skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think this hits the nail right on the head, but I think there is more...

The point at which theoretical political dogma transition from a recreational debate into a something an intelligent person might feel uncomfortably obligated to place more thought into, is when there are real personal impacts on them.

Everyone can talk about universal healthcare as an intellectual concept, but it's not until they finally have the experience in a socialized hospital that they might take the time to wonder about the real merits of a single-payer system (this is a random example - don't get hung up on it).

This problem is then amplified by two recent phenomena...

1. The drastic decrease in age of the average political participant. With Reddit as an example, the average age of Reddit users has dropped nearly 1 year for every year over the last ten years. Presumably, Twitter has seen the same demographic shift. This means these politically active users have less education to fall back on, and approach these subjects with more emotion. That leads to more insults and less constructive arguments, and a general intolerance of opposition.

2. International participation. There is a drastic increase in US social media platforms from non-US participants. For those people, the debates are pure recreational debates as they will never see the consequences of any systemic changes. They have no skin in the game, so the most radical options always seem more appealing.

...and of course there is also intentional foreign influence campaigns to polarize online discussions.

I think the way out is to rethink how social media is structured. It's causing some very systemic issues.
The connection to the St. Petersburg paradox is pretty tenuous.

All the paper seems to suggest is that strength of a fiber is proportional to log(length_fiber). But the St. Petersburg paradox doesn't just come from observing that the odds of getting log_2(n) heads in a row is 1/n. Instead, you're multiplying that quantity by an exponentially growing quantity and then taking an expectation (i.e. summing) and getting an unbounded sum. I don't see a clear analogy to that in material strength.
When you really stop and unpack this, you can see that this is a non-issue. Adding an object or a field to the schema (the most common operations in a growing schema) never interfere with dependents and can be performed independently of client adoption.

The remaining coordination issues can be solved by documenting or using e.g. a '@Deprecated' decorator in Typescript. And, of course, you can always just remove a field to see where the code has dependencies on it (where code breaks during compilation).

The concerns about shared code may apply in some cases, but the global schema is not one of them, in my experience. I do agree it takes a bit of extra thinking to do this correctly but it's really not that difficult.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you there. I get the impression that was just more work, or not the focus of this specific paper. For what it's worth, they do say

> Rather, we seek to provide a description of a subset of the population of ventures which appear to be growth-oriented entrepreneurship but on closer inspection are not. The exact size of this sub-set is a matter for further empirical study.

So, I'm looking forward to the follow up I guess :)
> Insisting that man is a rational animal, or even that the search for truth will always lead to good outcomes, is... just not historically compelling.

That's fair. But insisting that preventing speech will always lead to good outcomes is also not historically compelling.

The problem then becomes, which speech to block. Well, speech that causes harm. That's great, in theory. But do you have an objective measure? A measure that's universally agreed-upon? And if not, who decides?

And now you're back to DanielBMarkham's argument. What if the people who decide are the equivalent of the pre-Civil-War South? (They would have classified abolitionist speech as causing harm - I mean, look at the war it caused!) Or of the 1950s with respect to gay rights? Or just hard-core Republicans or Democrats? I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party could also come up with some definitions of "causing harm" that are, um, not ones that I would agree with.

I am unwilling to trust very many people with that power...
>a "to" too many
...seem be on to something?
if you can't trust your computing device: pen&paper, or airgapped computer. otherwise use a password manager.
> But the reality is Apple's App Store provides a ton of value to many developers and end users alike.

No one's advocating ending the App Store. Just changing the rules to allow for more competition.
This is a very valid question, and I'm not sure why people downvoted.

The answer is that services like LastPass and OnePassword have recovery codes that you're supposed to download and save somewhere (possibly even on paper). These codes can get you into your account if you are somehow locked out of your account.
Not according to the CFA Institute, or any number of other sources. LPs may incorrectly label PE and VC as separate subsets, but most large, institutional LPs will have PE, then separated by type.

CFA is the best source, but there are so many others, including my professional experience at a major asset manager.

https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/membership/professional-deve...

> Definitions of private equity differ, but in this reading we include the entire asset class of equity investments that are not quoted on stock markets. The private equity class stretches from venture capital (VC)—working with early stage companies that in many cases have no revenues but have potentially good ideas or technology—all the way through to large buyouts (leveraged buyout, or LBO) in which the private equity firm buys the entire company. In some cases, these companies might themselves be quoted on the stock market, and the private equity fund performs a public-to-private transaction thereby removing the entire company from the stock market.
I'm looking randomly at Binance Uganda. The request was sent 11:22pm and responded 2:00am. That's about 2.5 hours. In the table that's rounded up as 1 day.

