skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let's say the model is to get 3X return in 5-7 years - 10% mortality. Sounds like a great instrument to me.

It also sounds like it could work, if there's enough demand = enough obvious good apples, which are willing for the deal because of not enough supply in financing instruments.

I can understand that investing in unicorns can also work. As many unicorns fail after their initial hype, investing in these normal companies sounds less like gambling on hype than investing in unicorns.
I don't know if everyone here is familiar with this, but the decline of Flash began or was greatly influenced by Apple's decision to not let flash run on iPhones/iPads. Steve Jobs even wrote an open letter about it[1].

[1]https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
Only tangentially related, but EEV Blog recently did a video on PCB design BOM (Bill of Materials) optimization where he took a random open-source project as a counter-example.

I'm not an electrical engineer, nor do I design PCBs, but it was still pretty interesting if you're into that sort of critique.
Fair enough, but I'm assuming the reason, whatever it is, is at least as stupid as the reason why U+01F1 exists and is not encoded as 44 5A.
Call it RoboPig, after the filthy animal.
I agree.

Google Flights will warn you if a flight is often delayed -- does that count as "receiv(ing) relevant information beforehand"?
OP wasn't specific, but I interpreted it as government threatening action against the company -- such as the IRS opening an investigation of their taxes.

But let's take your example, since you aren't the only one who interpreted it that way. That would be covered by the scope of the government contract being awarded during the normal bidding and contract process. The contract would stipulate the terms by which one party could pull out of the deal. What would be illegal would be for political influence to discourage the awarding of that contract.
You can always use Indie Gogo, Kick Starter, Patreon or any other similar platform to fund your project.

Banks are risk averse. Lending to a restaurant they can always recoup a lot of material and other physical assets as collateral. Not necessarily so for most software dev.

That's my perspective.
So who decides? Do companies now need a chief political officer? Do they do some sort of political review of each new customer? What issues do they use to decide on? Do they deny Apple or Nike because of overseas labour conditions?

IMO it's foolish for a company to wade into these waters at all unless activism is part of their brand. If you signal you're going to take a stand it ends up having to be around everything and people are going to have a lot of conflicting agendas. Or you could just sell software tools to people who pay for them.
" They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) "

This is the third time I've read this in the comments but I can't seem to find any info on "shoot to incapacitate" online. I'm not doubting it, I'm just looking to collect information regarding the topic to share with others. Do you have anything to corroborate this training method?
Apparently it's being removed in January 2021.

https://www.chromium.org/flash-roadmap#TOC-Flash-Support-Rem...
"Porting" is a big word, in my limited experience. The i-apps from Adobe are nowhere near their desktop counterparts.
As a founder of a bootstrapped & profitable company, I don't really get what's so attractive about this funding model.

It seems like it's just a really, really, really expensive loan. They make it sound nice with their anti-VC, pro-founder marketing angle. But at the end of the day, they are charging you 3x what you're borrowing.
Why does it matter if it's the right business decision? Don't moral considerations have precedence over business considerations? It should be expected of a company to take a profit hit if it is the only way to uphold a moral standard. Regular people do it all the time, why should corporations be held to lower standards?
I don’t believe I’ve got it backwards. If Github/Microsoft won’t serve ICE, someone else will. If you want to fix ICE, the political process is what fixes that, not feel good efforts on a single business.

As someone with entities that are registered to do business with the federal government, I’d provide services to ICE, because ICE isn’t the problem: how they’re regulated is the problem. Not providing services to ICE doesn’t solve that.
what are you talking about? no it doesn't. There are a myriad of different religions and races.
No it's true that companies exist literally only to make money, not all companies however.
Six former eBay employees charged in federal cyberstalking case targeting couple
But they're not, perhaps because their fans aren't politically active?
I had my one car accident ever in a Hertz vehicle. No injuries, no other car involved, but the vehicle was damaged to the point it couldn’t drive. I had full coverage and they replaced the car and had me out the door in 30 minutes. Zero extra charges. Hopefully I never end up in an accident again but it was unbelievably stress free given the circumstances. I would definitely work with them again.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the stats say the opposite is true, but it really depends who's using the statistics to paint _their_ picture.

In this study run by Harvard professor Roland Fryer, it was found that African-Americans are 20% less likely to be shot and proportionally more likely to see use-of-force against them.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

I didn't find anything unbiased in my quick search on "likelihood of death during interaction."
Good question, tons of other countries are extremely racist towards immigrants (Japan, Italy, etc) yet only the USA gets lambasted.

