skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's because we lack sufficiently precise computational models of biological systems. It is the "fusion power" problem of biotech. There has been some progress, but this isn't an easy problem to solve (just like controlled fusion).
So, What I Have Learned So Far
Could you elaborate on '...when you write data structures, don't give them member function logic,' please?
For people like Hernandez, and I don't know how many there are, as it is never mentioned anywhere. You could think of restricting Tor anonymity with children you have no shared contacts with. I would be very, very wary of going a step further than that as it's very easy to justify "just another step.

To prevent someone from growing dependent on or vulnerable to an external abuser, we could invest in mental healthcare and counselling for conditions like depression which is all too common in teenagers nowadays.

Facebook should not be in the business of writing malware. Malware which could well be used against activists.
Yes, but Gauss was also a perfectionist and he didn't publish anything that weren't up to his standards. He even discovered non-euclidean geometry at some point but didn't think it was worth publishing so Bolyai's son János (and also Lobachevsky) had to re-discover it

> Bolyai’s son János was also a mathematician. In 1832, János published his brilliant discovery of non-Euclidean geometry. His father, overjoyed that his son might have achieved something worthy of praise from Gauss, the man he admired more than any other, asked Gauss for his view of the work.

There was a bit of a feud and I don't know if it was ever properly settled

> Whether Gauss actually fleshed-out non-Euclidean geometry as comprehensively as Bolyai and Lobachevsky is uncertain.

--

https://www.famousscientists.org/gauss-and-non-euclidean-geo...
I actually like the more neutral terms from a technical perspective because they seem more self-evident but if people think this solves any sort of racism I'm not sure what to think

Jack Dorsey spent his last holiday on a private meditation retreat in Myanmar, while the people in the streets were organising anti-muslim mobs on social media. Maybe they ought to work on that if they're looking for racism on their platform
I just have a hard time believing that anybody hears the word "Grandfathered" in an engineering context and thinks: "But wait a minute, I would be a Grandmother, not a Grandfather. They must be using that word to subtly indicate that they do not want me here, despite having gone through an exhaustive recruiting and interview process to select me and then paying me quite a lot of money".

This seems like an enormous waste of time.

Edit: I was corrected below about why Grandfather is considered objectionable. I think the general point still stands. Nobody is using these terms with the intent of excluding anyone. Interpreting them that way takes a deliberate effort that would probably be better spent elsewhere.
You're going to self-censor on twitter, regardless. Might as well just not be on twitter. It's bad for your brain, anyways.
Dentistry: can we replace dental x-rays with infrared? Can we build optical panographs just using the reflections from a dental mirror? How can we monitor patients' oral health over the long term more often than just an annual visit to the dentist, and does that improve oral health outcomes?

Machine learning: what happens when we replace Euclidean metrics with p-adic ones? Distance is fundamental to so many algorithms (least squares regression; nearest neighbours; anything involving gradient descent). How do those algorithms behave over completely foreign metric spaces?
Sorry for bad typing.

...but our need to fix them.
Pure virtue signaling, end of story.
Good link thanks!

Added to article.
I'm honking my horn vigorously.
> The term originated in late nineteenth-century legislation and constitutional amendments passed by a number of U.S. Southern states, which created new requirements for literacy tests, payment of poll taxes, and/or residency and property restrictions to register to vote. States in some cases exempted those whose ancestors (grandfathers) had the right to vote before the Civil War, or as of a particular date, from such requirements. The intent and effect of such rules was to prevent poor and illiterate African-American former slaves and their descendants from voting, but without denying poor and illiterate whites the right to vote.[1] Although these original grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional, the terms grandfather clause and grandfather have been adapted to other uses.
Anyone can come up with a story about how a policy they don’t like is harmful. That cannot be the bar for censoring its advocacy. What of the families and immortal souls destroyed by libertine sexual mores? What of the crimes committed because the system was swayed by memes about rehabilitation? What of the livelihoods destroyed by immigration? These harms are just as real to your opponents as COVID and climate change are to you.
Tesla’s famous Australian battery farm (not factory) was designed from the start as a frequency maintenance source, not as large-scale storage. It’s designed to be able to source or sink large currents with nearly instantaneous response, which is ideal for responding to sudden rises or falls in production or demand. The farm has been successful in both significantly reducing the spot price for power, but also in making money for the operator. It’s a huge success story.
Is sqwok that project?