ArgenBTC, if I understand the screenshots correct, never answered and that's logged as 0 days. "A response time of 0 means that we received a reply the same day."

Independent Reserve answered after 25 minutes, that's also logged at 0 days.

With these examples I'm not sure I trust the calculation of the average. Maybe listing it in hours and putting those who never answered in a separate list makes sense.

(I don't hold bitcoin and don't know any of those companies).
One Monthly Fee, a Catalog of Porsches
Physics-enhanced neural networks learn order and chaos
> Apple has done an amazing job running the app store

It can be true that they've run a great app store, but also true that some aspects of it are bad for developers and consumers.
2D Version of the Rubick's Cube
That's gotta be him. I just read the abstract, it's mountain-creek-clear.
Show HN: Disable Python assertions per file/module
Use a mnemonic that includes the name of the service or website in an algorithm.

With that you never reuse passwords. Someone with other passwords of yours is likely just trying these automatically, people who would target you usually don't have your passwords from a breach elsewhere and can't figure out your password rule.

It is not easy though and I find myself having to reset my passwords occasionally...
I personally find it much faster to talk and / or draw than to write or type.
My major pet peeve of Github: time travel is too hard.
Defamation, threats of violence, harassment, etc are not free speech, but they are central to Twitter mobs. I would also contend that a concerted petition for an employer to remove their employee constitutes a credible threat since employers often do terminate employees for being targeted by mobs. It really should be only a theoretical question; however, because we ought to have legal protection for employment that would declaw these mobs (especially since the mobs themselves are prejudiced on the basis of race, sex, religion, gender identity, etc--enabling them to have power over an individual's employment constitutes de facto employment discrimination).

EDIT: Downvoters, what do you object to? Do you really think defamation and threats are not free speech? Or do you not think these are cornerstones of Twitter mobs?
> Public safety costs are a sunk cost, they will exist regardless.

No. Overtime, helicopter flight hours aren't a sunk cost.

> Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared.

The issue here is in that one important word: reasonable. Exploring your neighborhood? Certainly. Exploring a mine shaft without a rope? Maybe a bit less so?

> The best way to learn is to do.

Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring".
And "this must have been caused by racism" sounds like motivated reasoning to me!

If, instead, police 1. treat people equally when encountered 2. encounter demographics in proportion to the crimes committed by that demographic and 3. african americans commit a significantly higher number of crimes per capita... There wouldn't be a way to make the police less racist - since they already treat people equally - but police reform could be effective at reducing the brutality encountered by everyone. Making things a police racism problem (african americans might commit more crimes due to racism from groups other than the police) then just makes it so that no progress can be made on the "police beating people up and killing them" problem, because the police aren't racist.

The above might not be true! But it's believed by a lot of people, and has a fair bit of academic support. (for instance, there are studies showing that police officers were faster to shoot a white man than an african american man when they were taking the same actions - the opposite of what I'd expect if police treatment differences were driven by racism)
I think we're reaching the end of the era of app stores.

Apps often are single purpose information silos. You need an app to do every little things.

My guess is that eventually, we'll have an OS with a different user experience where you tell the system what to do (order pizza) and it will create a UI with all the nearest pizza places. You then choose where you want to order (let's say Dominos), and the system pulls all the informations from Dominos database. You make your selection, you pay, done.

In that way, Dominos doesn't have to spend money on making an app and users don't have to download one either. Win-win.
Besides -

1. SpaceX will also offer high frequency travel in space and around earth
> >2000B in bank/corporate bailouts.

Got a link for that?
Feedbro addon for Firefox

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/feedbroreader...
You sure about that? Small town businesses have lamented Walmart moving in for ages, Verizon can _absolutely_ prevent another phone from joining their network, they even charge activation fees on top of it all. And Android _is_ the alternative store if you don't like shopping on iOS, and the monopoly holder to boot. I can't run .ipa files on Android either, why can't we sue Google for not supporting that SDK, since they're a smartphone OS monopoly holder?
Buying the index just inflates the prices of all large companies held in the index without any due diligence into which ones have future potential. Not only are you failing to allocate your own capital into the economy productively, but you are counter-acting the investments of those who have made diligent investment decisions (while also providing them with alpha and a means to profit from your inefficiency).
> But insisting that preventing speech will always lead to good outcomes is also not historically compelling

yes, agreed.

