skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Honest question: is AAPL's or TSLA's market cap any more realistic than bitcoin's?

It seems as if the prices have become completely uncoupled from the actual businesses.
You missed the biggest disadvantage of client-side tracking: it’s slow. Especially compared with server-side tracking which has typically zero marginal cost because it’s already happening.

Counting the size of the executed JavaScript, because that’s what matters more than the compressed transfer size:

ga.js is 45KB, matomo.js is something like 50KB. The “new breed” of trackers are currently commonly 2–5KB (though generally if they were written more carefully they’d be well under 1KB), but they’re sure to continue growing because such is the nature of code.

By using client-side tracking on a different host name, you’re making the browser establish a new HTTPS connection—which can happen in the background so long as you do it properly, so it’s not of itself a serious performance issue—and parse and execute probably 50KB of JavaScript, which blocks the main thread while executing. On a substantial fraction of the devices your site will be running on, that’ll block for more than a hundred milliseconds (to say nothing of the couple of hundred more of CPU time that parsing took, which wasn’t blocking, but was taking away from other things it could be spent on), and on older and slower devices it’ll be adding several hundred milliseconds.

Seriously, parsing and executing JavaScript is slower than you realise. If your site uses JavaScript of your own, using just one type of client-side analytics is probably slowing useful page load down by 0.1–0.5s.
Thanks! It’s been a busy few months, but excited to get it out the gate.
Fifty-five years of living and formally studying how people work and doing tons of therapy and yadda.

We've been murdering Black people in the US for years and years and years. The usual response is "Well, you gotta understand. Policing is hard and it's a judgement call and it's unfortunate that so man Blacks end up dead after the cops get hold of them, but ...blah blah blah."

And then a Black guy was murdered during the pandemic and suddenly people care.

I don't care how many years of planning went into it. They would still be batting it about and talking about it but not acting if we didn't have a pandemic where a third of Americans are failing to pay their rent and presumably similar shit is happening in Germany.

Edit: The PC term for it is "political will." It's easier to get a deal like this if you have a huge and obvious disaster ongoing to help justify it.
Sex workers are in high gear right now, too. People are sad and lonely.
Our first week was rough. But our school came up with a much better schedule for our kindergartener.

Class is now from 8:20-9am, meet in small group with the teacher for 30 minutes (time depends upon your group), then closing instruction at 12:45pm-1:15pm.

The rest of the time is "self study". Basically, you have assignments you need to do and complete with your kid. You can do it during self study time. Or at night. Or whenever.

The first week they tried to do 8:20-11:10 (with 10 minute breaks every 50 minutes) of instruction. It really didn't work. This new schedule has been much more feasible to deal with.
My point is about questioning minimum wage specifically, as opposed to other tools like EITC or negative income tax.
Sure. The average car gets 25 mpg, consuming ~1400 Wh/mi. A Tesla Model 3 uses ~240 Wh/mi. Thats almost a factor of 6 difference. You don't need quite as much energy when you are significantly more efficient and it is only getting more efficient as time goes on. Also add in the factor of recovering energy using regenerative braking which is impossible with ICE.

With a car, unless you have a specific use-case where you are driving 200+ miles a day, an EV is a no-brainer when it comes to efficiency in operating cost as well as emissions and overall energy use.
Yeah basically all airports that have commercial service also have access to power. There are exceptions like seaplane bases and small country strips, but there are more than enough airports with access to commercial or even industrial grade power to make electric airplanes that require charging viable. The final step of linking up the airport power supply to the airplane charger is peanuts in the world of aviation. Almost all airports have a fleet of fuel trucks, therefore, the cost of buying a fuel truck is the low end of the acceptable cost for ground infrastructure investment to open a new route for an airline.
> If you want to look like an ogre you probably don’t want to be seen outdoors anyways

i struggle to see this as not shaming. also there's plenty of other middle ground between bodyweight exercise and "ogre".

i don't disagree w safety of outdoors and avoiding illegal infection incubators. i just think your suggestions around Calisthenics and comments on ogres are ignorant. not everyone has your preferences for body shape, access to climate and physical abilities.
Enabling "Use keyboard navigation to move focus between controls" makes keyboard navigation much, much easier on macOS.
BT Sport 1 – FreeStreamsLive
I would actually say that it is the opposite... As there is few very large employers. Wal-mart being largest one of them. Companies employing lot of people also has largest collection of workers with $INSERT_CONDITION_HERE.

Not that the whole sector couldn't do better. Wal-Mart just having that statistic because they employ the most.
Exactly, and often times extraordinarily valuable because they can be used for reverse engineering, or learning how the key signing or DRM works, or can be bypassed.

Of course, most legitimate indie communities stay away from this, preferring clean-room RE efforts.
> how do you expect an almost toddler to react when forced to sit in front of a screen?

