skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> > Common Lisp also lets you use mmap

> But not without allocating dynamic memory and copying data.

Sure it does. In SBCL you can force a stack allocation (though rarely does it improve performance), and very short-lived values do not leave registers in any case.

> > They clearly wanted automatic memory management

> Most likely because of some misconceptions.

There are both good and bad reasons to want automatic memory management. At least one good reason it it would decrease the porting effort by keeping the code similar.

> > so the C++ implementation is reasonable.

> How so?

Using reference counting is a reasonable way to get automatic memory management in C++

> > but I suspect the results would have been similar

> Don't forget the data sets to be filtered, sorted an analyzed are up to 200 GB.

Which is going to be rough on any automatic memory management system, which makes using a language with a better ecosystem of automatic memory management more performant.
Darkroom printer here. This is one of my joys in life. Dumped all my digital cameras because printing my photographs gets me off the computer and the tangibility solidifies the work as important for me.

You can actually get away with printing without all of this equipment just to give it a try. I used to print 4x5 contact prints with nothing more than the light in the bathroom and a piece of photo paper.

To this day there remains nothing more magical to me then seeing the silver in the developer slowly produce an image on a page. Happy printing to anyone starting out.

Edit: Also of note that depending on your volume if you develop and print at home it can actually be cheaper than chasing the latest sensor every few years. I just barely crest what it would cost me with sensor upgrades to 2 bodies every few years this way because I am a pretty low volume shooter (2-300 rolls of HP5 a year).
There is definitely a problem with funding which is harmful for value creators.

Funding which is not optimally allocated is much worse than no funding at all.

Imagine if there are two people:

- PersonA who has the potential to produce a lot of value but is useless when it comes to pitching ideas to investors because they spend all their effort thinking about how to solve problems.

- PersonB who is useless at creating value but is really good at selling empty ideas to investors because they spend all of their effort thinking about their pitching techniques.

In our economy, PersonB will beat PersonA every single time. What this means is that PersonA cannot get any funding at all and they end up being forced to work as an employee of PersonB who doesn't know what the heck they're doing because the only thing they are good at is attracting investors and telling them what they want to hear.

In reality, it would be more efficient to let PersonA get all the funding and put PersonB on welfare (because PersonA would be smart enough to not hire them). As good as PersonB is at talking and convincing people to give them money, the reality is that they are less than useless for the economy. Unfortunately, we cannot BS our way to a stronger economy.

If you watch some interviews by Masayoshi Son of Softbank, you will understand this. The guy is a genius at convincing people of the most fanciful, outlandish ideas - But he added no net value... He just distributed the funding he received to other snake oil salesmen like himself. The biggest VC in the world didn't know what the heck he was doing and was giving money to other people who also didn't know what the heck they were doing.

I think it would be better if the activity of investing or loaning money would be made illegal. People should just get rich and retire; let the next person have a go.

Getting rich and not retiring is immoral IMO. These people have every tool necessary to enjoy the rest of their lives but they prefer to stay in control and dedicate their entire careers to preventing other people from getting the same opportunities as they got.

Because of them, our entire economy is now founded on the arbitrary top-down picking of winners instead of bottom-up value creation.
If this study is accurate, then 1.8 million NYC resident are infected. So 15 411 deaths (as of today, including 5 121 probable deaths) suggests COVID-19 has a fatality rate of MINIMUM 0.9% which is in line with previous estimates (between 0.5 and 1.6%) and this is MINIMUM 9 times more fatal than the flu (0.1%).

Edited to add "MINIMUM", as there is a lag between case detection and death (I should have known better to mention it, as I blogged about it: https://blog.zorinaq.com/case-fatality-ratio-ncov/)
> (We all know why)

Do we? Please educate me then. I have a few guesses, the primary ones being artificially limited numbers of doctors, the artificially inflated cost of a medical degree, and the elite status that doctors hold.

A runner up guess is that Americans have the delusion that modern medicine has a near perfect solution for every problem, so doctors do not factor in cost when prescribing treatment, even when extreme costs are associated with marginally better outcomes. The funny thing about this is that because of the extremely high cost of modern medicine in practice, prescribing treatments that have the best health outcomes at the present can cause years, decades, or lifetimes of poor health and hardship due to the burdens of debt and stress. If I had to pay $10 grand for some stitches that I could do myself (which is a fairly common amount for say, 30 stitches), that cost would decrease both my life expectancy and my personal happiness.
The problem is you're not able to test the alternate unless you're a VC: companies that don't follow the model (or are in the wrong part of it) probably fail before they ever become public.
Pros and Cons of Digital Bills
I didn't say they don't work. They do. And in tune with the article on averages (and curse of dimensionality) on the front page now[0], I'll happily concede that different brands may work strongly on different people at different times. Hell, myself I had periods in my youth when I had fanboy-level attachment to a brand or two.

