skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm a bit irked at the specific way the article keeps on bringing up unstandardized and clunky-as-hell looking features (I never knew about IE's behavior attribute; that looks scary) that were only ever implemented in IE as if IE was being unfairly judged. It's neat to see IE did those things, but the article glosses over that web features are good when they're cross-platform, standardized, and mesh well with other/future features. It's easy to just add features if you're IE and not worried about those things. It's telling that the article links to a demo for one of the old features and mentions you need a VM with some specific old IE for the demo to work. One way standardized features are better is that they tend to stay working in future browsers.
Yeah, I always disable WebGL.

I was really freaked to discover that all Debian family VMs on a given VirtualBox host have the same WebGL fingerprint. Same for all Windows VMs, all Red Hat family VMs, etc.

But then you can't see all the cool WebGL stuff that gets posted here.
Right? This reads someone who's lying to themselves
During the last major fire season in California the traffic was incredibly slow on the main interstate I was on. Maps suggested a detour on a side highway because nobody was taking it. But it turned out that nobody was taking it because it was literally on fire, so I had to find my way back to the interstate.
What about fossils, surely children in that ancient vibrant civilization dropped their shoes, phone, remote and it got fossilized
The price of a stock has only an indirect relationship to the abstract value of a company. The current price of a stock is simply the highest buy order that is not yet fulfilled by a sell order.

So if a company just keeps offering to buy stock at a high enough price to match existing sell orders it'll push the price of a stock up.

Whether that's sustainable in the long run is a different story, but there's no ironclad mathematical relationship.
And they have televisions too, other money they spend that they could have spent on investing.
We would know it. We probably wouldn't know much about that civilization; almost all of their culture or art would not survive. But we would find bits of glass or pottery fossilized in rocks at the very least. We haven't found anything like that so it seems extremely unlikely.
I mean, yes. It's also incomplete if it doesn't include a notion of directionality to e.g. distinguish between energy (force and displacement aligned) and torque (force and displacement perpendicular).

The SI system isn't perfect, but expressing at least some dimensional information to be checked by machine feels like a step in the right direction.
"Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor."

"Taking"? When a "poor" person chooses to buy an Android or an iPhone, did Google or Apple "take" his money from him? No, the person "chose" to give money to the company because she thought that it provides some utility for her. Alternatively, you can argue that designing a smartphone is leveling the playing field, which would make more sense.

What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves.
IRR Small planets could be extended the same two points per turn as other Small planets.
> From a macro perspective, focussing on one over the other is misleading.

from a societal perspective, it's a tax "refund" for the wealthy to enable stock buybacks over dividends, since capital gains are taxed less, and can be tactically spread out by in time to minimize the effective rate. At the same time, a company's spending on stock buybacks are considered an expense (rather than a capital expenditure), therefore decreasing the tax bill on a company's balancesheet.

I think stock buybacks should cost the company the same as dividends - that is, they should be taxed at the same rate, and also not be considered an expense that they can offset taxes from.
I'd like to see more sympathy for the rich, they are systemic victims as much as men are in a misogynistic male paternalism. I've met enough rich people to know they are suffering too, suspicion of strangers wanting their money excludes them from 'normal' interactions. They live in fear of theft, blackmail, extortion and falling down their social ladder. They retreat to preserves of the rich, safer, but also a sterile and suffocatingly clique. The amassed wealth is a burden to maintain, and when you've bought everything you can, you cannot escape the fact that when it comes to the important stuff, love, life, health, friends, family and freedom, they are no better off than the guy who washes their Bentley.

Haha, only time I've ever got negative votes, I'd like to know if it's rich people voting not to become victims, or poor people not understanding that by victimisation of the rich, they start to lose their status...
Median !== Average
I like the idea that we are the biologic boot loader for AI, as Musk put it.

Imagine that biologic creatures evolve over time long enough to develop, birth, and disperse AI out into the greater universe - and collapses after doing so. it takes a very long time for another civilization to evolve to the point that it spawns another AI form into the universe, and all remnants of the prior are gone.

Gah - I just mean I enjoyed the thought experiment of his statement.

If you are not aware, Elon said this on his appearance on Joe Rogan.
True. Nobody said they had to give up TVs though.
The Flute of Shame
Public Static Literals Are Not a Solution for Data Duplication
#Awesome I 4it
Electron apps I am forced to use are probably the problem.
I love vscode and would support other similar electron apps but people are using electron without even a need for it and locking down features that you can implement with some work for the browsers.

They are hostile too. Some of them won't let me build my own client or use a third party one.
> it is astonishingly good at recognizing the _kind_ of answer that should be produced. The fact that it usually answers with a language here is a reflection of what it understands. And it behaves similarly for a whole range of different tasks. If you write a sentence that should obviously end with the name of a person it will give you the name of a person.