I'm curious to know some of the ideas you have in mind for increasing nuance, have you written them up anywhere?
Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s a lot we don’t know about the financial side, and I’m trying to figure out whether this is feasible, and what the plan should be. Thanks!
That isn't why they're removing grandfathered. The word "grandfathered" exists because of laws in the south that kept black people from voting by saying that you were only allowed to vote if your grandfather could vote.
Nah, the state’s broke
What? Why can't iOS just prevent apps from automatically reading the clipboard without the user's private consent? It seems useless to encrypt the data when you can just deny its transmission. I'm jailbroken right now so I just installed NoClipboardForYou[1], I'm sure Apple could make something themselves to fulfill the same need.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/jailbreak/comments/hlabn3/free_rele... (Normally I'd link directly to the GitHub repository but this Reddit thread has more info).
No, but previous ancestors. Rape of the enslaved was very common. The difference in skin tone between Africans and the majority of African-Americans is not because of something in the water.
The 9-Step Plan to Become Dangerous in Any Language
Other way around: they introduced various new barriers to voting, but said that if your grandfather was allowed to vote then you were allowed to vote (thus allowing white southerners to bypass the barriers).
I delete any mail from Airbnb, Uber, etc that isn't a receipt for a service they provide.

As do most people.
Raising this much hell over a long-forgotten etymology is childish.
Parent / child might be alright if it is purely role-play and not real.
Slavery is with us today in too many parts of the world. American chattel slavery was ~3 human lifetimes ago (for long enough lived humans).

I am completely okay with removing words which imply domination and subjugation without moral judgement from day to day vocabularly.

Slavery is a horrific, barbaric practice, and if the word only ever comes up in one context with all the moral and emotional weight that should carry, then that's an improvement.
I came here to say exactly the same thing. This is such an important lesson to get early on - even at the very beginning of your career - even if you don’t fully understand it until later.
Something happened just before the fuel pump battery hot-swap on the second stage. Here's some visualisation of the acceleration drop-off scraped from the web stream: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1279583677890965504
Yeah I think the language itself was ill chosen. “Flatten the curve” helped convince people that drastic measures were needed, but it also gave the idea the curve would continue. Coronavirus has two bad effects:

1. It kills people and causes long run harm to many survivors

2. It can also overwhelm health systems, which leads to more deaths than otherwise and prevents the treatment of normal medical problems

You obviously want to avoid #2. But it also makes sense to avoid #1. “Flatten the curve” makes it seem like #1 is not so bad.

I said flatten the curve myself. I meant eliminate both though. It’s not that much more effort, as many countries have shown. In fact with a head start it was much less effort.

We have a harder road ahead now though in places where it is not eliminated.

But I am not sure anyone can find a credible expert who said “flatten the curve and keep letting it run through till a vaccine”.
If someone is extorting hundreds of girls like Hernandez did, one is bound to send a report in.
The thing is no one actually associates the modern use of the term with this history. The same intent and effect are not present. Except that those associations are now being made or brought to the forefront and amplified into some kind of outrage. It comes off a bit like people digging into someone’s comment history to try and assassinate their character on Twitter or Reddit.
I don't think you are being intellectually fair at all. I never implied that anyone was claiming Twitter was optimal. It was an argument against the idea that there are not more optimal formats than Twitter to use for actual intellectual discussion. Also, I am not sure why you are using quotations as if you are quoting my words.

I am still waiting for the downvoters (or yourself) to actually offer any evidence to the contrary. But they will not because their intellect is built upon Twitter style discussion. Too bad, the internet is making people dumber.
Digital India App Innovation Challenge
It’s not long forgotten. The consequences of those laws are very much alive today. It might be forgotten by you, but it is surely known by a lot of people in the south.
Nope.

People invest because the return is higher than the return on deflation. For example, if cash is worth 1% more next year, you can invest in the S&P 500 and make more money than holding cash. If cash is worth 10% less next year but the S&P 500 crashes, you'd make more money (have more purchasing power) with cash. It has nothing to do with whether money is more or less valuable, it has everything to do with comparative investments.
Thanks, I thought SA was a company.
I mean

heap_sort(my_array)

is strictly better than

my_array.heap_sort()

The main reason is that fluent interfaces (the second format) makes it much harder and require more code to do patching / mocking / dependency injection, since you need to carefully patch around instance creation and ensure the patching only applies to specific instances during tests where some objects need patching and others don’t.

The first interface above just needs the simple top level name “heap_sort” patched or mocked with easy control of the scope. The act of array construction and the knowledge of internal array data is completely isolated away from the act of sorting.