My point is that I doubt that the typical relationship with a brand is as sophisticated as 'yodon described. If it was, we'd all be falling victim to advertising bullshit much more often. So e.g. when Coca Cola airs another commercial with a grandfather pulling up coke during family supper, I believe almost everyone watching either smiles or rolls their eyes. I don't think their minds race to the memories of their family dinners, or old times, or whatever. That would be a dangerously strong emotional reaction to an ad.

--

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832
Just want to plug i3. i3 + Ubuntu has been my go-to for 7 years.

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/06/install-regolith-linux-i...
Thanks for bringing it up. An underlying assumption here is that cordiality should be the default, and I agree with that.

In this particular case, though, this question is essentially "TL;DR?", which is also a question everyone wants to know, but not considered good etiquette by this community.

The question was "Is there a reason the author uses the word dish instead of project?" If the answer is yes, then, you can find out by reading the article. If the answer is no, then a comment critiquing or clarifying would be helpful.

I could have been more cordial, but it's unsustainable (IMO) to counter low-effort with high-effort. Acting annoyed is a convenient shortcut for communicating etiquette expectations.
A similar method, that is detecting hCG in urine, was used in the early 20th century by injecting into xenopus frog.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211252/pdf/brm...

Another recent article:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/doctors-used-to-us...
I've switched to https://bookshop.org. I'm in a better place financially than I was when Amazon was my default for books, I can afford the mark-up and don't mind.
I hope that this is indeed true, but sadly, I believe that the images are doctored. We have not heard anything from the Reddit team regarding this subject.
Whoa, even when a comment is bad, please don't respond with a worse one. That just takes the thread further in the wrong direction. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I don't read the GP comment as being a jerk so much as trying to at least avoid the most unproductive kinds of argument. Maybe it was a doomed experiment.
Thanks for sharing. Questionable whether it's legit since they're apparently making false verbal promises of a lower bill. Hard to prove, yes. It's not right just because a corporation does it.
Amazon drives way WAY more discoverability than any retailer.

This is completely false. Amazon provides significantly less discoverability than a retailer. With a retailer, you get a product that actually shows up in front of people's eyeballs, and the ability to provide in-store promotions to attract customers, and, most crucially, the store lets you know how the promotions perform. A small minority of retailers make you pay for this data, but most don't because they want products to sell through. Many stores will even work with new brands to promote their products, such as (temporary) eye-level product placement, end-of-aisle placement, special displays, etc.

Source: Before going in-house I used to rep manufacturers of all sizes from startups to billion-dollar behemoths selling to major, regional, and local retail chains. Grocery stores are the best at working with brands (but also the fastest to drop products that don't sell), Target is about average, and Walmart was the worst at the time though I hear they've gotten better.
Instacart announces new Covid-19 policies and plans to hire 250k more shoppers
If either of those affects performance there are WAY too many memory allocations happening.
Or people who will try to talk to you from their balcony rather than answering the door.
But ... doesn't medicare do a more effective job negotiating than the private insurance companies? Like, my understanding is that typically for a given procedure medicare pays the least, private insurance pays somewhat higher, the uninsured pay way more.
People don't seem to understand just how common this problem is with any sort of initial.lastname@gmail address. It is insane to me that so many major big name companies do ZERO email verification on signups and just start spamming me with with garbage every time some idiot uses my email address and expect me to "unsubscribe" to something I never subscribed to in the first place.
Just an FYI, my town (in Pennsylvania) passed an anti-peddling / door-to-door sales ordinance to get these high pressure utility sales guys off our streets. You might want to talk to your city council about doing the same.

At this point we can call the cops on them and the cops can issue a citation. I haven't seen them since the ordinance was passed.
Sure, let's ignore the hospitals getting overloaded.
The problem with this is that you've ruled out the wise part by posting it.
Since this discourages me from takin gthe time to look at the photo it does indeed provide me with a better experience. Thanks, guys!
Less setup time for end users who ultimately wanted the different DE
Hey ashley, nice to see Construct progressing. You may not remember me but I'm bornemix from the CT forums.

Hope all is well!
Is this surprising though? Bank owners do this all the time
Is it? I honestly have no idea.

Their system of government (and everything else) is radically different than ours in some pretty major respects that aren't going to change without us throwing out the constitution. Some of them are relevant to the post you replied to, for example how they handle taxation and citizenship.
I always like to think about the first person who thought of this. "Hmm let's pee on some wheat and barley, I wonder if this will prove if the woman is pregnant".
I don't actually disagree with many of the responses to my comment (to the effect that public spending doesn't seem effective, is bureacratic, etc) that seem to have been downvoted. I actually agree.

