skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had a game reach about $600 per day in revenue for a few months way back in 2010. Overall I think it made around $100K, and another game made about $30K.

So, even though I was making money, I still wanted out. The reasons came down to those listed below:

1) Taxes.

I wonder if it's easier now, but back then, I had to manually pay individual counties in my state, I had to pay individual states, and and then there were countries. I chose not to sell my game in any non-U.S. country just because of this. So, the tax nightmare wasn't something I was interested in, and was a big part of exiting the game selling business.

2) Make updates or create something new?

I originally did well updating my game. It kept people interested, and seemed to spur new sales somehow, but working on the SAME game for months and months and only making minor updates was not fun. It was work. So, I decided to make more games. I had one game make about another $30K, but everything else didn't sell at all. This was incredibly discouraging.

3) Reviews and Customer Support

When you are dependent on game sales, you check your reviews daily, and you freak out about anything less than 5 stars. Every mean comment hits hard. Customers start writing you, and some of them are crazy. I received death threats for removing a small feature for example. I also received CONSTANT questions about getting my game to work on different devices and computers. I couldn't keep up efficiently.

4) Daily Sales Stress

I would watch daily sales like a hawk. If an hour was slow, I'd stress. If a day was slow, I'd panic. It all had to just end. I couldn't market all day every day and work on new features and new games, so I was at the mercy of the app stores and it made me nuts.

5) Sales slowed

Finally, sales started slowing because of all the competition to my game (maybe). Other devs saw it doing well and a bunch of clones started showing up. Some even used my assets. Some Just added an "!" after the name of my game and were somehow using my code. I wasn't getting sales because my game had been out for a while, and then there was pirating and fakes. I know some people have their own opinion about pirating, but I would get emails from people telling me my game gave them a virus, then when we got down to it, they had stolen it from some shady site and still wanted support and to blame me for installing an infected game.

So, all that being said, yeah, making okay money in the game industry just wasn't enough to make me want to continue, but I REALLY like to make games, so part of me wants to try again anyway. Perhaps learning from these experiences will make the next adventure a little easier, who knows?
Yes I totally agree with your sentiment that it is vitally important to separate the correct answer from the method by which it is achieved. Honestly understanding mathematics is more important at some level than getting the right answer to a particular problem. That's the whole point, once you understand the grammar and vocabulary of mathematical thinking you can attempt to solve problems that are totally unrelated to things you know and still sometimes get useful results. The overwhelming question of the ages is how do you teach with that goal in mind and take account of all of the different learning pathologies while doing it in a universally accessible and measurable way. I think the problem is intractable as it is currently being approached.
Agreed about revision control; I wish there was GIT for .docx for situations when you can't use plain text / LaTex.

I do like Word's comments interdace. I wish there was a format for replying to comments in code (aka "comment conversations"), so that IDEs could render them similarly to how Word / Google Docs do.

(I am genuinely looking forward to a vim/emacs user telling me that they have been using such a format for the last 30 years!)
Ok, I see the problem here:

> The epidemics in Sweden is mostly finished

> This is what happened in UK, Italy, Sweden, France, New York or New Jersey. They are now done with epidemics.

This is just way off base.

"Five months into Europe's pandemic and only 6% of the population here is known to have antibodies, according to Swedish Public Health Agency research."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53498133

The rate is difficult to measure, but even if it's significantly higher than 6%, it's nowhere near the estimated 70% required for herd immunity.

Life has not returned to normal, anywhere. They're still social distancing in New York and New Jersey, and even in Sweden.

Bringing the new cases under control is not the same as ending the pandemic. In the county I live in, we had new cases very much under control, but then the local governments bizarrely decided to reopen bars and sit-down restaurants, along with many other businesses, and predictably the cases almost immediately started spiking again. We're not done by a long shot. There's no quick fix.
Every one I've seen has the ingredients listed. Just avoid methanol. Ethanol is the same alcohol you drink, so I would guess that's relatively safe.

I also imagine a store employee wouldn't balk at you using your own sanitizer instead. Or even notice if you pretended to use it.

Edit: I missed the idea that these products have unintentional, and undocumented, methanol in them. Note that some hand sanitizers intentionally have methanol in them, and it's listed. Those, at least, are easy to avoid.
So the end result should be that we dont try?
I'd love an option, as a backer, to get the raw interview audio. Call me a skeptic on recuts preserving nuance.

But yeah, I'd set aside a monthly budget for backing such memoirs, even if I never listen to the results, simply getting them made about subjects I find interesting feels like a worthwhile use of a few bucks.
Sleep at 10 or 11, up at 8 or 9.

Sleeping is one of the most important things I can do for myself.