I think you're anthropomorphizing a fair amount. GPT-2 has memorized huge amounts of text and can, yes, generalize the characteristics of words that fill certain slots. To say that it recognizes the kind of answer that should be produced is implying agency where there is none.

The original author is right. GPT-2 has no idea what it's talking about. Play with it any amount of time and you'll realize this. It's more than "Eliza on steroids," but the impressiveness of GPT-2 comes from the style of its language, not the substance.
A Secret History of the 9/11 Investigation
Treasure Fever
there's empirical evidence that by using a broad, well diversified index fund, and consistently remained invested in the market, you can get an average return of about 6-7% per annum over the very long run (30+ yrs).

The problem is only when you don't have enough "spare" wealth to invest because the daily costs have all eaten up your paycheck. That's a problem i dont know how to solve.
Hmm, so the reasons given for the price going up seem to be:

1. It signals to investors that the company is confident and low risk. (Research and development is considered high risk.)

2. It makes the company more purely itself, it doesn't have shares backed by cash that drag back its price growth. If people expect future growth this means that growth per share will be higher, so they would start buying now to get some of that future higher growth. (Of course in addition to magnifying growth it also magnifies decline.)

An interesting thing is that this article says

> Stock buybacks can have a mildly positive effect on the economy overall.

Which seems to contradict what that previous article said. This article also says that stock buybacks will cause other companies to do more research and development.
A related piece on income inequality: https://reason.com/2020/01/25/the-truth-about-income-inequal...
Everything I know about process tech says that they're not strictly comparable like that between these different processors. Was that wrong?
Privacy preserving electronic transfers of some sort would be amazing (not Bitcoin, I mean in native currency and via my bank). I'm not really sure what that would look like in practice though - neither the bank nor the retailer is likely to want to give up their data streams at this point, and money laundering regulations will result in a strict upper bound on privacy regardless.
> In the end, he went down in history as the inventor of the first production robotic vacuum cleaner, the Roomba.

Not sure if you downplay this or not, but that's nothing to scoff at.
the wealthier you are, the more you are able to diversify, and also to "safely" leverage to gain more.
Yes, but investors who see that the company's coffers keep shrinking might sell exactly enough to counteract the buys. My question is whether there's any logical reason for investors not to exactly counter the buys with matching sells.
>> some kind of low-level stuff is too difficult with C.

Surprised to hear this. I do C for a living, including some low level stuff (not x86) and there aren't a lot of low level things I feel I couldn't do. Can you expand a bit?
WindEdit 0.9 – A high performace text editor for huge file and long line
How would you propose a 3rd party intermediary provide secure end to end encryption without you creating a client side cert?

Takes 30 seconds with letsencrypt to create your own TLS cert.

If you are suggesting CF do it server side then it's nothing more than snakeoil.
As an aside, it's amazing how much work Stripe has put into Sorbet. More than half of the ~100 contributers work at Stripe: https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet/graphs/contributors
Couldn't they use something like code division multiplexing?
How can someone technical write a whole essay without a single number?

>If the rich people in a society got that way by taking wealth from the poor, then you have the degenerate case of economic inequality, where the cause of poverty is the same as the cause of wealth.

He could have saved himself the time it took him to write that article by just looking at the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

In summary the bottom 50% of Americans have lost all their wealth since 1989 and then gone into debt to the tune of 25% of their former wealth.

So in short Paul, yes, we are in the degenerate case and a round of guillotining is in order.
Diversification lowers your rate of return to the mean. Hedging lowers your risk by lowering your rate of return.
> we would live in a democracy (understood by the Greeks to mean rule by the poor, given they massively outnumber the rich)

Democracy in Ancient Greece explicitly meant that only the wealthy city elites would be able to vote.
> 15% mortality rate in first patients (6 of 41 are dead) [2]

This early report I believe is why the leaks (ie Romania and Brazil) from the bio facilities are stating such high numbers.

That's the official number they had, so what they thought was true, that's what people are leaking.

Data now seems it's maybe 3%. Unless there's something that confirms that early number.

China might be able to cover up numbers having it. Covering up dead bodies is very hard. We have Webo and it would have leaked by now.
Time in the market beats timing the market. You're describing all the rationalizations people use to stay out.

2008 was the bottom and it went up for 3 years. You would see that by 2012 so buy in. That's it. That's the entire rule/suggestion. There's no "timing the market" needed.
Sorry for the late reply.

The Beltline plus Piedmont Park is a perfect fit. The Beltline is linear, but long (it circles the city), and all of the connected neighborhoods are extremely walkable.

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

Piedmont Park and Ansley are beautiful.

The Beltline will eventually connect to the Silver Comet trail, which is a completely paved bike path that extends all the way to Alabama.

