skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would consider it. I specifically use Android because I have the freedom to install whatever kind of app I like.

In my case I've had to sideload Netflix because it won't run on a device with an unlocked bootloader (annoying).

This would actually make me far more interested in running iOS.
So how long until Google puts a datacenter in space?
Movements are built off the back of small victories. It's not a surprise or a revelation that what you paint as 'cancel culture', a concept without personification, is exercising its (limited) power in the ways you describe. It seems likely to me that, as victories accumulate, so will the socio-political power of the group, until they are capable of making serious change at the level of nation-states.
Why is is this better than Bitwarden?? - https://bitwarden.com
What's the problem with the Lena image?
My opinion/analysis:

Element (formerly Riot), Discord, and Slack are all irc successors; Signal, Whatsapp, and Snapchat are sms/mms successors.

The differences used to be desktop vs mobile, primarily [semi]public group/community chats vs primarily private 1:1, and realtime with presence vs async. As technology has advanced, the differences have shrunk. I'd say the last real remaining difference is that the irc successors have named channels with granular permissions and static invite links, while the texting apps might have a group owner but otherwise give everyone full permissions, and people are usually added directly to the group (not invited).

In short: the texting replacements are geared towards communication with friends (ie, based on who you're talking to), while the irc replacements are geared towards communication, possibly with strangers, based on what you're talking about.
graph view: http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/PaulGrahamEssays.html?HN
Consequences for what exactly? That's the real question.
> To keep costs down, developers adopted a modernist construction model — the Le Corbusier-developed Dom-Ino system, in which reinforced concrete pillars freed a building of the need for load-bearing interior walls.

A modernist, Corbusier-influenced building that actually works and that people like living in! Fantastic.
> coworkers who don't think quite so high of them as pretended during office hours

Sounds malicious.
Peacock won’t let you opt out of promotional emails
Yes, that's exactly the downside to screening, although it sounds like it was necessary in your case nonetheless :-) I hope it continues to get better! Maybe a third improvement will set your mind at rest.

I went through with screening because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have similar concerns over such findings, but it's quite hard to know that for sure until something comes up, I suspect. If I had a benign, but growing, tumor somewhere in my body, it's hard to know how I'd take it, though I do tend to be pretty prosaic.
I don't think the issue is DS&A or even leetcode problems in general.

I think the problem is being expected to regurgitate* 1-2 hyperoptimal leetcode solutions in 45 minutes while suffering from heavy interview pressure.

*by regurgitate, you can't simply implement the optimal solution either even if you know it. You have to put on a show where it seems like you're arriving at and iterating towards the optimal solution, "explaining your thought processes". But you can't waste time iterating and going down suboptimal paths either because you only have 45 minutes or less. Hence why ideally you know the exact optimal solution beforehand, or at least know the tricks and patterns to quickly get to the optimal solution for the type of problem you are tackling.

Recruiters and official interview guides say that your "thought processes" matter a lot, but reports from in the field tend to imply that the #1 most important factor is that you get the optimal solution. If you can't, your "thought processes" are worth little, barring exceptional circumstances.
New in Chrome: CSS Overview
obviously, the quarantine might change those results :D

but on a serious note -- the global population has been falling. And it might be seen as a "negative" thing, but if you change your perspective: the global rate was at once higher only because women DIDN'T have access to education, opportunities, employment, or the rest.

A positive, vis-a-vis a negative, is a negative, right?
> why has the world become so much more progressive over the last two centuries?

It only became so progressive since the 1970's, the 50's were fine. The reason: drugs.
Even Fortnite gave up on distributing it independently and came back to the Play Store. That shows you how unfair those practices are, even the most well-known game in the world could not make it.

I'm sure the failure of distributing Fortnite independently will be a strong example against Google when the anti-trust lawsuit will inevitably come.
you could certainly make the argument that most humans haven't a primarily fruit based diet for a while (although evolutionarily it really hasn't been that long) but that doesn't change the fact they are our closest ancestors and the way our bodies are built STILL very much mirror those of primates which means they, in many ways, still work as theirs did. It's not like we have evolved entirely different digestive systems or something. Essentially everything is the same (which again makes sense as evolution is a VERY slow process)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna#Criticism
Translating between HTTP/1 and HTTP/2
Oh c'mon, many laptops in last decade had 1366x768 display and many people still downscale theirs 1920x1080 into 1600x900 or 1440x810, because they have problems to comfortable see and read text from screen :)

Dell D-series are at least twelve years old [0] (example model with 16:10 display [1]).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Latitude#Latitude_D8x0_se...