The same way that you expect a kid to sit more-or-less still, and not-too-disruptively in a classroom with 29 other children for 6 hours a day.

When they, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, can't,
we diagnose them with ADHD and give them a Ritalin patch.

I get it. Remote learning isn't great. It's worse than in-person learning, which isn't a high bar to begin with. Unfortunately, in-person learning currently carries with it the risk of death and disability to teachers. We could have taken some steps to deal with that risk, three months ago (Smaller classes, isolating students from teachers, training glorified babysitters who aren't over the age of 50 to mind classes during non-instruction time, etc), but it seems that all of our leaders and planners were convinced that this COVID thing would blow over by August.
Through the first two paragraphs of this article, I thought it was going to be another silly rant bemoaning the lack of "real innovation" today. That is, another riff on the "They promised us flying cars, we got 140 characters" kind of rant.

One of the upsides of this job is that you get to see everything going on out there in the startup world. One of the downsides of this job is seeing just how many ideas out there aren’t all that original.

Every week in my inbox, there is another no-code startup. Another fintech play for payments and credit cards and personal finance. Another remote work or online events startup. Another cannabis startup, another cryptocurrency, another analytics tool for some other function in the workplace (janitor productivity as a service!)

But I'm glad I kept reading, because there is some good stuff here. I mean, it's not a PhD thesis or anything, but there's some insights worth pondering, tucked away in this article.

The gist is here:

Now, we are approaching a new barrier — ideas that require not just extreme depth in one field, but depth in two or sometimes even more fields simultaneously.

Take synethtic biology and the future of pharmaceuticals. There is a popular and now well-funded thesis on crossing machine learning and biology/medicine together to create the next generation of pharma and clinical treatment. The datasets are there, the patients are ready to buy, and the old ways of discovering new candidates to treat diseases look positively ancient against a more deliberate and automated approach afforded by modern algorithms.

Moving the needle even slightly here though requires enormous knowledge of two very hard and disparate fields. AI and bio are domains that get extremely complex extremely fast, and also where researchers and founders quickly reach the frontiers of knowledge.

I would agree with that sentiment in the general sense. And there's probably some interesting things to be gained by thinking deeply about how to address that problem.

The only part of this I found myself disagreeing with somewhat is here:

We’ve gone through the generation of startups you can do as a dropout from high school or college, hacking a social network out of PHP scripts or assembling a computer out of parts at a local homebrew club. We’ve also gone through the startups that required a PhD in electrical engineering, or biology, or any of the other science and engineering fields that are the wellspring for innovation.

While I agree that it's probably getting harder to come up with something really innovative without that "fusion" approach alluded to above, I'm not convinced that it's not possible. Furthermore, I don't see being "the next no code startup" or "the next cryptocurrency startup" as being a Bad Thing - so long as you do it in a way that's appreciably better than "the other folks" doing the same thing.

Sure, inventing something Brand New is nice, but you can make money making a "nicer version of something that already exists", or by just innovating on business model while the product is unchanged (or mostly so).
I didn't call it socialism. It's certainly not full blown socialism. All I'm saying is that it's a massive, risky change.

The current social safety nets are not as drastic as something like a $1400/mon stipend for everyone in the country (as Germany is trying). That's $5 trillion a year in the US. That over doubles spending right there.

In 2019 the US federal government had $3.5 trillion in revenues and $4.4 trillion in spending. Add another $5 trillion -> $9.4 trillion in spending with $3.5 trillion in revenues. We'd have to almost triple our revenues!

I know there are plans to pay for it, and it's probably possible. But you can't deny that it is drastic.

It's very dangerous to implement such drastic changes to the economy. And the consequences of getting it wrong are horrific.
I've looked at Zeebe, and Camunda too - likewise, just in a demo capacity.

Interested in folks' experiences deploying these tools, as this sounds like a potentially very useful way of modeling business workflows that span multiple services.
I think the issue is that rust unsafe means "does something sketchy" whereas even perfectly safe C++ would have to be annotated unsafe.
>The regulators don't have the education, training, or exposure either.

Again, you clearly have no understanding of what the FDA approval process actually entails.
Do you mean references instead of pointers? I'm not familiar of a difference between pointers and raw pointers in C or C++.

C++ allows to be more clear: unique_ptrs allow to move ownership, references mean this is definitely not owned, and the remaining questions are around normal pointers.

With pure C there is however zero distinction. A pointer can mean ownership is transferred, it is meant to be a reference, it could be a static reference to something in constant memory, etc.
Oh man Thank You. I came across this video (https://youtu.be/rpkoCZ4vBSI) years ago and I've haven't been able to find it again since. Your comment gave me enough of a breadcrumb to finally track it down
And yet this year I see people standing outside the front door with a box of masks, ensuring everyone is masked before entering, and greeting people at the same time.
I block new domains via NextDNS, so if anyone's interested this domain was only registered 2020-07-31.
> The FDA might have made sense at a time when most people were illiterate and information was hard to come by.