I think a lot of people just focus on the USA because it's an easy target.
> establish a process for renting them out as public housing

and the process for renting them as public housing will be fairer how? You're just switching out one filtering system (price) for another based on arbitrary rules proposed by petty bureaucrats and politicians. At the end of the day you're still discriminating. The only difference that in your system, you're hoping that you or someone with your sensibilities has the power to do the discriminating.
I keep forgetting to cancel my paid Github account because of the ICE contracts. Thanks for the reminder you're totally okay empowering fascism, Github.

(P.S. Much love for everyone inside Github who has thrown a shit storm or even quit over this shit)
> We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.

Whenever people make appeals like this, I wonder where it is exactly they think the political power to do so comes from. Historically, organized labor, like what’s happening at Github, is the what drives pressure for these kinds of changes and funds politicians and campaigns that implement them.

If you want a more immediate example, look at what is happening across the country right now with how cities are rapidly implementing changes to police in response to protests. If you actually want these changes, this seems exactly the kind of stuff to be doing.
I think your argument is a better fit for the Chinese government which is currently running concentration camps for Uyghurs.
We can take grenade launchers away from the cops.
At that point you just mark them as spam, no?
> Yes, but also companies exist literally only to make money.

No, this is a misconception. Companies are a part of society and exists for several other reasons.
Say you have a SaaS that companies can use, for the sake of argument let’s say it’s Dropbox.

One day a military company uses your product. Should you ban them?

Are all military companies evil? Or are weapons sometimes necessary?

Let’s say you ban them. Where do you draw the line? FBI? Police? Private investigators? Political parties with messages you think are hateful? With messages you just disagree strongly with?

Struggling with this.
We've had forty years for people to build features like this on top of IMAP, and nobody has done so. This would seem to be a decent indication that the Unix philosophy is not going to produce much innovation in this market.
> before checking if there is any extreme weather along the route the flight is going to take that day.

The travel insurance wouldn't pay out if the flight was cancelled due to weather that was already known about.
The real performance win seems to be reducing the number of allocations (2 vs. 30 thousand).
No, it is not invented by the Court - it is interpreted by the Court as being within the law as it is written. Lawmakers need to rewrite laws if they don't like how they get interpreted. Lawmakers are the people the the People get to influence.
... Thank you so much for reminding me that there's a non-negligible chance that someone would actually be stupid enough to do that.
ICE, America and the Shadow Democracy
That's not what I saw on livestreams.
This does not surprise me.

Some CEOs are incredibly thin-skinned, they hire a bunch of people who usually got kicked out of the police after they harassed/beat someone, and then self-destruct with their own personal army when they can't handle the heat (you will get criticised daily).

Btw, something that was coincident with this (I believe) was the activist campaign against EBay...again, the number of executives who self-destruct when they see proof that they are bad at their job is significant (I wouldn't like to venture a guess at a proportion but I have seen this 10+ times).

Just imo, the problem is always lack of oversight. Boards not really asking whether the executives are up to the job, fat expense accounts with lots of these ex-police nutjobs stalking people, it is just total madness. Companies become captured by these executives.

(I used to know a guy who ran a relatively small fund but used to short sell frauds, mainly accounting as the guy used to be an accountant. He had to go to great lengths to hide what he was doing because the second a company found out, they would send people to wait outside his office/follow him/etc. and this is just a nobody guy running a small fund in a mid-tier financial city i.e. not London, or New York, or HK...I call these executives the Harvard Business School Al-Qaeda, truly dangerous people).
Does this macro need to be placed in the same file as the type itself? That's what I suspect (given this is an eslint transform), and it's not a big limitation, but it'd be helpful to know
I'm not arguing that what she did was legal.

I am saying that I don't agree with your prior statement that it was clearly immoral.

I see it as clouded when one hears of corporations, banks, hedge funds, governments, and other well funded entities getting away with all kinds of financial games to the detriment of the many, pretty much without consequence, and then when someone plays a similar game on a smaller scale it is wrong. That's the part I don't understand.

For example, the Panama papers were a big scoop because of all the rich people hiding their identities. That's legal, but doesn't seem clear if it's really moral. Companies do that to hide money from taxpayers, right?

It seems in the U.S. anything goes as far as making money especially if you are rich, corporations are duty bound to make profits regardless of morality, etc. Otherwise if you are not rich enough to play you need to know your place and follow the rules laid down for non-rich people. Has that compromised our morals? Probably. Is calling what this lady did immoral fair given everything else that goes on? That's what I wondered.
What would keep Apple from shipping machines with both ARM and Intel CPUs in them? The ARM CPU would run the OS and decide when to ship jobs over to the Intel CPU. I can’t imagine that the home-grown ARM CPU would add much to the total price of the computer.

