skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I live in the city and it’s rather prevalent: outside of shops on the streets, at restaurants, especially bad at train stations, etc.

We moved from Hamburg and it’s bad there too. Everyone seemingly smoked.
Those speeds are not comparable.

If you search for high speed differences, you just look for far enough target.

It is much more impressive for any body to generate its own delta V than to follow an orbit.

This is the reason why you discuss cars moving at tens of meters per second forgetting that they are already moving at over 200km/s around our Galaxy. Because some reference frames just aren't interesting.
I agree and ironically I still find reading the paper edition of a high quality news paper to be much more pleasurable than scrolling through a news feed or navigating the ad-laden webpages of a newspaper. In fact the user experience on most of them is so much worse that it is almost laughable.

Also since the articles are laid out physically before you in a predetermined order, far more of your senses are engaged. You are also more likely to serendipitously read an article far from what you would normally be interested in.
"Simple"

Over a billion cows are spread over the world. They eat over 10 billion kg of dry food each day. Estimating a 0.5% seaweed supplement, we're talking about 50 million kg of dry seaweed. Assuming a 90% water content, we're talking about 500 million kg of one particular type of seaweed that need to be harvested, dried and shipped all over the world.

Every single day.

And we have to be careful about not depleting natural resources, nutrients and destroying natural habitats.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that there's nothing simple about that.

Maybe instead we could find out why this type of seaweed reduces methane generation?
How we hit our 90k ARR milestone
Why, "Hopefully"? What's wrong with people pursuing jobs at companies of the sort they like or at which they'd rather work?
There is bias in selection of what news to print/air as well, I think that is more of a problem than objectivity inside of articles. Balance should come from covering sides of an issue, presenting facts, but from maybe multiple angles.

Social media has brought about a factor of being first. First to report that so-and-so athlete signed with a team will trend better than an in depth or behind the scenes analysis on what happened.

Maybe news companies should form a scoring system of sorts that they will hold themselves and each other to regarding journalistic integrity/objectivity. A certification of some kind.

They could offer that to social media companies as a way to filter the un-certified junk. Some people might pay for that.
A Guide to Surviving Burnout – Learn to Recover from Burnout
Realistically, boycotts seems to be the only political tool you have in the US, with all major candidates could be considered varying degrees of authoritarian and sometime libertarian right[0], with no big unions like Germany. If you're not on the "right" side, this moight be your only way of speaking for yourself. Boycott is a non-violent way of saying "stop this", so if you can afford to, you should absolutely do it. Even for petty things.

[0] https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020 (there is better tools but this one is Ok-ish)
How did you buy a house with no mortgage?

Sorry to hear about your job. If you can prove that they fired you because they didn't want to pay the increased benefits costs since you got married, then you might have a case.
It came from inside as far as their failure to adapt to a new ecosystem. They're still stuck in the print mindset where they think that a newspaper should be words printed on a page. They're stuck in the printing press mindset when they need to be in the digital media mindset. If they want to re-capture their audience they need to put their journalists to work creating more audio content that people can consume in their "found time" along with their other podcasts. They have the infrastructure to one up everyone in this field. If a journalist were to apply the same techniques of deep research, interviews with relevant sources, and the basic footwork necessary to find newsworthy material they could take their market back. People would pay for a subscription to a "paper" that was actually a basket of well researched and news-breaking podcasts. For God's sake though don't invite the radio and TV people in, just throw out your goddamn typewriter already and get a decent microphone and do it yourself.
Data serialization is hard and the artifacts are much longer lived than executable code and even our API interfaces. YAML, JSON, XML are all flawed. There are many competing binary serialization frameworks. Beware. Dar be Dragons in Durable Data.
you're an arrogant prick
It is a SaaS product and I guess that was just what made sense to them at the time.

They say they have a lot of EU customers, but something doesn't add up. Either they don't have a lot of EU customers, or their EU customers are ignoring GDPR, hosting locations, and (in my case) regulations on invoicing software.

Maybe those customers are just saying, "ah, it'll be fine, let's not worry about it." Which probably isn't a bad approach for small companies.

I suppose my choice comes down to: Do I want something off the shelf, slick, a bit expensive, and may or may not screw me in known ways. Or do I want something custom, slow to build, a bit clunkly, can adapt to my needs at the cost of my time, and won't screw me in known ways.

Of course, both may screw me in unknown ways :-)

Anyway, thanks for listening. This is mostly me just thinking this though.
The OAuth2 RFC and almost every associated guide on the Internet was way too vague for me to understand, but reading the OIDC spec was amazing, makes things very clear.
> In some - if not most - parts of the world, there are even supposedly impartial media outlets whose most income comes from advertisings for state campaigns and politicians' agendas.