As you start adding parameters to the mix and involve highly stateful internal operations, start mixing with inherited methods, class methods and static methods, and as you chain the fluent interface (eg foo().bar().baz()) all these effects get worse and test complexity becomes unberable.

Basically it boils down to function composition.

f(g(x))

is simply a better way to structure programs than

x.g().f()

And if you’re worried about writing f() and g() once and not rewriting an implementation, there are many ways to achieve this without classes - the best way being use of GADTs to define exhaustive pattern matching in f() or g() that allows custom implementations matched on basically simple record types or named tuples, instead of defining the custom implementation in overridden inheritance methods.

You don’t need pure functional programming or compiler enforcement to do this either. It is how I’ve structured large C and Python programs in business settings for many years.
A few years ago, I made one that looks like NeXTStep: https://github.com/juddy/nextsite
> The thing is no one actually associates the modern use of the term with this history.

This is plainly false.
Those trolls are running the Democratic party now.
That’s awesome!

If nothing else, improving clarity and understanding among each other and making communication easier as our workforces become more globally and linguistically varied is-if nothing else decent and appropriate, right?
Are you genuinely worried about "sweeping generalisations"? Obviously not, as you have no other input on the discussion other than a generalization about "broad ... generalisations about a service's users". Maybe you could address the substance of the point being made? Or are we going to just assume that 140 character snarky comebacks are now the new intellectual standard for humanity? Did you not even notice that your reply looks like a silly tweet? It does not appear like Twitter is doing you or your intellect much of any good.
A time proven technique for saving face when you say something stupid is to switch sides by replying to yourself.
That trick never works!
I haven't studied the Census' approach in detail but they have a fair bit of information online, e.g. https://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/statistical_sa...
As much as we talk about math literacy here (compared to other platforms anyway), I can't help but feel like the incomprehensibility of high level math to laymen is a feature. It's not talked about outside of academia often, because why would it be, but for a long time philosophy resisted efforts to 'mathmatecize' (my own word) the field because of concern that it would become inscrutible to outsiders. As a result, academic philosophy is much more politically polarized than math. Where would we be if every step forward in mathematics was met with backlash for not paying adequate concern to some arbitrary set of external implications? Anyone can disagree of course but just looking at the political affiliation ratios of educators makes it clear that one aspect of the hard sciences historically has been an ability to stay focused on utility despite post-modernism. I'm probably being unfair though, the humanities continue to produce persuasive arguments (persuasive emphasis being one of the first things most lit and speech majors learn during critical thinking and writing courses in college) they've just dropped the pretense of being truth seeking persuits.
My family is Bangladeshi immigrants and we have been talking about this lately too. My parents just moved into a new house, and yesterday my dad installed a big American flag. My parents are Democrats so they agree ideologically with CNN, etc., but even they’re getting sick of the over-the-top weeping and rending of clothes.
Happy July 4th: The US May Have Its Ills but It Is Better Than Most Other Places
I'm not aware of atrocities we committed in Philippines before that time?
I have been using Rust for my side project https://github.com/elasmojs/rooster

Rust is just great! I feel liberated from Java and Node.

But what intrigues me is why do programmers insist on making code look and feel difficult? Is there a secret obsession in good programmers to make their code look clever? Is variable naming not a basic etiquette?
The US's strength has never solely been about it's individual strength. Together with the EU, Japan, Australia, SE Asian countries in general, it really evens up the numbers game. Plus the US has dominance in its hemisphere.

China has India right next door.
I love this country. But I hate this country.

I love the ideals that this nation was founded upon, but I hate that we've never lived up to those ideals.

I love that we've moved over time to make this a more perfect union—to move ever closer to those ideals; but I hate how slow this movement has been, and how long it has taken.

I would fight and die for this country if I needed to defend it, but I also want to spend most of my life fighting this nation to make it better.

Strong criticism of something doesn't mean that it's hated—it might mean that it's loved, but very very imperfect. The best way to celebrate the 4th of July—to me—is to reflect on the many ways that this union could be more perfect, and to work on moving us in that direction.
> it can be forced to only allow content that advertisers approve of

This was already the case before social media, mainstream media has always been controlled by the powerful. By "the powerful", I don't mean a secret cabal of white men deciding what happens, but that only people with enough resources, right connections can have an influence over what gets published. This is a pretty small group and not representative of the general public.