The FDA was established at a time when virtually the entire population of the US was literate [1]. While I don't have the heart to look up statistics, I suspect that the US at the time had the highest (or at least among the highest) newspaper penetration of any country, and that newspaper penetration would have been quite higher than today. Public libraries and schools would have been in full flourish too, by that time. My grandparents grew up on farms on the edges of the High Plains--where you would expect to find the most bumpkin of country bumpkins--and illiterate and ignorant they were not.

For someone whose argument is that the federal agency is necessary only because of public ignorance, you sure seem to be modelling that ignorance you think no longer exists. The problem with your argument is that you neglect to reason that both information and misinformation are incredibly easy to come by, and most people are unwilling or unable to differentiate between them.

[1] It is worth pointing out that, if you measure literacy by the ability to read in your native language, Western Europe has been majority literate for over a millennium.
This is a puzzling comment. Yes, you can probably find a unique characteristic among various groups... but this specific value of $INSERT_CONDITION_HERE is relevant to the discussion, and probably a negative force in our society. Seems like you're trying to dismiss it for some reason?
I presume you are aiming this at me, and if so it doesn't apply - I was simply asking for a rationale for the original claim that "Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair."

I would suggest that your retort, presuming that is what it is, is mere posturing; either you have a substantive answer to the question or not - so far you have not provided one.
I like your take on life - thanks for reminding me of this little fact.
You can see the syllabus: http://ethics.fast.ai/syllabus/ .

There's a free book chapter that covers a subset of the material, so you might that a more focused approach if that's what you're looking for: https://github.com/fastai/fastbook/blob/master/03_ethics.ipy...
"Virtual pre-kintegarden?" That's childcare, not education.
For many programming languages of the day, you didn’t need a stack when calling a subroutine.

Languages such as FORTRAN and COBOL didn’t allow recursive calls, and multi-processing wasn’t in the picture, so stack frames could just be given fixed addresses, for example just before the called function’s entry point.

Around 1960, Lisp and ALGOL changed that.
First off I have to admit I'm having a bit of trouble nailing down the exact math, but I'll do my best.

If we arrange the starbases on the north-south line, I believe that the roaming wormhole would allow a ship to observe the event at starbase B, then jump through and pop out next to starbase A at roughly 1115h. (If that number is wrong, then adjust the wormhole velocity I guess.)

In this scenario, you can't violate causality. You're 100 light hours from B, and the A<->D wormhole is too far away to help.

But if you changed it so that B, C, and D are only 10 light hours from each other, you could then take the wormhole to D. Now it's roughly 1116h, and you're only 20 light hours from B. You can send a signal about the event at 1200h, and it will arrive at 1136h. You sent information back in time.
> How do you reconcile your view with the success of Singapore?

A country general success does not equal the success of its poor people. There are not many income inequality stats of Singapore, but the ones I've seen [1] actually put Singapore with a similar income inequality to the US.

Furthermore, it is a small country (5M people) with a pretty high GDP per capita (8th in the world). I don't think you can extract too many conclusions that would be applicable to other, bigger countries.

> The question to ask is do the rules of the game allow anybody to succeed. Minimum wage is a rule that says some people just don't get to play.

And without a livable minimum wage, you'll get people that are working full time for peanuts. They won't be able to save, get healthcare, provide their kids with good education, etc. Are those people succeeding?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
> Soviet-produced photocopier

I don't think that such a thing ever existed.
I think there's a Plasma based SmartTV UI in development. Maybe you could try that. It's currently only for the Raspberry Pi 4 though if I remember correctly.
RAII usually handles all that.
Is this the onion?
Unpacking this:

> employers can afford to wait for a given worker's labor prices to come down

So employers can wait.

> is affirmative evidence that the labor market is free

For employers.

> whereas the OP considers this evidence that the labor market is unfree

For employees - they can't wait (that much), see above.
AI researchers are important for this reason. Super intelligence, even if limited to simulations, can find results outside of the mainstream that are more optimal than the economic convention.[1]

[1] https://blog.einstein.ai/the-ai-economist/
„Getting better is just screwing up less“ - Adam Savage
> Do they really need to access thousands of C++ API calls from Rust?

Yes. It's turtles all the way down. Applying this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it wouldn't be worth it until we have written the OS itself and all firmware in Rust.
The organization will "appear successful" if it brings useful drugs to market at a reasonable cost to patients. There would obviously need to be unbiased criteria for deciding what's useful and what isn't, and the decisions around both selecting criteria and applying them should be made by medical professionals, not bureaucrats or MBAs.