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

If you're willing to get in the car, the Palisades, Kennesaw Mountain, and more are not far. They're extremely dog friendly, and I visit them often.

https://www.atlantatrails.com/hiking-trails/hiking-east-pali...

Also, Fetch Dog Park is freaking amazing. It's a dog park with alcohol. It blew up, and now they're opening four more locations in two other states.

https://atlantapetlife.com/fetch-dog-park/

You shouldn't have any problem.
That's an unknowable and that's throwing around FUD without evidence, based on speculation.

There is a bigger problem with unlimited, pay-to-play democracy: corruption. This starts with candidates having to raise vast sums from wealthy donors and a continuing appearance of corruption keeping them happy over the needs of the many. That's a critical flaw, because, for example in the US, many judges, sheriffs, district attorneys (public prosecutors), city council members and state legislators all require raising campaign funds for their elections. It's ridiculous.

Here's where the Greeks are known to actually have had something different, but better in this specific regard: "jury duty" for public service.

A modern adaptation would work like this (simplified):

- everyone with taxed income or profits is assigned to specialties and/or leadership lotteries based on their field and expertise

- public jobs are randomly assigned based on expertise

- 1 year term limit

- fulfilling the term prevents one from being chose for X years (say 15 years, changed based on demand from jobs and supply of eligible)

- able to be removed for cause

- unlike jury duty, vaccines or "comfort animals," there would be fewer exceptions and deferments (new parent, elder caretaking, disability, etc.)
They way I think of this is that everything is relative. Happiness is a product of success and expectations. When everyone around you is rich it influences your expectations thus reducing your happiness (except for buddhist monks?) and driving you to great success or potential despair. So it really is a zero-sum game unless (until) we evolve some enlightenment where expectations are fixed. We'd be content, but would anything ever get done? Does it matter? Sounds like a sci-fi topic.

Of course this is a super simplistic way to see it. Both success and expectations have many contributing factors themselves.
A Surge of New Plastic Is About to Hit the Planet
Iowa City schools to discontinue 'seclusion rooms' (2017)
Because it's embarrassing to the cult of personality for PG.
> I haven't seen anyone who got rich simply by investing in stocks

I know quite a few. You can read about more in the book "The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley.

Heck, anyone who bought AMZN, MSFT, AAPL at the opening price, and held, is a wealthy person today.
That's from the summer of 2017 and misses the entirety of what happened over the last 2 years. Millions of people are very happy and benefiting greatly from their new wealth and large retirement accounts.

If you can't benefit from the S&P going up 30% in a year, I'm not sure what anyone can do for you.
Your justification assumes you're being searched for. If you learn that the search has been called off, is it still always better to stay put?
You could say the same thing about eliminating private health, dental, and vision insurance (or at the very least, making it so that all providers are required to accept public insurance). Making coverage a right instead of a privilege would at least lessen the foothold that employers have on the necks of their employees.
Reminds me of a family that got lost while crossing the Sahara: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/sahar...
$100 million, probably not. But that begs the questions: Is that the real number and would it stay there?

The AMT was put together to hit the top ~150 people in the 1960s. Because of how the underlying system changed and it hasn't, the AMT now regularly hits people under $100k and is only likely to drift lower.

Congress has a bad track record here.
The Iron Law of Oligarchy strikes again. There will always be a class of people who, either by luck or by brute force competence, will have disproportionate power over everyone else.

Also, why is this flagged?
TIL the C variable declaration syntax is meant to evoke how you would use the variable. For instance,

int *x[3]

means that to get an int, I type

*x[3]

(well ok, 3 would be a poor choice). Whereas if I have

int (*x)[3]

I'd dereference it as

(*x)[0]

meaning, it's a pointer to array of ints, while the first is an array of int pointers.

This is mildly life-changing.
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion about closures when I wrote Ur-Scheme. In mainstream modern languages, you have the remarkable situation that, when you are writing the code, you know which variables you intend your closure to capture, but you don't note that explicitly in the code. Then the compiler needs some extra complexity to calculate the set of free variables in the body of the lambda — and which binding contours they are being captured from, although that's usually pretty trivial. And then the guy who is changing the code next year also needs to reverse-engineer that same set of variables and binding contours in order to modify it successfully. So it seems sort of perverse to leave that information out of the code!

Since then, though, I've come to doubt my conclusion, for two reasons:

1. The same thing is true of, for example, static types; but using type inference or dynamic typing often makes your code easier rather than harder to read. (Some wag said something to the effect that dynamic typing is what you do when it's simultaneously so trivial to see that your program has no type errors that you can do it in your head and so difficult that you don't want to spend the time to do the proof.)