Today's backlashes against social media platforms is just the existing elites trying to take back their control. I think they're going to succeed, and we'll go back to a higher barrier of entry in terms of influencing public opinions, which can be both a good and bad thing.
Thank you. I spent longer than I wanted pondering if it was a battery acronym.
As far as I know Nuclear Thermal rockets have topped out around 1000. Project Orion is entirely theoretical and the ISP calculations should be taken with a grain of salt.
Are they "raising hell"?
I agree for allowlist but not for grandfathered; as a native speaker "grandfathered" is just an English word and I don't think it means the same thing as "legacy status" in most cases.

To me "legacy status" sounds like "deprecated", as in "the system is still there but we plan to get rid of it". Grandfathered means "we wouldn't add it today, but since it's there it can continue as a first class citizen indefinitely". A house that doesn't follow new building codes isnt torn down, it's grandfathered in. But it's definitely not a "legacy house", it's still just a fully functioning house that doesn't match what new construction would be but that's ok.
Latinos and people with mental illness (and fat people) are kinda still acceptable targets. Poor whites. Men in some contexts. Asians in some contexts. One of the biggest issues with the whole anti-discrimination movement now is that it is inherently reductionist - it has to be some grand intersectional operatic fight with clear goodies and baddies who are always winners or losers in some deep conspiratorial structure of society, they can't appreciate that discrimination isn't always so black and white and that often context can matter because for the "theory" to work it always has to be about some imagined power struggle.
Already discussed a day ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23723433
I worked at a company that did this almost a decade ago. The idea seemed simple enough, but the unintended consequences started adding up over the next few years.

The biggest problem was that the company became the arbiter of what was offensive and what was not. We felt like we came up with a comprehensive list when we started, but a few people became very good at finding new words that might possibly be offensive to someone, somewhere, in some context. Eventually the company has to draw the line and decline to remove potentially-offensive words, at which point the company is effectively declaring that topic not offensive enough to take action. This doesn’t go over well, and some people are very eager to make a big deal about it on social media.

The second problem is that declaring certain words to be possibly offensive is easily misinterpreted as declaring those words as always offensive. We had problems with people assuming ill intent when interview candidates and new hires accidentally used words on the banned list with no ill intentions. Marking the words themselves offensive instead of the person’s intentions creates a lot of traps for people who don’t know about or haven’t yet fully memorized the bad words list. This created a lot of divisions and cliques within the company where people were hesitant to interface with certain other groups for fear of being mistakenly marked as offensive. When the safest option is to keep to yourself or a small group of peers who you know won’t misinterpret your words, cooperation and coordination decreases.

The third problem was the long tail complexity of eliminating these words from the business. Doing a search and replace on the codebase and documentation is easy enough. But you’re still left with third party open source projects and services that contain the bad words. Once you reach the point of people suggesting to fork open-source services just to rename parts of the source code, the complexity and cost grows exponentially. At the worst point, we had a team trying to justify creation of an Ubuntu fork that used the phrase “manual pages” everywhere instead of the possibly-sexist “man pages”. The amount of engineering time, energy, and dollars spent debating these topics and implementing solutions spiraled into far more complexity than any of us imagined at the start.
> Arthurian England is not documented because it’s a made-up collection of legends.

It's not documented because nobody at the time wrote anything down. Nobody knows who the kings of England were in those days. Nobody knows if the Arthurian legend is based on a real king or not.

We know several orders of magnitude about historical periods after the printing press than before, and the same goes for literate societies vs illiterate ones.

Computers and the internet means the future will know far more about us than about our parents.
I don't think that's quite right

The Minotaur is currently 11/11 (with a 12th launch planned later this year).

Space Shuttle had 24 consecutive launches before a failure

The standard Delta IV has also had 24 consecutive successes.
Obfuscation is a practice of the entirety of Academia for a long while now. The art of obfuscation is not new at all. A small anecdote, I remember a Taiwanese friend mentioning the history of the complexity of Chinese characters and how they were devised, in part, to ensure that the lower class(es) could not learn them.

Obfuscation inherently guarantees a lot of things out of the box: you appear more enlightened, only a class of people can understand and thus judge your work, and all newcomers can only become "in the know" if and only if they are trained by someone who already is "in the know". This is very appealing to anyone with even minor insecurities (most people), and has been widely utilized throughout many areas of human society in time. Math is merely one example where this practice has presence.

EDIT: I will admit that the more democratized the internet has made knowledge, and the more prevalent higher-degrees become in society, the more awareness people have of this issue and the more it gets called out. So, all in all, there is the positive side of things that this art of obfuscation is in decline of use for things where it should never be used (like education, science, etc.).