be a solid argument. Yet I can see it having lots of holes when applied.

An obvious one has to do with whether or not we can restrict criminals. The answer is obviously "no". This is where a lot of these things fall apart.

If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins.

The other argument is one about unfairly punishing law-abiding citizens.

I have presented this hypothetical in many conversations and nobody ever answers the question. It goes something like this:

Suppose I have you a couple of handguns and assault rifles, all the ammunition you want and trained you in their use at a high level of proficiency.

How long would it be until you take those weapons and shoot a bunch of innocent people?

How long would it be if I threaten to harm your loved ones unless you do it?

How long if I abduct a member of your family and threaten to harm them unless you do it?

If the answers to these questions are "never", how is restricting access to any hardware make us safer?

It does not.

This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. If it were a matter of hardware you'd eventually become a mass murderer simply because I gave you firearms and trained you. Not the case. Which means focusing on the hardware is the wrong path.

This is also the wrong path for a very different reason. Again, suppose I gave you all those guns, ammo and training. And 30 years later you haven't harmed anyone and never intend to. And then someone knocks on your door and says: You are a potential criminal because you own guns and therefore I am going to take some of your rights away. Anyone faced with such an accusation would think it is crazy, unfair, unjustified and plain wrong.

Focusing on the hardware is seen by gun owners as that very scenario. They are being told they are criminals. They know they are not and never will be. This strikes a deep nerve that has nothing to do with firearms. It's like telling someone they are criminals just because they own a ski mask. Honest people don't like to be characterized that way. And, as a result, they will defend their right to not be deemed guilty for doing nothing.

That's how the conversation stops and we never fix a thing.

If everyone got on the same boat and we talked about dealing with the real root causes of violence and crime everyone would join in. Call half the country "criminals" and you get nowhere.
So only the privileged should be able to park? If that would seriously be the issue with free parking, then build parking garages.
Seems like it went down or was deleted. Here is an archived version https://archive.is/jIgf4
> Also, what exactly would taking responsibility entail?

I'm just sure it doesn't involve:

- failing to follow parking rules which you presumably agreed to when you matriculated

- refusing to pay charges and fines you presumably agreed to

- vandalism

- theft

- dumping of cars

- squatting on parking spaces
Facebook is alredy all of those things though, and nobody pushed back. Thats the root of the problem. Too many smart but socially myopic jerks decided their SV projects funding was more important than human decency. YC is part and parcel of that way of thinking unfortunately.
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws has something to say here.
Although online tutors/teachers are pretty effective since you usually don't make physical contact with your teachers but they still provide the motivation and structure. Oh, I suppose that's what an online degree is. You'd just have to work on making exams cheat resistant.
Sorry to bother again, I cannot edit my post anymore, the author you're quoting in your profile is named François de La Rochefoucauld.

You wrote Rouchefoucald, which is wrong.
I wonder what drives this, is it just poor decision making ability.
This is de facto already somewhat the case - most index funds lend out their shares to earn some additional income, and so they can't vote those shares.

However, this becomes a bigger issue as index funds gain additional scale. As shares owned by index funds further surpasses the number of shares demanded for borrowing, index funds will be left with more shares to vote.

This will likely reduce shorting costs and increase total shares sold short somewhat, but likely not enough to compensate for the additional index fund ownership (i.e., index funds will net still have more shares for voting).
> I don‘t understand why people keep buying these inkjet scam printers. It‘s been like this for almost 2 decades.

Once, I bought a HP color inkjet multi-function device for AU$30 (new). (That's about US$21.)

As a printer it had lots of problems and soon I gave up even trying to use it as one. Never even bothered buying replacement toner.

But I was happy with it as a flat-bed scanner. And I only paid $30 for it.
To go down in a long list of things executives said wouldn’t happen, that ended up happening.
> This is becoming ad nauseum. You're missing the point about how the law applies differently to company policy and actions

Where are you getting this idea that this law only applies to company "policy". Reread the protections:

> No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through _or_ by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

Where does it say that this is only prohibited by policy? It says "No employer shall..." not "No employer shall implement policy to...". The law does not apply differently to company "policy" versus "actions".
If you think you can move through NYC unsurveiled, I have a bridge to sell you.
Archiving the repo (which disables new commits, new issues, etc) would have served the same goal and not wasted the time of the larger community.