I think it's indicative of the same cultural/ideological problem I point to above: if a culture doesn't believe in the common good, in society, in social cohesion, in group projects, and if we're in a constant ideological struggle with some 50% of the population that feels that the welfare of others is no concern of theirs, and that public spending and public institutions are "socialist" (used as an epithet) -- how can we expect that same culture to be committed to actually performing civic duties and constructing things with any sense of responsibility?

In a nation where it's shark-eat-shark and "take what's mine" it's no surprise that projects complete over budget and work is done sloppily or in an expensive way.
There is a little trick to bypass this, open your browser console, click on mobile view, and refresh the page, it should load the mobile version of Instagram.
Take that thought one step further: an increase in housing prices will essentially keep the status quo in a given locality (unless more housing is constructed), so the people who couldn't afford housing before the UBI would not be able to afford it after the UBI.

The only difference is that now they have money to be able to afford a U-Haul and/or plane tickets and/or any other funds necessary to uproot their life to a more economically friendly place.
They should benchmark Java's implementation with different GCs...
That $356M is probably much more concentrated than the $146 billion.

As the old parable goes, maybe it doesn't make a difference to all those thousands of starfishes washed on the shore, but it made a difference to those few the boy threw back into the sea.
why didn't Crapple fix this?
Are you suggesting the riots in the banlieus in France are done by "astroturf protestors"?

And "flattening the curve" to buy time until we get a vaccine or a very successful treatment was literally in the comment I replied to. Not as in "we must lockdown until then", but as a goal we may reach if we continue with strict measures.

It's fine to want that, we just have to be aware that it might not happen (or might not happen soon) and that it isn't free.
When can we test everyone?
A few years ago I got a call from Revenue Canada and around the same time it was extremely popular for scammers to pose as Revenue Canada agents. So immediately I just assumed it was a scam and got extremely annoyed and angry at the person... turns out it was a real Revenue Canada agent and I had somehow forgot to submit my taxes a few years back...
Totally agree - Turbo Boost Switcher has dramatically changed how I use and like my 16" MBP - no more fan noise, no more burning fingers or blanket, and practically no noticeable difference in performance (e.g. Destiny 2 runs fine with it off).
Career advice for people with bad luck
Technology alone cannot solve the use of technology to promote interests of parties in a zero sum game.
Also it makes scraping much harder.
And I would guess that the companies that have "blame" cultures end up doing much worse than companies that have "fixing" cultures.
It's really flatMap/map from the link:

List<Integer> s1 = Stream.of(1, 2);
Supplier<Stream<String>> s2 = ()->Stream.of("A", "B");

s1.flatMap(v1 -> s2.get()
.map(v2 -> tuple(v1, v2)))
.forEach(System.out::println);

That's just a nested loop.
>It's hard to fix broken societal incentive structures when you're operating from within the society itself.

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
Out of curiosity, why does the condition "without egregious side effects" exist? Aren't egregious side effects already factored ibto the "net benefit" calculation?
It's really difficult to compare the currently reported fatality rates between different countries and regions since the amount of testing varies so greatly.

Compared to many other countries, Germany has likely confirmed through testing a higher proportion of its total number of cases in the country, lowering the reported fatality rate.

In countries where testing is less widely available only those already showing severe symptoms get tested disproportionately, so confirmed cases are more likely to be fatal even if they get good hospital care.
0.1% is the flu cfr. 0.6ish% seems to be the corona ifr. these are comparing chalk and cheese. how many people who get the flu never rock up to a doctor? the ifr for flu is closer to 0.01%.

the worst case scenarios are disproven it is true - but so is the idea that it's just a flu.

let us be grateful this trial run of a deadly global pandemic was only moderately bad.
> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk

There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering.

The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from the side effects of this kind of thing are perfectly normal and perfectly well understood and there is very little treatment
>sampling bias debate reminds me of this stats legend from ww2:
the USAF wanted to armor planes where the bullet holes were. statistician abe wald recommended armoring where the bullet holes weren't on the theory that those were the non-survivable hits

It wasn't quite that simple, but the story has a gem of truth. As this article quotes Stephen Stigler (son of George Stigler who worked with Abraham Wald):

>..."The military was inclined to provide protection for those parts that on returning planes showed the most hits. Wald assumed, on good evidence, that hits in combat were uniformly distributed over the planes. It follows that hits on the more vulnerable parts were less likely to be found on returning planes than hits on the less vulnerable parts, since planes receiving hits on the more vulnerable parts were less likely to return to provide data. From these premises, he devised methods for estimating vulnerability of various parts."

http://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/feature-column/fc-2016-06

This paper goes into detail for those interested in statistics:

https://people.ucsc.edu/~msmangel/Wald.pdf
So the IFR will be lower in the rest of the country than in NYC because... they are going to send everyone over seventy to the Moon or something?
In Canada for months we followed WHO's directions to a tee and ended up rapid growth of infections until we did a 180 and implemented nearly every measure that the WHO disagreed with.