Thoroughly exhausting exercise in the afternoon is key for me. 12 or 1pm until 5pm

I prefer to work until about noon. When inspiration or necessity strikes I will code day and night.
There's two different arguments being conflated:

- Vinyl is higher fidelity (yourself, and the article).

- Vinyl sounds better.

Vinyl colors sound, in the same way that some Vacuum Tubes color sound, which is a roundabout way of saying: They objectively make it less similar to the reference material than straight digital. But even though Vinyl is objectively worse at reproduction, some people prefer it (i.e. it subjectively sounds better to them).

Why might that be? And that question itself is when you go down a rabbit hole (e.g. Does playing a Vinyl album twice ever sound identical? And is this imperfection more pleasurable to some people than a perfect one? Etc). I don't own any Vinyl nor am I a big Vinyl aficionado, but there's undeniably a colorization when listening to a song in Vinyl Vs. digital, and then we get into the subjective realm of if this is "better" or "worse."

PS - This is true all across the audio reproduction realm. For example horn Vs. reference-style speakers, horns also heavily colorize and are quite popular (particularly for Home Theater), but are also divisive because it is objectively "worse" (but subjectively "better" for some).
I am currently using it to drive timing of frame generation and processing of UI events (i.e. animations, cursor flashing, etc) in a custom 2d graphics engine.

The API I currently have is:

int RegisterTimer(int afterMicroseconds, Action action)

void CancelTimer(int timerId)

It is really nice having this level of timing resolution and consistency in such a simple interface. I can just assume that whatever action I set up for delayed execution is running precisely when I wanted it to (in practical terms).
I think giving ability to download apps outside of App Store would break the entire business model that Apple has, because app owners will use other subscription providers and payment options with cheaper fees, but on the other hand there would be a huge problem with Scam apps or cracked versions. So it's not going to happen anyway...
Is it discontinued? I couldn't find it on Sony's site, only covers and accessories for it.
Heavily disagree.

The difference between the CPU and the GPU in practice will be the speed that your code runs. If you have an app where you literally can't run it on a CPU, then there are probably going to be a few older and under-powered GPUs that also will be too slow. In which case, the correct thing for you to do is to do some very minor profiling of your application at runtime and show an error message or make adjustments based on the actual, real-world speed tests running on the real-world hardware sitting in front of the user.

You shouldn't be policing the specific hardware, you should only be checking whether or not the hardware works. Setting up "allowlists" of what hardware we support is contrary to the philosophy and spirit of the web.

Like you mention, there is a scenario where you might like to tell the user why the application is slow, and in that case, the ``GPU.isGPUSupported: boolean`` property seems sufficient to me.

In general though, if your user wants to run your app on underpowered hardware, other than letting them know what the problem is, there is no reason for you not to get the heck out their way and let them do what they want to do.

And it makes sense for the CPU fallback to be the default behavior, because the web is a general application platform for general, amateur programmers, and their defaults should allow them to fall into a pit of success. The idea that "the core library should fail, and the programmer should go out of their way to specify a custom CPU fallback alongside their original code", is just naive. Developers won't do that, the default setting should be the version that works for the most people.

If you have a GPU accelerated application where it's genuinely preferable to just crash the entire application instead of letting it run slower, and if for some reason you can't do profiling instead of blindly assuming that all GPUs will be fast enough to run your application, then you can go out of your way to specify your own fail conditions. But that shouldn't be the default. By default, apps should work.

The way that 90% of programmers will use this library is to have a normal application that has a few expensive operations that benefit from the GPU. For nearly all of those developers, having a default fallback to a slower implementation is the right choice. The 10% of developers that fall into the exception can manually detect slow hardware and code their own response.
this seems normal, why would Google continue to market a product rather than integrate the tech into their own branded product, I know Waze is still Waze but I think that's far different for obvious reasons
This guide pretty much tells you how to make the Linux kernel interfere as little as possible with your application. How to instrument and what to measure would depend on the application.

I agree that measuring queuing delay and processing delay separately makes sense.
I think that learning how to use a log table might cement certain relationships for more advanced students. But I do agree that in general there are probably better uses of one's time than to teach them as a first class citizen.
I have only seen Samsara. I found it strangely beautiful but very stressful. The human swarms in it are really unnerving.
-? - what are you smoking? :)

That is a glob in most shells, try putting a file named "-a" in your current directory and see what happens...

The proper way to write it would be -\?
This article seems to completely miss the point. Google paid the founders a lot of money to acquire their IP and know how which they will integrate into Glass. Why would google run two identical products? Nonsense article.
Imagine such a government in charge of your basic healthcare determining if you get health care or are put on a waiting list to die, determining what drugs are distributed and what are not and the majority of 'citizens' dependent on that. Not a bright future.
You're right, abuse always exists, and I doubt that we'll ever get rid of it completely. It's important not to create additional incentive for abuse. I don't believe it's a giant number that is abusing the current system, though I do believe it's too many, because people in general don't like abuse and the abuse damages support for the system. However, if we added incentive and made the abuse easier, we'd create more abuse.