Here's an example from one of my own archived projects. Is there any doubt in your mind as to the state of this repository?

https://github.com/karunamon/concourse-resource-bitbucket

Inconveniencing countless others in a fit of pique is a pretty good definition of immature, petty behavior.
> We should ask, “what evidence are you providing that your priors are any good?”

This is valid. Anyone pursuing a Bayesian approach should be asking themselves this question about every prior they use. To fully benefit from a Bayesian framework, one needs to construct models with understandable parameters for which there is some sound theoretical or practical insight that can be embedded with priors and that is not well-represented by the training data. Doing this can help your solution avoid the kind of wildly unpredictable and costly mistakes you might get if you used a completely blackbox approach. For critical applications, this can be highly useful. If you can't come up with priors that are clearly beneficial, then you are likely better off using a non-Bayesian approach.
The last two mayors of Miami have been Cuban Republicans. The city manager is a Republican, several of the commissioner seats are occupied by republicans. One could argue that currently Miami leans conservative. Marco Rubio represents Miami, to claim that Miami does not, at times, swing conservative is to ignore the clear facts that it does and much of that is due to the conservative Cubans.
They give automated feedback about your rating.
Other languages stole many of the nice features from lisp and the things they didn't (or couldn't steal) were not that important.
Thanks so much to the university for coming up with the barnacle or I would have missed these really brilliant hacks that seemed to keep improving one after the other. Parking 12 scrappy car was so low-tech and yet so effective but juicing the sim card for months has to be appreciated for going the extra mile.
Well, too bad about your bank account. Better luck next time.
There's a more leisurely blog-post-style explanation of this complex-variable trick at https://codewords.recurse.com/issues/four/hack-the-derivativ...
You can easily see where the traffic comes from in the stats for each article.

I just checked it and my most read article has about 170k views. About 50% of that came from HN and direct URL. Only 8% from Medium.

See for yourself: https://imgur.com/BAICxnm
I find it interesting you say that Medium provides +10€ value to you every month.

I'd say the writers that choose to be on Medium and would otherwise use another platform, provide that value to you. Be realistic, how many of the writers you enjoy actually benefit from the affiliate program? I would guess not many. (I could be wrong of course)

For the "high expectations" argument I'd say there are other options that match those expectations. Of course we should be able to say Medium is worse than them.
This is the open source version of Netscape Communicator circa 1997. It is mozilla.org's first and oldest open source browser client. That client was eventually split in to Firefox (browser) and Thunderbird (the rest).

It has all the features of Firefox, plus built-in support for your favorite social media newsgroups, email, and contacts.
Just continue to ask yourself that question each year
Yah, that actually looks great. Thank you for the suggestion!
I bet you could get some sort of coating for your windshield which would resist the suction of the barnacle.
Still working here, but thanks, good to be prepared :)
Some time ago I had this discussion with my math prof. Are new math things discovered or invented? We did not agree :)
I use Seamonkey at work and my coworkers make fun of me whenever I have to screenshare. I originally switched because some years ago, Chrome was being a memory hog, and I remembered using Seamonkey years before that.

I still use it every day, and was recently wondering when the next update would happen. Thanks to all the devs out there fighting the good fight!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHwtkAtdkx1IZoI7FZf1X...
> IME, most consternation comes from people adopting a mono repo without adopting a build/dependency graph tool (like Bazel, buck or pants).

That seems like a build problem, not a Git problem.

> An additional source of strain is from people abusing the repo (checking in large binaries, third party dependencies, etc).

That is not necessarily abuse. In fact, it is a good practice in many cases!

> A third is when people try to do branch-based feature development, instead of the “correct” practice of only deploying master (or weekly cuts of master).

I am not sure what you mean by branch-based development, but I don't see why that would be a specific problem of monorepos.
Spek – Function Builder BDD Testing Framework in Swift
Why 'unlimited' time off isn't unlimited
So, whereas our optic system consists of two eyes, and two lenses that converge light from the environment into the photoreceptor cells of our eye, this creature has it's photoreceptors on the outside.

Since the purpose of our lenses is to converge and project the 3D environment into a sort of 2D plane in our heads, what exactly does is this creature experiencing?