(Also, I really meant it when I said "I'm pro-free speech".)

> And now you're back to DanielBMarkham's argument

I don't think so. His argument still seems somehow fundamentally wrong. These notions of good and evil, of true and false, etc., all seem to somehow miss the point for me.

I guess here's a good specific way of making this point: I would support free speech even if the censor were perfectly good and omniscient and all-powerful and maximally ethical and perfectly charismatic. Perhaps especially if. How would DanielBMarkham's justification for free speech ever get you to that point? I don't think it does.

Also, getting the justification right somehow doesn't seem academic to me at all. It seems quite fundamental. Why? because any supporter of censorship does believe that their censor is, if not perfect, at least better and truer and more charismatic. And perhaps they don't want the censor to be all powerful, but certainly do what the censor to be more powerful.
There's no API, but there's browser addons that make bulk-deleting easier https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/social-book-post-m...
Publically tell police and politicians that they do and if they don't agree you will vote for leaders that will.
> will be looked back on with embarrassment by most who participated in it in a few years time

I hope you're right but I don't share your optimism. The "silent majority" has failed to stand up against this behavior so far; I'm not confident they'll draw the line in the near future.
This is quite brilliant, and also instructive. They saw a corner case and took advantage of it.*

But when you're starting a company this is a danger: you might get some initial traction but is your growth all in a corner case? This is almost a restatement of the "early adopter" cohort in "Crossing the Chasm".

Dominating a niche isn't alway bad BTW -- FB's niche was college students, who could evangelize and grow the overall market.... though notice that FB is pretty much nonexistent in that niche today.

* I mean this in a good sense: "exploit" and "take advantage of" often imply something shady.
I'd like to respond to what you're saying, but I don't understand it. Would you mind clarifying?
Kindle: you can load books from other sources, you can also read Kindle books on other devices

Apple participates in Movies Anywhere Sling with Amazon, Google, Vudu, and a few other vendors. If you buy a movie from any of the participating studios, you get credit for purchasing for all of the stores.

You can also purchase physical movies from other places and redeem codes to get credit as if you purchased them from iTunes.

Apple doesn’t require that you must only use their subscriptions. You can subscribe outside of the store. You can every charge more subscriptions to make up for their 30%.

Of course you can opt out of Marketplace. You can set up your own website with places like Shopify.
Java vs Go: Impressive Solutions for Invented Problems
> Personally, the only companies that have direct access to my bank account are those that either won't accept credit cards, or make it excessively difficult to do so. Chief among them would be the service that processes my rent payments, and PG&E.

At banks that make it easy to have multiple checking accounts tied to one online account, create accounts just for these debits. Don't keep funds in them until close to the transfer date. "The Paypal Maneuver".
If you spend money or attention on a site that pays Google as a vendor, that is quite obviously indirect support of Google.

Perhaps we are just quibbling about which definition of the word "support"? In which case I agree that there is one definition of support in which you are right and another in which your parent is right.
Overwhelmingly it is the identity-politics/SJW crowd that seems to be going after individuals, targeting the vulnerable, and attempting to ruin actual lives.
Physiological adaptation of aerobic efficiency: when less is more
> for somebody who was booted from an internet community for arguing that certain races have a lower IQ and LGBT+ folk are degenerates that need to be sterilized

Usually this is not why people are booted off from platforms but rather because they do not follow a specific rhetoric or because somebody claims that they said X while they actually said Y. See the recent stallman case for example. I was actually censored from a certain platform for defending stallman's right to express what he thinks regarding pedophilia.

> for arguing that certain races have a lower IQ

Is this not a science related-debate? If anything this (in general things related to science) is the kind of speech that should be protected the most.
Show HN: SpaGO, a self-contained ML/NLP library entirely in Go
What does Germany define hate speech as?
And you can also have additional payment methods outside of the App Store and charge less if you desire.
Reminds me of the great "Nathan for You" episode where Nathan creates his own film festival so that he can award his own movie a judge's prize.
Even without the legal protections it's still better than exposing your bank info or debit card.

If someone attempts to max the card out it won't directly affect your bank account balance (which you may need access to in the meantime) immediately.
Index investors are not really tossing money blindly. They are investing in a diversified portfolio and then constantly re-weighting their investment by market cap.