[1]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Dell-Latitude-D830-Note...

Edit: I would love to have same resolution (1680x 1050) available from linked D830 (2007) in mine HP Probook 4340s (2012), which I used at university and Unity3D course. It had scrumpy 1366x768.
If the challenge trial is done properly (i.e. with a representative sample of the population) then wouldn't all risks - both known and not-yet-known - apply to both the trial participants as well as the general population?
> Face masks significantly decreased bacterial dispersal initially but became almost ineffective after two hours of use.

That statement is logically hard to swallow as it's just as hard to breath through a face mask during minute 1 as it is during minute 121.
Unfortunately, those kinds of interviews also select for some other things that they shouldn't.

* Youth. People who have very recently studied these things in school, and use the same languages as the interviewers, have an advantage.

* Free time. People who have families (for example) might have less free time to study "Cracking the Code Interview" and such.

* Absence of anxiety. This disadvantages women, minorities, and people with psychological conditions that should be covered by ADA. Also, people whose financial situation is precarious will be more anxious than those who don't need the job, independent of which is actually a better candidate.

* Conformity. People who can recognize the flaws in a measurement technique, and who have the strength of character to push back against its application - both good qualities for a candidate - will self select out.

There's a lot of overlap among these, of course. There are better ways to measure "general IQ" and "grit" (which are both questionable concepts anyway). I've passed every such interview I've ever taken, but I refuse to administer them (despite the fact that my refusal has carried a quite tangible cost) because whatever benefit they provide is outweighed by their many flaws.
If you're a suburban citizen/voter who relies on a car to get to work/stores/school and on hydrocarbons for home-heating in the winter, the immediate impact of a carbon tax (without mitigatory measures) is to increase your expenses. That generally leads to reduced living standards.

I agree that properly pricing carbon emissions is essential, but one should not overlook the short-term impact. I remember the original Kyoto agreement, which seemed impossible at the time; in hindsight, the negotiators could have done us greater good by adopting a quantitative pathway that even the developing countries agreed was possible. Beginning to price carbon emissions, even a little, will have real impact.

The most thermodynamically-efficient way to deal with carbon in the atmosphere is to keep it in the ground. Furthermore, when we burn hydrocarbons and sequester CO_2, we remove oxygen from our atmosphere.
I'm currently enrolled in the only currently active phase III trial for a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford Unviersity. https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/covid-19-vaccine-development

It's supposedly a "front-runner" but also who knows!
Although most of the Nastika (atheist) literature has been lost over the ages, some texts are still available (The Charvaka text Tattvopaplavasimha in particular, I have a copy of it) and there's no reason to discount their philosophical contributions. Their contributions are no less important than the contributions of the Astikas (the Theists). Also, let's not forget that Buddhism which was more successful abroad than it was in India is a Nastika faith. OTOH, you'd naturally argue that Buddhism isn't Hinduism.

* In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. *

One of the Advaitin Mahavakyas (Great sentence/quote) from Aitareya Upanishad is: "Prajnanam Brahma", which translates to: "Knowledge/Consciousness is God". One of the fundamental ontological dichotomies in Hinduism is the difference between "Chit" (things that are conscious) and "Achit" (things that are not conscious). Essentially, the distinction between sentient and non-sentient objects. Although consciousness is a trait of "chit" or sentient objects, consciousness itself is not sentient (that'd be a circular definition). We don't even have to go that far if you interpret it as knowledge, because knowledge by definition non-sentient. Extending from that, if God is consciousness and consciousness is non-sentient, then God is non-sentient.

I know that the Adviatins try very hard to paper over this philosophical wrinkle, but that's what drew me to their school of philosophy. A religion with a non-beneficent and non-sentient God is beyond cool, IMO. One of the taunts that Ramanuja (a Vishistadwaita philosopher) had for Advaitins was to call them "Prachanna Bouddhar" (Closet Buddhists). Because from his theistic perspective, the Advaitins with their non-sentient God are only a hop skip and a jump away from the Buddhists (who were originally atheists).
The best part is that an innocuous statement in 2006, can actually be a dangerous one in 2020.

Norms change. Nobody knows how but one day something is okay to talk about and the next it’s not.
Am I missing something? I see two comments?
Most HN readers are geeks, geeks are usually scientific, your single observation/conclusion that it's all fake, without any data, and that no one has died contradicts thousands of data points of 13 million sick and half a million dead. So your reputation being wiped out clean is, IMO, deserved.

