skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not amusing; it's reflective of the fact that severe alcohol withdrawal can kill, or easily put you in the ICU, which isn't great when we need ICU capacity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome

> In the Western world about 15% of people have problems with alcoholism at some point in time. About half of people with alcoholism will develop withdrawal symptoms upon reducing their use, with four percent developing severe symptoms. Among those with severe symptoms up to 15% die.
Taxes like this appear to be quite unpopular though, right? You would expect this to help solve issues in, say, California's tech areas but I think many would agree that it hasn't happened. I'd be curious about whether a result like that is inevitable or just how it turned out this time.
You can't eat insurance money.

We are lucky to live in a age of a dramatic global decline in famine, but a large scale war or natural disaster could potentially unravel this progress in a devastating way.

Subsidies can do preventative tasks that insurance cannot -- like securing additional capacity of food stores and farm land that farmers wouldn't normally do unless they were being paid to do so.
If this was true, we'd see landlords with paid-off mortgages waiving the rent. Since we don't see this on any major scale, we can only conclude that mortgages are inconsequential to landlords demanding rent-payments.
> You're being down-voted because snitches get stitches. Don't be the neighborhood rat.

That ethic is really counterintuitive to me. I'd be really interested if you want to expound on it a bit.

E.g., Are there limits to where you'd apply it? Does it apply to laws that you (personally) do want to have vigorously enforced?
We use tmate for support and have it configured with our own relay. If you use it just for one-offs this is probably too much hassle though.
I think this will happen too.
> I feel like generalized algebraic data types are a strictly better pattern to follow to solve the issue of restricting type variable bindings to specific types.

GADTs which don't store a value based on one of their type parameters are still making use of phantom types. The key concept with a GADT is that you can have type variable binding(s) (whether phantom or concrete) which are determined by the constructor. If you aren't taking advantage of that then you're probably just defining an ordinary data type using GADT syntax.
For those who are interested and found the article interesting there are additional posts in this series. The second[0] and third[1] posts are quite neat.

[0]: https://0x434b.dev/breaking-the-d-link-dir3060-firmware-encr...

[1]: https://0x434b.dev/breaking-the-d-link-dir3060-firmware-encr...
Are MacBooks any good for graphics? :-O
Strip away the clickbait 'Germany begins' headline and it's 'a pro-UBI lobbying group adds 120 people to its latest trial'
>have provisions for extraordinary measures in extraordinary situations.

And the legal justification by which those measures apply to a situation that is going on half a year is dubious at best. The legality of those measures themselves is also generally dubious from a constitutional law perspective. Most of them have never been meaningfully challenged because they've mostly been used for short term emergencies at this point. The legislatures need to nut up and to their damn jobs. They've had nearly 6mo at this point.
If the income from teaching yoga is what feeds and shelters you then yes, teaching yoga is essential.
Did you read the linked article? Sounds like some people are having some issues with stability of Roam. It's one of the things first talked about in the article.
Could it also be that being screwed is a matter of perspective? I imagine in a non-insignificant number of the she-screwed-me-on-the-way-to-the-top cases that the alleged screwee is sour because he or she missed an opportunity or simply was not the better candidate for the promotion?

I'm not being a contrarian, but I think it's interesting how our biases and perspectives shape the way we understand things and situations. I've noticed people (myself included, no don't) trying to spin a situation to make them look or feel like a victim instead of admitting they were simply not as good as the alleged screwer. Not sure if I'm even stating this correctly, but maybe someone can help me elaborate.
This resonates with my own experience: "Although most people look forward to vacations and days off, most successful people I know dread them."—working more hours was a socially acceptable route to not dealing with my own sh*t.
HN loves to riff on cancelled Google products, but Google is essentially throwing products at the market to see what sticks profitably. It's worked in the past and most consumers (outside of HN) still don't care about the failed products.
There’s also no obvious market factor incentivizing modernization of old RE let alone efficiency.
And no one should report rapists, robbers or money launderers, amirite?
One word I am surprised the author did not use in this article is patience. Successful people are used to being in a hurry. It takes practice to have patience with yourself, and patience with others.

Another problem that I struggle with, and I'm sure "successful" people do as well, is chronic pain. Sometimes it's just bad luck, or an old injury; or maybe you have sacrificed your health to get more work done (in the short term). Many long-term problems are invisible; you never know who is struggling on the inside.
I mean even existing non-mobile companies.
Hard to say now if it will actually be MORE efficient or environmentally friendly, but initial indications once price parity is achieved would lean to YES. In terms of timeline, reports show at least 5 years before it can hit the grocery stores and that doesn't take into account the regulation. Here is a good resource that shows the process, companies making it, etc. https://cellbasedtech.com/lab-grown-meat
Gyms have benefits, sure, but he's responding to someone treating it as either go to the gym or get no exercise. He's pointing out alternatives. They don't need to be as good to be relevant.