Taiwan is one of the few countries to have very few cases, and they essentially did a lot of measures the WHO did not recommend initially.
The loader is a backdoor to load arbitrary code as long as it is disguised as a Vulkan layer (a specialized shared library). It is intended for debugging, but a layer can hook the API to do anything it wants.
This misses the point.

It could be well argued - or even simply stated - that, yes, US healthcare system has in fact primary mission to benefit health of US population. How'd you argue it's not the case? I, for one, know this is my idea of the system. Will you prove that those who proposed the system had other ideas? Can you get in their heads? Can you get in the heads of those implementing the system? They'll perhaps bring enough words trying to convince you otherwise - and some would be sincere.

The problem is that a big system is a collective work - and different agents have different goals in mind. Sometimes they can have compromises - agreements on goals, partial or final. Sometimes they can trick each other into doing something which benefits some agents' goals, but not others. You can't make a big system realistically without many agents - so how can you make sure they all work with similar goals?

We talk a lot about possibilities, but sometimes not enough about intentions - and especially verifiable goals. Politicians can promise many things, but it could be expensive to elect somebody who's stating something meaning something completely different - and this idea holds on various levels of public (not only public - see e.g. office politics) decision making.
They make their own law on their platform which is 1000x times more scarier knowing that is a monopoly in content sharing
Very bad, anti-privacy, anti-anonymity development.

As governments around the world get increasingly totalitarian and everything gets regulated to death or outright illegal, the timing for Google to ban necessarily anonymous individuals, organizations and businesses couldn't be worse!
Only 60k more deaths to go until herd immunity.
I'm curious about your product review diligence. Mainly: why do you bother? I stopped around 2015 when I started to sense that I was shouting into a void. Now I don't give any feedback, ever, not even stars. I either keep the item or return it; that's about as far as I'm willing to go in terms of being unpaid to provide a signal to the producers of items.
Pretty much all global institutions have informal or de-facto relationships with Taiwan, that's besides the point. Not recognizing Taiwan formally has been the position of just about any institution or country on the globe for 50 years.
Actually in reading closer and seeing the data is collected at big box & grocery stores, it’s almost surely very biased.

This cohort would skew younger and wealthier, which correlates with better preexisting health and fewer risk factors, and would exclude populations who systematically left the city, or who have known heightened risk factors.

Comparing the death rate overall with the infection rate of this skewed sample would be likely to greatly underestimate the actual death rate of the virus.
you're getting the wrong message from all of this.
What's most interesting about watching platforms target "mis"-information is the question/problem of whether and how they define it.

For example, Facebook refers to "fake news" as "false news"; if you search their domains for "false news is", you'll get around 6,500 results, none of which include an actual definition of what "false news" is. Setting aside the obviously problematic policy issues associated with this, it suggests that FB either doesn't have a definition or has one but has chosen not to publish it.

Loosely, I think you could categorize information on a grid (allowing for overlap), where the columns are "information", "wrong information", and "non-information"; the rows are "deliberate" and "inadvertent".

"Dis"-information would fall under "deliberate" and "wrong", whereas "mis"-information is "wrong" but may be "inadvertent" (someone posting something they don't know is incorrect, for example). OTOH you can have "deliberate" "non-information" in the form of "obscurantism" or "inadvertent" "non-information" in the form of "bullshit". And of course you can have all kinds of stuff in between.

Then again, most platform policies ultimately boil down to whether or not a statement is likely to cause to some kind of real harm. If that's the case then I'm not sure why you need to formally identify it as "misinformation" at all. If at the end of the gay you're going to say "We removed this because it violated our policy against posts that may cause actual harm to others", then calling it out as belonging to any particular category of impermissible content is just a perfunctory nod to transparency in your policy enforcement.

If anyone here has a policy issue they're seeking advice on please feel free to reach out. I love this stuff.
This is a not uncommon reaction across all disciplines. It takes a cross-faculty sensibility of why you want arts students in engineering and engineers in dance classes to get rid of "why do we have to teach the bootstrap"
How could we even tell? Biopsy? Lol no thanks.