Recall that at one point Apple shipped laptops with two GPUs; one for low power work that was more power-efficient, and a more powerful one that was turned on as needed.
It’s not about faster, better
Your movement hit at a bad time. The corporate world has to grip with a few critical issues around staying in business, shifting to remote and it will increasely feel a pressure to move manifacturing onshore.

I would focua on what changes you can make with police forces before the second covid wave hits and pushes your issue to remember when status.
I hope you're aware that being able to ignore politics is a privilege that you're consciously utilizing.

Some people will get affected by "politics" and, thus, must either be silent and suffer or start to care about politics.

I could be wrong and politics do impact you negatively and...you just don't care. That's a fair stance I guess, as long as you understand that by doing nothing you're essentially accepting that negative impact.

The parent comment touched on this, but wanted to add on - just hoping you're conscious of this truth
It's almost as though there were a prevailing orthodoxy, and dissent is so much CVS code.
So do we go back to a world of completely plain-text emails? No buttons? Links buried in a wall of ASCII?

We use SendGrid to fire important, user-anticipated emails (i.e. "the Zoom class you paid for is starting at 8:30 AM, here's the private link").

Blocking all images is insane, and would set back email UX to the BBS ages. Blocking all SendGrid-served images would simply mean people host images on their own domain (or disguise the DNS), and could write their own open/click tracking systems, which would negate the point of blocking SG pixels in the first place.
I sometimes wonder why the world is in such a pity state. A lot of improvements seem obvious, but nothing gets done while a lot of those things are not really opposed by anybody. Why can multi-national corporations essentially exploit people in poorer parts of the world? Why can authoritarian regimes run freely and profit from exploiting people or attack democratic institutions?

I think this line of thinking (whether applied to corporations or people) is a reason. It can be applied very, very broadly and essentially result in doing nothing if a corporation/country/whatever doesn't not hold up to your ethical standard and while formally complaining about some violation. The company doesn't care and you can feel better. There's some truth in "actions speak louder than words".

There's a point where some kind of real action is required to have an impact. And it will more often than not result in a situation that's financially worse. One can't usually follow ethical standards and get the maximum profit at the same time. It's obvious and one should calculate with it. The freedom to choose also implies responsibility to choose.

I am not totally idealistic, some things would result in economic suicide and some would not really help the cause. But one can weigh them and I am not convinced that Github runs a huge risk by denying ICE service. Although I have to admit that I am not sure what ICE is doing wrong. I am not an American. But I really don't like this style of reasoning where the negative financial consequence is just accepted as a reason without really questioning whether it's justified. Amazon already banned the police from using Rekognition, so it can't be total lunacy.
i completely sympathize with the need to be cautious in the face of elevated risk, but taking a walk outside doesn't by itself present additional risk. the virus doesn't exist ambiently in the air. you need an infected person breathing into your face for some period of time for the risks to accumulate enough to successfully transmit the disease.
You don't think police instigated violence when they killed Rodney King?
One of world's biggest container ships arrives in the UK
The EOL was announced back then, with the same date of december 2020, as far as I recall.
OK, that's correct; I might not have expressed myself clearly. Slightly edited my post up there. Thanks.

I did not mean to imply that the visibility of these issues hasn't changed; it's quite obvious that these issues are much closer to the surface of everyday discourse than they were earlier.

The visibility alone does nil, though, when it comes to everyday practical effects. The mere fact that this issue is visible did not change the death counts. Death statistics during police interventions can be considered one such standard. It's a good first step that needs to be followed by further steps.
> If you are not quitting then you are also profiting form ICE contract.

This is reductive, right up there with "Why don't you move to Canada?" Do you agree with every single action done by all entities you belong to: family, employer, HOA, neighborhood, city council, state/province, and country? If you disagree with the actions of a family member - is your solution to cut them off immediately without talking to them? We spend one third of our working lives with our employers - sometimes we like them well enough to entitle us to "interventions".

Additionally, in their quest to reduce churn/lower salaries, the employers are the ones who seek employee loyalty by convincing us that we are "like family", or show that they are humane (or at least not amoral). They can't have their cake and eat it - if you're an amoral company - own it like Oracle does and take the hit on the type of employees you get.
>regarding sexual orientation

However, if I am reading Gorsuch's argument correctly, firing or not hiring someone for solely sexual orientation would be legal. A company could have a policy that says "we only hire people attracted to women." If someone comes out as as attracted to men, they could be fired. As long as the company consistently applies said policy to men and women, it doesnt appear to run afoul of this ruling.
> I kind of have two modes when reading: too credulous, looking for reasons a work could be true, and too antagonistic, looking for reasons to not only disagree, but dismiss entirely.