That's the plan for accelerationists: increase abuse until the population withdraws support for the abused system, or the system crashes by itself.

> Why? Why eliminate their environment, instead of - as I proposed - enriching it by providing additional access to opportunities?

Do you suggest the same additional access for everyone? Otherwise you're assuming that there's an invisible hand holding somebody down and doing so without merit. What if that invisible hand is their parent not making them go to school? What if that invisible hand is their parents giving them all the opportunities they could wish for and the majority of the group then deciding to go into certain jobs and not others because they are truly free to decide since they lack the economic pressure? That seems to be the reason why you see much more "traditional" gender roles in choosing careers in Scandinavian Countries than in e.g. India. Economic pressure is relieved, people do what they want. Why would we want to interfere with them doing what they want?

> Only because you can measure income does not make this barrier objective.

The point is that they are the same for all identities. It does not matter whether you're a woman, a man, transsexual/transgender, whether your ancestors fought the Roman invasion in a German forest, stayed in Bavaria after Napoleon's wars, or recently immigrated from Turkey.

> But they do play a role in the negotiation phase and in the overall structure of social programs.

No, they don't. You will of course see different groups vary in success in modern societies, and therefore make use of social programs at different rates. But eligibility for said programs does generally not depend on ethnicity or gender. It's specifically outlawed to make them so, with the exception of women, which I believe was very much valid in 1950 but is anachronistic in 2020.
Typical workday:

* 1030-1130 wake up sleep-deprived to a series of alarms, pressing snooze until it's getting late enough to panic

* 1130-1200 shower, food, clothes, etc

* 1200-1500 morning meetings, emails, planning out what work needs to be done, light exercise, news

* 1500-1600 stimulants and lunch

* 1600-2030 intense work with all the stuff i queued up before lunch

* 2030-2100 write notes to myself for tomorrow, answer emails, send status updates

* 2100-0200 talk to family/friends, consume content, comment on internet, video games

* 0200-0600 try to fall asleep, but actually consume more content because of anxiety about work until passing out from exhaustion

Typical weekend is just sleeping until I wake up naturally, try to eat well, catch up on housework, mentally prepare for the week ahead.

Repeat until retired.
> only relying on one language narrows cultural expression

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

Sure, there are languages whose grammars require speakers to choose a more polite or a less polite form of a word; but I doubt this presents an insurmountable obstacle to the other culture for expressing the attitude of politeness, or the concept of hierarchy. Being speaker of a language that has two forms for the word "you" — a polite, plural one, and a familiar, singular one (I suspect that this grammatical behavior was imported from French in around 18th century; the distinction is similar to what Middle English had with you vs thou), I am sure that our concept of politeness is not markedly different from cultures whose languages do not have this distinction in second-person pronoun. The distinction cannot be trivially translated into modern English, true, but I don't think it matters a whole lot.

Besides, if a culture really starts to feel a need for expressing a certain concept, they will find a way for doing that with the language they have.
Why professors are writing crap that nobody reads
They were all Mexico, actually, except Tritanium Labs, which had this comment:

Product purported to be made at the same facility as Incredible Products SA de CV that produced methanol contaminated product; FDA recommended a recall on 7/30/2020
What else could it be?
Interesting. I found the comment rather succinct and to the point. Maybe you are not the target audience.
>I can’t understand half of what you’ve written here because it is so poorly done. It is a shame because I feel like you’re trying to share interesting information it’s just extremely hard to parse whatever it is you’re trying to say

While their writing is not perfect English, I had no problem understanding everything they wrote.
> even though they haven't yet left the solar system

Virgin Galactic hasn't even got to the Karman line - they've topped out at 90km.
”more than 1 million Muslim Uighurs have been imprisoned, the largest internment of an ethnic-religious minority since the fall of the Third Reich."

There are 1.8 million Palestinians in Gaza.
Do you have a reference the Apples IPC?
> But that seems fairly obvious, at least to me

There's many things that grow from prior knowledge as theories and hypothesis. So maybe from what we already know for the brain, you theorized that the conscious brain plays no role in recognizing faces, yet science needs to validate hypothesis with experimental proof. This is one such experimental data point that seem to validate that theory. I'm not sure we should start to dismiss the scientific process from what we consider obvious or not. Many prior "obvious" things were false, so obviousness isn't good enough in my opinion.