Your second argument could be applied to every government program, which are attacked all the time, with the intent to get rid of them and eventually have no government programs at all. That's a separate problem that needs to be solved.
Note that this is an example of the broader timestamped HMAC signature scheme concept. My Google-fu isn't up to the task today. But I'm sure I've seen proposed before, eg with something like Bitcoin as the timestamp provider.

My OpenTimestamps project is a curious example where I actually made an effort to avoid implementing this by accident.

tl;dr: It's a service that does Bitcoin timestamping. In the process, centralized servers generate "calendars" - the database of digests they've timestamped. Now, for disaster recovery the calendar servers have a HMAC with secret key to authenticate digests they've promised to timestamp. The idea being that the HMAC lets us get timestamps back from the community to re-add to the calendar in case the data somehow gets lost.

For technical reasons, that HMAC "signs" the current time, and the output of that HMAC gets timestamped securely with Bitcoin. But since OTS servers are not supposed to be trusted, that HMAC digest is deliberately truncated to 64 bits to make it feasible to brute force with significant effort, thus making them not useful as an actual timestamp: https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps-server/blob...

This is ok for their intended purpose, because if you're willing to brute force 64-bits, I'm ok letting you add some junk to the OTS calendars in the event of a disaster.

I'm actually considering using that scheme as a trusted timestamping mechanism for OTS, by simply revealing the HMAC keys after they've been timestamped by Bitcoin. They're already derived with a merkle tree from a single seed - each second gets a different HMAC key. To turn that into a verifiable signature you just need to derive all the keys in advance, construct a tweaked version of that merkle tree, and then publish the root. A full signature is then the HMAC output, and a path up the tree to the public root.

The advantage for OTS is the amortized size of the signatures would be smaller than a ECC signature, plus being hash based it's a quantum resistant scheme.
This makes it clear "nobody successfully proved" really means "I didn't bother to listen". The messaging on masks has long been "they reduce transmission by infected people", not "they prevent you from getting it".

(1) Best available evidence indicates pretty clearly that masks will prevent you from getting it sometimes. This is sharply different from early messaging that masks could increase your risk due to them somehow being viral-magnets and thus you risked infecting yourself.

(2) We have done many studies on many viruses and the consensus seems to be that the initial viral dose matters a great deal -- the lower the dose, the lower the severity. It's also fairly clearly established that, at their worst expected performance, masks will lower the dose you receive.

This is a disease in which the severity matters a great deal. We see wildly different ranges of outcomes/levels of severity.

And indeed, many of the worse outcomes are setting where it's reasonable to assume that there was a significant viral dose.

I think it's irresponsible to promote the idea that masks only help protect others from the wearer. While they clearly do that, the balance of probabilities of available data strongly indicates that they sometimes protect the wearer.

We've even had studies as specific as having examined masks with SARS-CoV-1 -- to pretend that none of our medical knowledge indicated that masks are helpful for SARS-CoV-2 is insane.

The "risk compensation" concern which was claimed as one of the reasons to pretend that masks weren't helpful has been thoroughly debunked as a false concern. Additionally, while they were busy talking about "lack of evidence", their "risk compensation" concerns were also completely lacking a foundation in evidence.

The whole situation disgusts me. "Doctor knows best" and "we can't tell people the truth because they might not respond the way we want" attitude has to stop -- it destroys the fabric of society and the credibility of health experts.

Why would people ever trust words of officials when it is obvious to anyone paying attention that their messaging was focused on avoiding blame for contingency planning failures instead of focused on providing true, accurate, not-misleading and helpful information.

Here's an example from the United States Surgeon General:

Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!

They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

You want people to believe that your plan is to use these ineffective masks to protect healthcare workers? Are the healthcare workers a different species than the general public?
Honestly being able to zoom anywhere is a feature not a bug.
> Working out in a mask is very tough. It is a difficulty enhancement.

I bike 25km every day wearing a full P100 respirator, the kind with replaceable cartridges that catch organic vapors, like for spraying paint.

It’s fine, and not a significant burden. People complaining about masks are just that: complaining. Respirators are built for doing hard, strenuous labor in hazardous conditions. If demo crews can manage it, so can anyone else.
The argument is generally that a single UBI system has lower friction than many disparate social support programs.

The goal is to remove food stamps, income insurance (the dole, welfare, whatever you want to call it), rent subsidies, etc. All replaced with a single cash payment. Fewer programs, no income validation, no enforcement action after the fact, etc.

This also has the benefit of reducing friction on the consumption side. No need to exchange food stamps for cash at 50% face value in order to by beer, just take some of the cash and buy beer. Empower individuals to live how they want.
If you got your hands on the devkit without signing the NDA with Sony you could release details about how it works.