The fact that push-ups exist refutes the false dilemma. The fact that gyms exist does not refute the idea that you can stay fit without a gym.
bigCGI: A serverless computing platform harnessing the ancient magic of CGI
Doesn’t matter. Look at those who try to ban guns and free speech. Millions use both responsibility every day. Besides science has shown little benefit to alcohol and tobacco and no benefit to junk food.

What we need is to ban cooking at home. Government soup kitchens. All consumption needs to be documented and controlled.
I was only saying that we managed just well enough without firefighters and medics for thousands of years, had they been really “essential” we would have kept/invented those trades well before we actually did. Were you to have asked my peasant grandmother what she reguarded as more essential between a doctor and a priest she would have totally chosen the priest, reason being that she knew she was going to die anyway (we all will) but the priest was one of the only persons who could take care of her soul.

Again, doctors and firefighters might look “essential” for a secular and technological society like ours (one where we’re afraid of death and where we value physical stuff that could burn) but that hasn’t always been the case. It still isn’t in many parts of the world.
*refined sugar, not all sugar.

sugar in a whole fruit aren't bad, the fibers in the fruit help your body break down and absorb the sugar over a longer period of time.

just don't eat refined food.
233 comments in this thread as of this writing. Not a single mention of the word "taxes".
I agree it contributes, but the problem is that fossil fuels are cheap and convenient. Getting rid of meat would delay the problem but not solve it.

I'm very skeptical that climate change can lead to extinction. Maybe civilizational collapse (I don't believe it will though), but there is no plausible path to extinction.
I agree, the top poster is essentially advocating for complete and total tyranny of the Communist order. Telling on people who don't necessarily agree with the official narrative, it's essentially thought policing.

Edit: If you don't like what I said then go work for Xi Jinping. It's no secret a lot of people in tech are crypto or full-blown Communists. Telling on people for wanting to get on with their lives is nothing short of Commissar tactics.
I could believe that some form of high resolution and high speed radar combined with some form of "gun" could solve the problem - similar to Israel's Iron Dome, blast whatever is detected and deemed dangerous away or out of the way.

Compressed air or another gas could work IMO as a first step, we already have the basic tech for that in trash sorting solutions.
> if most people’s lives were fulfilling, we wouldn’t see that much technological progress

Which then makes you wonder: do we really need that much technological progress?

I love technology, especially when it helps people lead better lives. But if we are just developing it without real purpose and mentally/emotionally enslaving ourselves to do it, then it seems self-defeating.
All I'm saying is that Google earns X from selling phones, Y from ads. Apple earns Z from selling phones, and 0 from ads.

GP is claiming that Apple is doing better in the phone space, because Z>X. But the appropriate comparison is not Z vs. X, but (Z+0) vs. (X+Y).
> Aren't all rules imaginary?

Rules are agreements between people. They're binding in the sense that we value our reputations, and we value not having to pay the consequences - often formally recorded - of not abiding by them.

Did the people making the agreements imagine doing so, or did it really happen?

Are the consequences real, and enforced, or are they just words?

If the rule is enforced, it is not imaginary at all.

> We've decided this rule must remain in place, because it's a rule.

This is the sane default position. If you don't understand a rule enough to be convinced it is problematic, it's safer to leave it in place than allow someone to erode it. Certainly the people in charge of rules should be able to understand them, but I'll take people who don't understand the rules and yet faithfully follow them over people who don't understand them and throw them away.
US didn't have a federal strategy to deal with the pandemic. They shot at their own foot and didn't give themselves a chance to be successful.

The rest of the (developed, and many underdeveloped) world dealt with it and are moving on. I'm watching Champions league finals on TV and Wuhan pool party clips on twitter, thinking wtf went wrong here.
They don't always, but the obvious/boring thing to do is to start with a shape that tiles the plane, like rectangles or hexagons. A Penrose tiling might be an interesting approach to take.

I discovered these a few years back: https://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/shop/ and I really dig 'em. They might be using a grid in some cases--but if so it's pretty hard to tell.

I'm working on my fourth. It's hard to worry about the apocalypse when the complexity of the puzzle requires your whole brain to make progress.
I'm not saying communicating other ways is not possible, but the majority of people actually do care about "blue bubbles vs green bubbles".
I dunno, just went to the site and the front page is 80% alt-right conspiracy theories. Also, the second DDG result for “ruqqus” is a Qanon sub.
On Teaching Mathematics (1997)
It reminds me of stateful services in .Net and Java. They break tabbed navigation, back and refresh (they often come with explicit warning), freeze and logout when the connection gets flaky, does weird things in case you were logged out.

How will this win over autoscaled stateless web services?
Incorrect. When starship is flying space missions will cost a few million in lox and liquid methane. No precious resources involved.

This is not an either/or choice - we can both improve life on earth and expand into space, and we will.
The strangest part to me is that the one block is stuck 10 years behind the rest of the neighborhood, in terms of recency of the photo, even though the house in question doesn’t exist at the later time—it wouldn’t appear, and wouldn’t need blurring.