Just a fuzzy, discrete map of light intensity with no detail? Am I right in thinking that, even if you increased the number of photoreceptors, it wouldn't increase detail because all the light rays from the environment are essentially averaged together when they hit the photoreceptor, therefore muddying any visual detail?

ETA: Also what would happen if we placed a lens directly above this creature's photoreceptors. Assuming that we calculate the position of the lens to be equal to the distance of the light converging to an optical center plus the focal length (the ideal distance from optical sensor to focal plane to produce a sharp image in receptors) - would this creature suddenly be able to see like us?
In the dot com era there was a self driving car startup that started with a simplifying assumption: don’t run the cars at grade.

If you go up or down, the number and kind of obstacles reduces. The location of interactions between the vehicles is reduced, and the interactions with other classes of vehicle are zero, so you can negotiate.

Solve a simpler problem, if you can.
That doesn't solve the big part of the problem which is the co-ownership of competing companies. A blackrock manager voting for you or you voting doesn't change anything. Through the fund, you co-own multiple competing companies, therefore you won't vote for policies that would increase competition between those companies.
> keeping your windshield wipers up would prevent use of the device.

Until the person putting the thing on just raised them.
it's pretty functional and thoughtful for the wealthy. instead we need a congress responsive to the long-term common interests of the citizenry and not beholden to the singular interests of the rich.
Then all car manufacturers would have to as well. (Tesla is not the only car that "phones home", others do as well, and increasingly so.)

So, to avoid this type surveillance, you would need to forego driving, which is completely your choice. However, this is not merely a "Tesla" problem.
Governments might decide they want to retaliate against peaceful protesters, if the peaceful protests are causing problems for their agenda. This would have a tremendous chilling effect on protest.
Here's my (unsolved) use case for a smart home: I've got three heat pumps and a whole house generator; if the generator is on, I don't want all three running at the same time (too much load), and generally, I'd like the set points adjusted, because I value saving fuel (the tank needs to last until the next filling, and I don't know how long the outage will be) over comfort. I've also got a hot water recirculator that I'd like to turn off when the well pump isn't powered (it's not on the same circuit as the house) or is otherwise not providing water pressure --- after a water leak, the previous recirculator burned its bearings moving air instead of water, and it was expensive to replace.

Also, I'd love to run the HVAC fans to equalize temperatures when some rooms are much cooler than others.
If we put a wire in the road or maybe rfid tags every 40 feet, we could easily have self driving cars.

However that would mean that everyone would have access to it.

The idea of self driving cars now is, a winner take all situation where whichever funded effort that succeeds, generates outsized profits from licensing or going public at a high valuation.
How did you know that it was phoning home from a test drive?
https://westinghouse.com/electronics/
You can still know a range in advance and you can alert people on their phone before charging them - I'd much prefer this to having to pay all the time even when capacity is low.
That would be correct.

> recommendations -- internal and external -- are the first-line

I'm afraid this is a very tech-centric view. Outside of a few specific industries or the very top levels, this is essentially unheard of.

My brother's educational background is biomedical sciences so he's looking for essentially lab work doing analysis for a hospital, drug company, or similar. There are a fair few jobs doing it, but they are relatively low level, have no "community", no real way to facilitate referrals.

In tech it's easy to "network into companies" because companies are so open with their hiring – they hold events, they sponsor conferences that are priced so that people can pay their own entry, and there are community events where you can meet people from them. This is very far from the norm, until you get to the golf clubs where you can mingle with other execs.
More precisely, it might be simple but not easy: it’ll be quite difficult an operation to collect votes from the tens of thousands of shareholders of the funds, and votes are happening all the time on a global scale.
The problem is not paying for the parking I use. That is an easy problem to solve, as long as the price is "reasonable".

The problem I have with parking authorities is fraud. When the meter employee gives me a ticket for a different meter, or when the parking ticket fine is $200 instead of say $30, or when the restrictions are absurd/vague ("You can park here for 2 hours m-f except holidays except 9-11 except in green spots except you have to display the ticket in your window except you need to be 6 inches but not 12 inches from the curb except except except except")...

... then this is the part where I start to suspect I'm not paying for the parking I'm using, but instead I am paying for someone else's large and undeserved profit.