Some, but probably not most; most developed democracies _severely_ limit spending on political campaigning. The US is something of an oddity there.
Maybe AI for them is some sort of pattern recognition the police used. Not sure since the article is paywalled.
Show HN: React Sling
The 7 Big Lessons That Twitter Hack Teach Us on Bitcoin
Office 365 support is quite good if you pay for E5 licenses. Better than most of our other vendors anyway.
>It’s similar for a journalist. Your job is to set aside all beliefs about what’s right or wrong and do the best job of executing a record of eye witness observations, quotations and facts that give a holistic view of every story. If any component of your own preferences for social movements or causes has come through, you’ve failed badly.

The implication you're making here is that the current reporting is neutral/objective.

>I personally think it’s really frightening. If journalists at our most major institutions believe their work should pursue an agenda like combating racism, that’s horrific.

Biased newspapers have existed for a long time[0]. I'm not quite sure why "Racism is bad" is considered a political agenda though

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Argo
Publishing opinions and assumptions has always been cheaper than proper research. Obviously a large part of the content is also a "reuse" of other content (in plain language "copied"). The peak of this development is, in my opinion, when journalists even interview each other (instead of the actual sources). I no longer read the newspapers for this reason. The trees could be saved for better things.
It seems serious: https://www.unwoke.hr/alert

Really non nuanced response, people who see things only in black & white (pun not intended) are hard to work with in my experience.
Not entirely related to the article, but rather why I think we're seeing all these problems in journalism of late.

The rise of the internet gatekeepers (Google, Facebook, Twitter) has forever destroyed the old business model for journalism.

Today, in order to have any success at building an audience on these platforms, one needs to appease the algorithms that these gatekeepers employ.

Unfortunately, their algorithms are designed to bring out the sinister side of human nature; tribalism, extremes of opinion, polarization.

I suspect anyone that tries to stay on the neutral side of journalism will eventually be forced to pick a side to stay afloat. Not because of the gatekeepers themselves anymore, but because the gatekeepers have amplified qualities in all of us that have irreversibly changed individual behavior itself.

I'm not sure of what can be done to ebb the tide. The problem is you can no longer look to fixing the gatekeepers. The real problem is how to turn back the clock on individual behavior en masse.
As Companies Pour Millions into A.I., Job Opportunities Abound
I think that you are kidding yourself. US has a massive surveillance/spying program of EU citizen data, as demonstrated by the different leaks, this is not speculation but hard facts. US judiciary system with secret courts and gag order is a joke from a European point of view (Justice is rendered in the name of the people not secretly). Surveillance by EU spying agency can really rely on EU court to make them stop (and yes having worked for legal interception system in Europe, people really take into account judiciary decision), and ISP are fighting back without the threat of gag order.

BTW, I have to guess that your logic doesn't apply when the US refuse its data to go to China. Are you also saying that this is also pure US protectionism in disguise?
So if people are less likely to think it is a hack, then they're more likely to send bitcoin in response to a tweet from his account. They'd hack Trump's twitter first if they could.
If so, it's a fine example of Poe's Law. It seems legit but only the authors know for sure.
Reading news in multiple languages has taught me that all publishers editorialise, some are just more aware that they're doing it than others.

My rag of choice attempts objectivity.
Yours is biased.
Theirs are state controlled.

From 1948, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm

"The collected news of any modern country contains more truth each day than any one man can could read in a lifetime. The reporters, editors, writers, announcers who collect truth not only collect it; they select it. ... If they select it to "affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific purpose," it is propaganda. If they report that a little girl fell out of bed and broke her neck—with the intent of frightening parents among their listeners into following the Safe Homes Week Campaign—that is propaganda. But if they report it because it is the only death in the community, and because they might as well fill up the program, it is not propaganda. If you put the statement on the air, "An American negro workman in Greensboro, N. C., got eighty cents for a hard day's work last week," that can be presented and interpreted as:

(a.) simple news, if there is something more to the story, about what the man said, or how he spent the eighty cents on corn meal to feed his pet tarantula;

(b.) anti-capitalist propaganda, if you show that eighty cents is mighty little money for American business to pay its workers;

(c.) pro-capitalist propaganda, if you show that the eighty cents will buy more than two weeks' wages of a worker in the city of Riga, when it comes to consumer goods;

(d.) anti-White propaganda, if you show the man got only eighty cents because he was a Negro.

And so on, through a further variety of interpretations. The facts—man, happening, amount, place, time—are true in each case. They could be sworn to by the whole membership of an interfaith conference. But the interpretation placed on them—who communicates these facts to whom? why? when?—makes them into propaganda."