Then again, flat-earthers think they also have the scientific method behind them... and that all those thousands of scientists saying "Please, let me show you why the world is spherical." are in some sort of giant conspiracy to... what, protect the lizard overlords?
Image “Cloaking” for Personal Privacy: Defeating Facial Recognition
The post points to a true thing, Orthodox Privilege definitely exists and we see examples of it quite often. However, to some extent it exists within bubbles.

For example the orthodox position to the statement 'All lives matter' is 'this is a racist dog whistle' within one bubble and 'this is an obviously true statement' within another.
So my daughter had epilepsy soon after birth and was hospitalized for 20 days @ 1 month old. By the time we left they had her on 4 different drugs, but the seizures continued. At 4 months old she went to the local children's keto clinic. The seizure frequency slowly tappered off until a month or so later she was seizure free! That lasted for a few months until an ear infection brought the sickness back and then revealed the true cause of the seizure, a brain abnormality.

That was when my eyes were truly opened to how much diet can effect the body.
What Makes a Great Chatbot UX
The impact by gender in the original study was: All women in the supervised whiteboard interviews failed. All women in the unsupervised whiteboard interviews passed.

It's too small a group to draw proper conclusions, but it definitely warrants a larger study.
You missed out handwashing, which is an important part of preventing the spread of infection.
Exactly.

Insisting on politeness about guilt-free homosexuality or abortion isn't going to get you very far in many particularly conservative Presbyterian churches or Baptist colleges.

Note well: those institutions explicitly instruct people to "love thy neighbor" and to "not cast stones". Those calls are just empirically only so effective and there will always be a significant percentage of people for whom those commandments don't work.

I therefore believe that politeness is probably a similarly ineffective solution to newer forms of orthodoxy (e.g., cancel culture).

Consider conservative college campuses. Not because I don't believe cancel culture exists at Harvard or wherever, but because it's a point of reference that is much more numerous and carries similar culture power within certain geographies/communities. In many of these institutions:

1. being an openly gay student can result in being expelled (or at least suspended and bullied into leaving by admin)

2. faculty need to submit statements of faith in their job applications. These statements of faith are not aptly named, since they're also political ideology litmus tests. E.g., supporting abortion publicly would definitely be cause for dismissal.

None of this is to dismiss or deny that maybe Harvard has its own orthodoxy, but I just have zero percent trust in someone like Jerry Falwell waxing poetic about free speech or cancel culture. His university cancels gay people.

The orthodoxy of silicon valley and elite college campuses exist in only a few relatively small parts of the country that are over-represented in places like HN.

I'm pointing this out for a specific reason: stifling social norms are nothing new. If you leave those places where implicit restriction on speech is a relatively new phenomenon and go to places where unspoken norms about what can/cannot be said has been the de facto norm for hundreds of years, you see why "simply giving it a name" and calls to "being polite" aren't going to help.

Try going to a conservative christian university and pointing out that "abortion is murder" is "orthodoxy" and that people who believe it are exercising an "orthodox privilege" not available to people who believe "abortion is a human right".

It an _NOT_ saying that cancel culture isn't a problem. It's more that it's _always_ been a problem, for hundreds of years, just not from the left in the USA until recently, and _history is a good tutor_.

The proposed solution probably isn't going to work.
You could also have another perspective: The people who bring children into this world, without the future child's consent are being selfish because _they_ want that child. You can never know if that person will grow up to have a miserable life.

I know many would consider it a ridiculous argument but I find your label of selfishness similar.
It isn't this black and white

It can be both

From my experience, when you have a big pool of candidates, the ones that pass not necessarily super stars, but they tend to perform at a relative stable level.
> Any country that tries to make its people pay the actual cost of their emissions without the rest of the world doing the same will quickly see regime change because people aren't gonna waste a bunch of resources pissing in the wind like that.

Yes it is the classic tragedy of the commons scenario, and frequently that is the argument brought up whenever countries talk about climate change action. "Why should I reduce my emissions if China/India/United States doesn't". That is certainly a hurdle to correctly pricing CO2 emissions but I don't know that the hurdle is insurmountable or that that the hurdle won't get lower with time. We've seen a lot more popular support behind climate change action in just the last 2 or 3 years. Even then, in order for us to meet the challenge we have to start making the argument to people that we can either experience temporary discomfort now, or massive misery in the future. I think the average person really doesn't grasp the severity of the threat, so it makes it very difficult for them to make that value judgement.

> If emission are cheap to remove then it's going to be easier to get everyone to pay and the fact that some "emissions havens" won't pay will be a non issue because picking up the slack will be cheap enough. In order to tax emissions at what it costs to dispose of them the cost of disposing of them needs to be cheaper.