This sounds like what I read in "The Righteous Mind" which has stuck with me since then.

First, a little background: You have an emotional response to something first, in the deep parts of your brain, and then you come up with a rational explanation for it from that after the fact. I've run across that concept in multiple books (but I don't have a systematic method of determining which books are true like the author of this blog; it's the first time I've heard of doing that so systematically!).

How that works out in practice: When you are evaluating something you believe to be true, you look for a fact to back you up. That is, "can I believe this is true?" When you are evaluating something you are emotionally against, you think "MUST I believe this is true?" Every fact must dispute what you believed before you change your mind. If there is a shred of doubt, you will stick to the side that is emotionally appealing to you.

Once you're aware of this dynamic, you can see in everywhere (including, disturbingly, yourself). Which I think is what the author is talking about, seeing she is doing that.
"Creating a burner Google account to go along with the burner phone..."

Google has been issued "geographical warrants" which require them to produce records for all Androids handset in geofenced area during a specified time period. Would be better, if you have to use an Android for this, to side-load F-driod and then install the apps needed or just side-load all needed apps.

Or better yet: just use the burner phone as a wifi hotspot and use an iPod touch (with an always-on VPN) to connect to your social accounts, Signal etc. Your phone will show data use but since the attached iPod touch's traffic will be over VPN it will be harder, if not impossible, to trace the traffic from your iPod touch to the burner phone (and if you're REALLY paranoid you can use a Slate router between the iPod touch and burner phone so the iPod touch never has knowledge or the burner phone's MAC address and vice versa).
In the case of homelessness there have been pilot programs that actually show the cost of just giving chronicly homeless people permanent housing and psychological counseling to be dramatically less expensive to society than our current solutions. By providing housing in these cases we reduce the prison population, which is much less expensive than counseling and a small living space. Counseling and access to preventative medical services is dramatically less expensive than the frequent cost of deploying ambulances and treating more severe, advanced and frequent infections/injuries they acquire while homeless.

Additionally, giving them homes has strongly correlated with a reduction in drug trafficking. These programs did not require the participants to stay drug free or to join any programs, but often they were buying/selling for reasons that were addressed by the basic provisions of the programs.

These programs aren't meant for everyone that's homeless. Many people are only homeless temporarily and the existing shelter programs handle those cases somewhat acceptably, but the major contrasting factor with the issues we're currently discussing is that these programs had zero involvement of the police. The police were told explicitly to leave its participants alone and not only did the homelessness issues go away, but their state budgets decreased overall.

You make good points about not being able to fully decriminalize certain things, but there are nuances specific to circumstances that make treating many societal problems as crimes to be less effective and more expensive than properly implemented social programs.
FDA's FAQ on Revoking EUA of Hydroxychloroquine [pdf]
Isn't this the same argument as "If you hate America so much why don't you just leave"? Don't employees have more power to change their employer if they are still employees?
Illegal immigrants in the US are most certainly a minority group.

It's not hyperbolic and unproductive, it's the plain truth, just like the Japanese concentration camps during WW2.
You're asking if the status quo is that private companies can discriminate based on race? No, it is not.
> Why would they even care?

The behavior reminds me of how Holmes & Theranos behaved and responded to criticism and things she didn't like.

Throwing out an opinion: I'd suspect the primary instigator is a sociopath and started the process, then roped the others in one by one. What's described in that nine minute video, is so far outside the realm of normal behavior, the person that started this is probably severely behaviorally defective.

It reeks of sociopathic behavior, including the way there was an attempt to then find & set up candidates to take the fall back in California, as the Natick police began investigating.
> Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.

OK, let's play around with this logic for a second.

Suppose instead that we have an employer with four employees, A B, C, and D. Two are attracted to women, two are attracted to men. The four individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that A is a man attracted to women, B is a woman attracted to women, C is man attracted to men, and D is a woman attracted to men.

Suppose the employer decides to fire C and D, for no other reason than that they are attracted to men. According to this logic, that's permissible, since the gender of the employee has no bearing on the employer's decision.
I’m curious if you have a source that ML has increased financial markets volatility.
We need to reconsider using the Roman alphabet and English language at all, if Progress is to be achieved.