"If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports."
This article is really interesting, but I think an important part of this that it didn't discuss is misinformation.

The Chinese[1] and Russian[2] governments are known to be engaging in misinformation at a scale never seen before, and across geographic boundaries. Many other misinformation operations are also in force.

Meanwhile, the primary source of news for a significant portion of the globe does little to combat it[3]. In fact it has an explicit policy of treating falsehoods the same as truth.

That was never possible before the age of information, and I think it changes the landscape of news enough that it merits a place in this discussion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/national-...

[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akz7qa/facebook-finally-a...
Citation needed? They ate grass instead of corn, and spread their waste over vast areas of wilderness, ready to be incorporated back into the plantlife.

Also, a quick Google search says there were 30-60 million bison roaming the plains. Today, there are 95 million cows, and another 70 some million pigs.
Yeah I took up smoking over quarantine for this reason. Big difference in the case numbers!
This exact same URL was submitted 13 hours earlier here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23853239

Why wasn't the second submission redirected to the first? There's something about Hacker News submissions I don't understand. :(
Try Firefox reader.
Used to filter the millions of intercepted communications.

> According to the Gendarmerie Nationale, investigators had access to more than 100 million messages and were able to review, in real time, communications over a period of several weeks.

> Europol, the European police coordination agency, set up a joint team to process, analyze and share information. It also established a system that used artificial intelligence to scan the texts for particular words or phrases that might indicate that criminal actions, including murders, were being planned, said Wil Van Gemert, Europol’s deputy director of operations.
> once-objective mainstream journalism

Objective journalism was never ever a thing. That's why Manufacturing Consent happened and all the works from Edward Bernays and all the way to Noam Chomsky.

What journalism had before though is just more consistency in worldview, because mass media was very centralized and pushed much more consistent propaganda with nothing to oppose it.
Reader mode on Safari worked for me.
What's the alternative? All editors are kind of crap. Compare them to raw level of engineering you find in, say, a video game. It's a different world.

Imagine VS Code was exactly how it is now, but had the extensibility of Emacs. It would blow everything else out of the water. Why isn't it like that?
I agree with your criticism of his IFR assumption, but the way you're doing it ("his murderous agenda") is incompatible with rational debate. Stop resorting to pathos, and instead be dispassionate and back it up with facts. In this case, I actually did call him out, citing the CDC's most recent estimates of 0.65%.

> absurdly high likelihood that actual herd immunity begins to kick in at like 20% seroprevalence, which no one who actually has technical expertise in these matters would suggest.

You're the one in the wrong here, and that suggests to me that you've just latched onto popular media misunderstandings of the science - and your refusal to actually support your claims is allowing you to make these mistakes. To enlighten yourself on this topic, look at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/herd-immu...

Quoting from that:

It doesn’t make intuitive sense, Gomes admits, but “the homogenous models just don’t make curves that match the current data,” she said. Dynamic systems develop in complex and unpredictable ways, and she believes that the best we can do is continually update models based on what is happening in the real world. She can’t say why the threshold in her models is consistently at or below 20 percent, but it is. “If heterogeneity isn’t the cause,” she said, “then I’d like for someone to explain what is.”

At Stockholm University, Tom Britton, the dean of mathematics and physics, thinks that a 20 percent threshold is unlikely, but not impossible. His lab has also been building epidemiological models based on data from around the globe. He believes that variation in susceptibility and exposure to the virus clearly seems to be reducing estimates for herd immunity. Britton and his colleagues recently published their model, demonstrating the effect, in Science.

“If there is a large variability of susceptibility among humans, then herd immunity could be as low as 20 percent,” Britton told me.
I think probably the problem there is, what is bias anyway? In the UK, Brexiters have been complaining for years that the FT is massively biased, because it isn't sufficiently complimentary of Brexit. A lot of people seem to define media bias as not being 'in the middle'; in the Brexit case, facts have a remain bias, so many people perceive the FT's largely factual reporting on Brexit as bias.

The only way to produce Brexit reporting that would satisfy the 'in the middle' people would be, frankly, either to not print most of the news about Brexit, or to outright make stuff up.
Also... When you were 15? Geez, I think I knew what GWBASIC was at that age. Kudos again.
What does becoming less liberal mean? I mean it seems a lot of people are becoming more radical. And the US version of "liberal" was always more of a catch-phrase than any coherent ideology.
For another approach to making this work in Haskell, see this thread of mine from 2010: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-October...

The relevant keyword if you want to learn more here is "equirecursive types".
Yeah, to filter millions of messages.