> In any case, it is pretty well understood that our conscious visual perception is almost entirely unlike the raw stream of nerve signals emitted by the retina

For me, the more interesting bit is more with regards to the limits of consciousness. In this case, it seems no amount of conscious effort trying to see and make sense of what you're seeing can actually unscramble what you're seeing. The experiment seem to indicate that the raw stream works as intended, demonstrated by being able to see the shape when rotated 90 degree, but that there is another part in the brain responsible for turning the raw shapes and colors into abstract cognitive information such as it being the number 8 or a face. And that this part is not controlled by consciousness.

Thus it shows that some high level cognitive tasks, like visual pattern recognition are seperate from consciousness. And this isn't something I would have necessarily assumed. Maybe I would have when it comes to really raw low level visual signals, like putting color labels to the wave length information of light, but when it comes to labeling an abstract concept, such as something being a number or a face, I'd have thought that some part of conscious thinking would be involved.
online codes [0] just generate random linear equations of the source chunks and send both generated right hand side and the seed that generated the equation. This way there's no state to keep (now, which equations did I send ?)
Most generated equations are of degree 2 (so an equation with 2 ones) some (about 1% iirc) are of degree 1 (so pure data).
Having less than the critical mass of equations will give you partial reconstruction. But all bets are off regarding how much you will get. They were used in storage by Amplidata in their Amplistor at some point.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_codes
My ADHD does not let me stick to a schedule however hard I try to, and COVID-19 made it worse.

The rough schedule:

1100 - wake up, coffee, shower

1200 - breakfast/lunch

1300 - 2000 work

2100 - side projects/games

0200 - sleep

Before WFH I had a gym routine, some hardware tinkering and social time figured out.
What could an individual do to fight injustice by a state, anyway?
Out of interest, what's your take on Hedgefundie's now-infamous UPRO/TMF risk parity portfolio [1], which is currently 55% UPRO, 45% TMF?

[1] https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=288192
I think one of the reasoning Telegram is giving is good though. If protesters in HK are using Telegram to communicate and Apple removes it from the App Store then they have no recourse of installing it.

I guess giving a way like in Android where you hide the setting behind a flag in settings and explicitly keep warning the user when they install an app from outside is a decent middle ground.

I am not sure of this but I think recent version of either Android/Pixel do a check on apps even installed from outside for malicious activity.
https://philosopher.life/#.tmpl:.tmpl%20.tdl%20.plan

Mostly insanity, chaos, and absurdity though.
>> The mind is not a physical object. It cannot be observed or experimented with in a systematic way.

> So clearly false if you read the article, or have ever looked at an optical illusion.

"Mind" vs. brain. For example, you will never observe the concept "triangularity" or the number 8 or the color "red" in a brain scan. You will see brain activity correlates between what is most likely someone perceiving an instance of triangularity (e.g., a concrete triangle drawn on the blackboard) or, say, the symbol "8" that's been drawn with a red marker, but those are not concepts, which are general. You cannot imagine "triangularity", only particular triangles. But all physical triangles are concrete and particular. You can't draw or construct an abstract triangle because any such drawing or construction will be a particular triangle that excludes all others (an infinite number of them, actually). Properties like the color red can be thought apart from any particular red thing, but you won't find "red" by itself rolling down the sidewalk.

So you have the following syllogism:

Every physical thing is particular.
No abstract thing is particular.
Therefore, no abstract thing is physical.

So if we can know things abstractly, then it must follow that such things exist in a nonphysical way in our minds. But there is no physical thing in which abstract things can inhere as abstract things because physical things are always concrete and particular.

Things get worse for reductionists. Current reductive views of physical reality exile properties like color as we commonly understand them to the realm of consciousness or mind or whatever. I.e., color as we commonly think of it is reduced to the experience of the reflectance properties of matter, that is, to a property of the mind, because as we have assumed, it is not a property of matter. But if color is not a property of matter, and the mind is material, then color cannot be a property of the mind. Therefore, the mind must be immaterial. This latter view of reality is essentially Cartesian where the universe is divided into impoverished res extensa and the metaphysical rug of res cogitans under which we can sweep all of those unseemly phenomena that reductive accounts of reality cannot cope with. Of course, you might be able to get away with that as long as you're a Cartesian dualist, but materialism, the metaphysical bastard child of Cartesian dualism, takes Cartesian dualism, jettisons res cogitans and attempts to reduce all of those unseemly phenomena attributed to res cogitans to phenomena proper to res extensa. Of course, materialism is utterly incapable of dealing with this problem by definition. Stubborn, dyed-in-the-wool materialists like the Churchlands or Dennett, instead of rethinking their presuppositions, have resorted to the pathetic tactic of denying the very thing they were supposed to explain. Can't explain color or abstract concepts? Then they must not exist!
A Spanish town exclave in France
Maybe they'll define some people as being 3/5ths of a person. It's been done before.