The alternative to that, before the rise and acceptance of index investing, was people using their 401k money to buy individual stocks. But we all know that your standard mom and pop investor is not going to have time to cut through the bullshit and effectively research companies when they have a 40hr/wk job, a family, hobbies, etc. So those 401k investments were based mostly on personal hunches, word of mouth, and pump and dump schemes. That was really dumb money, and did even less for the economy.

So while I agree with you that index investing isn't doing a ton to push corporate management to do better in the way "smart money" does (in theory), when you consider the world before index investing was a thing you have to admit that money today is on average "smarter."
If I were to ever hire, I'd optimize first for clear, written, long-form asynchronous communication, second for ability for the job at hand, and anything else third.

Having hired some freelancers recently, I've found that there is a world of difference between those who can communicate clearly and those who can't.
Yup, came here for the "start the stopwatch" comment. Google probably needs to dump the Google brand now. Google is a great search engine and a crappy company. They either need a massive string of successful new product launches with notable examples of where they've refused to dump a product for decades, or they need to dump the brand that they've tarnished.
> Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring".

These are all valid forms of education, but all suboptimal to going through the motions. You should strive to be prepared, but also assume you don't know everything you need to know and de-risk accordingly.
Sure, that makes sense. Also I can for sure acknowledge that you answered my initial question. There are definitely people who speak better than they write, when it comes to certain conditions and disabilities that make writing harder than it is for the average person.
تحميل كول اوف ديوتي موبايل Call of Duty Mobile لعبة قتالية اندرويد
I have something called "Bill Pay" from my credit union where they send the checks for payment (Rather than the company drawing from your account). That's how I pay PG&E. You might want to investigate if your bank has the option (unless you already have, in which case never mind :)
This article seems a little half-baked to me, like it's missing the great insight that ties these seemingly random observations together and then a conclusion.

Instead, it just kinda stops abruptly.
Ask HN: I need to plan and execute a highly coplex set of steps. Suggestions?
I need to plan out and execute a project with at least 200 discrete steps, many of the overlapped in time and interdependent, some of them cycles of action to repeat. An effort to put this into a Gantt chart only left me frustrated and overwhelmed. Suggestions for how to model such a project and make sure I am on track to complete it? The closest example would be someone doing a large scientific study with live subjects and multiple factors over time.
The North Face becomes first major brand to join Facebook ad boycott
I did word it poorly, and you captured what I was trying to get at (thanks).

The benefit is for people that need to withdraw from their 401k before retirement without getting hit with the interest/fees. I guess another part of the benefit is if you want to take advantage of employer match but you don't want to invest in your 401k.

I didn't know about self directed retirement. I'll have to go do some research.
DHS S&T Develops DIY Method to Decontaminate Masks with a Multicooker
I can't buy OTM options expiring tomorrow in my 401k and somehow PE is allowed?
It's not only that. It's also the portability and price.
You can build safe abstractions for manual memory management in userspace with LinearTypes. In fact Haskell already has plenty of manual memory management modules in its stdlib - it's just that they live in IO.

You can do the unsafePerformIO internally and expose a pure API made safe by some combination of LinearTypes and the ST trick.
The first rule of tax shelters...
This argument conflates government punished speech and socially ostracized speech. I’ve never heard articulated how a society without consequences for speech would actually function.

Being moved by a powerful speech or sermon is certainly a consequence. As is being entertained by a blockbuster film. Or is it only liberals being offended that we should eliminate in this hypothetical society?
Only remote Canadians, for now I think, in case some Canadians get excited (and didn't read past the headline). Not yet.

> Elon Musk's SpaceX has applied to offer high-speed internet to Canadians living in remote areas by beaming it to them via satellites.
I don’t think this characterization is really fair. The private equity model requires a market to sell into when a bet pays off (so they can make another bet). Investors who just buy the index are helping to fund that.

By analogy, house flippers rely on a market for turnkey homes.
It is speech. I believe that they should be free to express it only if

- they allow their target to reply to it (and have it displayed alongside with their post) -- this is the most important

- they are being honest in their arguments (not intentionally constructing straw-men for example or repeating over and over the same thing that was answered before)
I just wanted to acknowledge the comments, the back-and-forth in this thread. It is a very interesting discussion, and following its references has been insightful.

Personally I know nothing of the field, and thus have no say in the matter either way.