Clearly we should be pursuing carbon sequestration technology and trying to find ways to make it cheaper.

Maybe right now, today, pricing in the full cost of carbon removal in a fossil fuels tax wouldn't be economically viable. But at the very least, we should be pricing in some significant portion of it if possible. That is a political question that will have to be played out in countries across the globe.
Here's a more reputable source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53416518
I'll disagree with this one. I'd actually be inclined to job-hop more frequently if I have the skill to pass hard interviews at any tier 1 company, thus maximizing my earnings.

If I don't, I just stay put knowing I lucked out at a great company, knowing it would be hard to get lucky again.
Well, these are still the "will it kill a human" rounds of testing, so any predictions are premature. As are confident guesses and gut feelings.

I think we're at about "vague hunch" certainty on how well these vaccines will work in the field.
Good luck convincing society of that before “deep fake” takes off as a term.
No matter how you’d like to word it, Apple is not in a monopoly position in the mobile OS market.
Would you still be laughing if plants die off from lack of co2 and we stave?
> "go generate" is an half assed macro feature that shouldn't even part of any modern language.

Agreed.

> And it has absolutely nothing to do with genericity, your argument is a fallacy.

In arguments against adding generics, it's been cited numerous times that you can achieve similar code reuse via macros. It's been a while since I looked at the awfulness of `go generate` so I'm not going to attempt to demonstrate the equivalency with that syntax, but here's how you'd achieve something similar to genericity with macros in C:

Instead of:

T swap<T>(T* left, T* right) {
T temp = left;
*left = *right;
*right = temp;
}

...

int a = 1, b = 2;
char c = 'c', d = 'd';

swap<int>(&a, &b);
swap<char>(&c, &d);

You do:

#declare_swap_function(T) T swap_ ## T(T* left, T* right) {\
T temp = left;\
*left = *right;\
*right = temp;\
}

...

declare_swap_function(int);
declare_swap_function(char);

...

int a = 1, b = 2;
char c = 'c', d = 'd';

swap_int(&a, &b);
swap_char(&c, &d);

So, macros do have something to do with genericity.

Macros are certainly a crappy way to achieve genericity, however, especially since the original reason go didn't include generics was to compile in a single pass, and adding a preprocessor adds another pass.

It's clear you were ignorant here. That's fine--I don't expect you to know everything. But I think it's reasonable to expect that if you don't know what someone is talking about, you approach the conversation with some humility and ask questions before accusing someone of a logical fallacy. Ignorance is fine, arrogance isn't.
While this may seem absurdly naive, what is the CL condition system? Based on what I see (read) It seems like you need to know what it is before read the book.
https://www.losinglena.com
Making emitting CO2 more expensive leads directly to releasing less CO2 for a given standard of living. If you 10x the cost of coal, that's not going to 10x the cost of electricity, people are just going to switch over to a different energy source. Likewise for large scale industrial processes and transportation.

Further, most technologies that reduce CO2 emmissions do so by being more efficient, which reduces long term costs and leads to better productivity. The creation and installation of these replacements creates high paying jobs and stimulates the economy. Incentivising the adoption of these technologies allows them to be produced at larger scales which in turn drops their price, leading to wider scale adoption. Preventing catastrophic climate change of course has its own immense benefits to standards of living.

Indeed, a high tax due to a high cost of removing CO2 from the atmosphere creates an enormous incentive for those who can not abandon their polluting methods to invest in the developments of better sequestering technologies. Waiting for the technology to just magically appear as a prerequisite for incentivizing its deployment is dumb.
Email and Usenet
The antitrust case against Google is gathering steam
Do we even have a single American orthodoxy? I think orthodox privilege, like everything now, is politicized and partisan. You're either a Democrat or Republican, your whole constellation of viewpoints are very predictable given that one label.

On the Far Left, we have cancel culture and accusing others of racism... Those on the Far Left will not be castigated by their own orthodox community, because the far left is collectively agreeing to see racism in more places than it is likely to exist. Those within the moderate left are then punished by not conforming to the extreme orthodoxy for saying not all implicitly racist actions are done by racists.

Similarly, those on the right will be castigated by their own orthodox community of religious or gun/freedom figures who place devotion to those causes most highly. Any GOP figure is taking a great risk criticizing Trump now, because there is a great amount of orthodoxy behind his policies and the packing the courts with judges...in order to ensure the country is more conservative for longer, at any cost (even Trump).

Here on HN, we have our own orthodoxy, too. Those who work with Rust find safe haven for their views, and the downvote brigade on HN will descend if you even mention the word Trump.
Was still a corporate bail out.