2. There isn't a really compelling difference to me between the closure in

^(x < 2 ifTrue: [ 1 ] ifFalse: [ (x - 1) factorial ])

capturing x and the closure in

fetch(json).then(r => widget.displayJson(r.json()))

capturing widget, or the block in

(let ((overlay (make-overlay beg end)))
(overlay-put overlay 'face (or face 'highlight)))

capturing face.

That is, inner blocks of control structures implicitly capture variables from their outer scope all the time, and this is mostly not a problem; and closures are a useful technique to make it possible to extend the set of control structures. (As it happens, let in Emacs Lisp is implemented as a built-in special form, but in Scheme it's normally implemented as a macro that puts the inner block into a closure.)

Maybe part of the reason is the lifetime: the example with fetch() is in fact socking away a reference to widget until after the HTTP response comes back, so aliasing bugs and space leaks are possible, while the other two examples aren't. This might be a reason implicit closures are so much more popular in functional programming languages: aliasing bugs are not a problem for immutable data, and nobody expects to be able to predict how much memory their functional program will need anyway.
There's an infographic video on Youtube that describes and compares:

- what people think the economic distribution is (extreme power law)

- what people think a fair economic distribution would be (somewhat somewhat smooth but increasing)

- what it actual is (absurd hockey-stick, power law)
They also recommend to install Ublock botnet (not Ublock Origin) and to enable DNT (a well-known way to track), I wouldn't trust those guys
> Cable TV, before DOCSIS cable modem internet service became a thing, didn't need much upstream bandwidth. All the upstream was needed for was to authenticate the cable descrambler set-top boxes, authorize occasional pay-per-view transactions, and maybe do a few minor "interactive TV" things, like letting you check your cable bill from your descrambler box.

Cable TV didn't have any upstream signaling once upon a time; it was a purely a system of repeating and replicating an analog signal in the downstream direction.

Early scrambling methods for "pay TV" channels could be undone using circuits that were published in electronics magazines.
My initial thought with this is that the rich would find loopholes around this tax, the upper middle class would pay it, the struggling middle class and poor would barely be taxed....so basically the upper middle class would be dragged down towards the struggling middle/poor, therefore making the underlying issue worse.
Perhaps all bedrooms have two bathrooms? Such that they and they could go at the same time?

This leaves four more generally accessible bathrooms. Seems adequate, I guess. Maybe.
Yes so I believe what you describe is a situation where the winners are already dominating to the point that the average person does not have the resources to compete. And this is where we must find ways to measure just how sick the system has become so that we can determine that rebalancing is needed. Of course the winners who control the system will tell you that nothing is needed here. Just go on about your business. Haha
I think they do not constitute a substantial portion of diet of any other animal. Source: an article about possible mosquito eradication that I can't seem to dig up :-/
Keep in mind that GPS is more govt controlled, so is GPS more reliable than Radar?
> Probably too far-fetched and better suited as material for a scifi story, but the idea is interesting

M. Night Shyamalan directed a terrible movie from 2013 that is a version of that premise. After Earth, starring Will and Jaden Smith. Solid idea for a sci-fi movie, they botched it unfortunately.

"In the future, an environmental cataclysm forces the human race to abandon Earth in search of a new habitable planet, eventually settling on the planet Nova Prime" ... "A crash landing leaves Kitai Raige and his father Cypher stranded on Earth, a millennium after events forced humanity's escape. With Cypher injured, Kitai must embark on a perilous journey to signal for help."

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

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1815862/
> 1. You can migrate class by class or even method by method.

This is only if you can get it to run on your project. Far as I know, you can't segment it to just a few folders, can you? Our project has tens of thousands of files and even running it all night, it eventually hard crashes.
At least they'd be incredibly confused when they eventually went to the Moon :)
Sunday: Is Not This Babylon the Great?
What is GR? General relativity?

So there are two Jan Hesthavens? One (a man) who works in GR and another (a woman) who works in signal processing or time series analysis?
The freeways around here are gridlocked every day with people driving nice cars to work. Nicer cars than is really necessary. They could buy a cheaper can and invest a lot more than a dollar.

My daily driver is 30+ years old. It's probably worth about $500. Repairs, taxes, and insurance on it is cheap, too. For one thing, since the car is pretty much worthless, there's no point in spending money on comprehensive insurance.

But I turn the key and it goes. Except for today, when the battery cable corroded to the point of not passing enough current. I ordered a new cable from Amazon for $10, and will install it tomorrow. It'll probably take about 10 minutes. Did I say it was cheap to repair?
Mozilla is becoming evil – don't use Firefox
Large Explosion in Wuhan, China 武汉 病毒
Boeing 777X: World’s largest twin-engine jet completes first flight
My iphone is 4 years old now. I've saved a ton of money not buying the latest every year, money I invest.