> [Europol] established a system that used artificial intelligence to scan the texts for particular words or phrases that might indicate that criminal actions, including murders, were being planned, said Wil Van Gemert, Europol’s deputy director of operations.
I agree. Normal beer you can totally, and easily, replace with gluten free. Not so much for the speciality beers though.
Interestingly, much of the current young woodland would have been gone, replaced by prairie and oak savanna.
> Was the mainstream media ever objective or impartial?

It depends where you are - I'm in the UK where TV news still has objectivity regulation. I know that's been gone in the US for a long time.

In general though I think when there were fewer publications and delivery channels that we had to share together (the newspaper stand), journalists had to appeal to a wider audience than they do now.

Personal devices mean they have a direct route to you, on an article-by-article basis. So they can write whatever lands in a niche.
Enteric fermentation only accounts for 30% of emissions, while emissions from fertilizer for plants is highly underestimated:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...

I'm glad that I can eat a meat-and-dairy-based diet and am not forced to fill my calories with garbage plant-based substitutes.

If you want to work on reducing enteric fermentation emissions with technology, I'm all for it.

If you want me to cut my consumption of meat to save a few percent of methane that will do next to nothing for climate change, then get off my lawn.
How Much Will Certifications and Skills Boost Your Pay?
Early on it seems there was this idea that you could simply give people the facts, and they could decide for themselves what to think. This seems to not be the case.

Yeah, people say they want objectivity, that they want facts, but then they'll complain about bias when they read that their opinion on something is objectively not based in fact.

As an example, how many people are complaining about objectivity, while also refusing to even entertain the idea that someone who says "COVID-19 is a hoax" is a liar?
Exactly. There is no such thing as 'objective' journalism, even if the facts of a piece of reporting are correct, there is still an enormous degree of subjectivity in choosing what to report in the first place or what to emphasise within a report.

The best we can hope for IMO is journalism that is up front about it's biases and political slant and clearly distinguishes factual and opinion reporting.
Err some of us actually like Apple as at least they actually pretend to give a shit. Google and Facebook not so much.
>Hire courageous, free thinking...

Except you know, not courageous enough to support what they think is right.

>... and freedom loving individuals.

Except you know, the freedom to express their opinion through their work.
It is. You can sue for this, i can think of multiple cases in France.
> but to many the distinction between right and wrong now seems obvious. A new generation of journalists is questioning whether, in a hyper-partisan, digital world, objectivity is even desirable.

They are part of the polarization because they profit from it and I think they are entertainers instead of journalists. They know how to channel the hysteria and lust to condemn. Maybe not by experience, but their metrics certainly would show it. Some moderately serious youtube channels are more in line with facts and many online articles became profoundly lacking. Granted, it was the users that clicked them. And certain topics were clicked by all political factions. Racism and sexism are popular topics here. Having an opinion doesn't need any qualification, so those topics can reach anyone. Engagement shows these articles are much more popular than boring politics.

Of course the more left or libertarian inclined journalists deliver the better content than their conservative contemporaries with few exceptions. But I think it is the older generation that created that image.

> American view-from-nowhere, ‘objectivity’-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment,” tweeted Wesley Lowery, a Pulitzer-winning 30-year-old now at CBS News

This price is probably given by click rate. So the most outrageous claim wins. Again, I can name bloggers that could compete... no, that are vastly more poignant to the matter at hand. Seriously, read the articles, they aren't really good, but judge yourself.

> unconscious bias

gas-lighting, original sin or completely useless information. It is like discussing free will where the quality of the wine is important, not the result. I think to have bias is completely fine, but I can still separate my perception of facts from my opinion. That isn't actually too hard. Won't ever be perfect, but beating online journalism isn't hard.

> One is Donald Trump’s rise and the challenges it has posed to traditional reporting.

I think the press is vastly responsible here too. It may actually be a good idea to vote a president the "4th estate" is critical of. An angle I would think is beyond Pulitzer price winners of today.

> Objectivity has been “turned into a cartoon”, he said. Better to aim for values such as fairness, independence and empathy.

Sure, here bias wouldn't matter...

A few journalists still try at least. They often don't have large twitter followings but you are always shown a new perspective if you read their editorials, which indeed do give context to their articles. The perspective of the conventional journalist is utterly mundane in contrast.

> Amid more diverse recruitment

More racist recruitment is the objective description. Because race matters here. For most people it doesn't.

> The final reason for the turn against objectivity is commercial

Back to the start. Why did some journalists condemn Fox News for being a scam? Ah yes, none of you are in a position to do so anymore...
ECJ rules US Cloud services fundamentally incompatible with EU Privacy laws