It’s as though Google Maps is inadvertently preserving the house’s horrific legacy by refusing to forget, and refusing to let it disappear.
The danger is not in banning products with added sugar, but in the government having the power to regulate what one may do with one's body. If I wish to drink beer, smoke cigarettes and drink/do coke, that is my decision.

The primary argument against that is that it puts strain on society to provide for people when they experience health issues from that. I have paid my entire life for social health programs and health insurance though, why? So I will be nannied until the age of 90, eating only approved healthy food and doing no activity that may be in some way risky?

If we are going to ban dangerous things which people do for no reason other than they enjoy it, should we go after scuba diving and mountain climbing too after we ban Snickers?
That doesn't really go any way towards explaining why Canada, Europe or the Oceania[1] democracies have done so well in the crisis - nor does it explain how Brazil has done so poorly.

I think there is more counter evidence then supporting evidence for authoritarian governments being necessary for dealing with pandemics.

1. Please note - comparatively well, Canada, Europe & Oceania aren't doing perfect they're just doing significantly better than the states.
No, it is an ordinary claim, requiring ordinary evidence.

The Egyptians had no magic powers. They had population, surplus food, and regular human ingenuity. Anywhere that happens, civilization arises, like desert wildflowers after a rain. If the wildflowers don't bloom, that requires explanation.

You do understand that we need evidence for everything, right?

But bending over backward to try to discount the evidence we have because it must be not just regular, workaday evidence, but extraordinary evidence, is not science. It is, instead, hardscrabble turf defense, and nothing to brag about.
Get this straight - it was essentially bribing four of their workers to make an "authenic" iPod that had added functionality to secretly gather it. An overpriced pork bespoke hardware hacking project, not adding bugs to every iPod produced or anything. If anything they would be annoyed not grateful over the covert poaching and they certainly would get blocked if they tried to sue anyone over it but the losses were petty/background cost of doing business anyway.

There isn't any factual basis where that incident contribuites to that fallacious narrative. If I were a plumber and doing work on a CIA building they might do a background check so deep that it finds and analyzes any colon polyps to ensure I won't
be planting any bugs in the plumbing but it doesn't mean "I am pretty much the CIA."
And yet Trump is doing basically same thing. Toppling our government, this time with sanctions.

50 years later when Iranian did see US as enemy, don’t act surprised. This is what Trump sows.
Build a do-it-yourself air purifier for about $25
Then why are you acting surprised that stocks are going up, even going so far as to call it "stupid?"
> we are faring pretty well economically.

"We" as in "tech workers making several times the min wage" ? Or "we" as "people who already lived in precarious conditions before covid" ?

Not to rain on your parade but _a lot_ of people are _very badly_ affected by the situation, especially in the US.
Really? This seems like a pretty clear explanation to me.

They are required by law to provide information. That's not selling... that's just complying with their obligation to provide certain data.

And they charge a fee for it.

In other words, if you want to prevent them from providing information, you need to change the laws requiring they share information.
Its supposed to reduce it, but we don't know how much. We also don't know how well those standards are adhered to.

Could you link the study that backs the 1%? How is that statement better than just coming up with a number?
> We have to assume that smart people are working at Reddit

I wish more people in HN thought this way. Perhaps it's there because it's working and getting better engagement is the way to go.
My reply will probably get drowned out, but part of what's going on here (for me at least) is Google Amp. I browse reddit as a registered user, and I set the flag for them to stop directing me to the app on mobile. The problem is, if a Google search sends me to a reddit page, because that page is generally served via Amp, it doesn't have my user details, so I get hassled about this.

As a test, I switched to Bing. Problem went away. I'm assuming there's some way to disable Amp on Google as well for my account, but I haven't gone any further in researching this.
Murdering people is wrong (at a surface level that requires no moral understanding), because it is illegal (and therefore you'll face consequences from other people), because it is wrong (because it is immoral).

There's no circular logic there at all. The second "because it is wrong" is shorthand for more complex moral reasoning that most people don't need to know - who cares if they know it, when the goal is simply to cut down on the murdering?
Show HN: API to open a link in a secure remote isolated browser context
Because I am already taking a 1/500 chance of death in the next year and I can't do anything about that, so when probabilities get small enough I stop caring. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
Such as?

Corrupt behavior of government employees is already illegal, so if your concern is that they'd approve R&D funding for a drug and development company they have a financial stake in, that wouldn't be allowed and would be dealt with, unless they can prove that the drug really should be developed and the company getting the contract and funding really is the best choice.

Same goes for the manufacturing side, once the drug is approved.

And for the approval process, what perverse incentives would be created that don't already exist, and are already being dealt with? Today, anyone at the FDA who approves a drug that they've got some way to benefit from is already breaking the law.
Answered here:

> My boss was told I was working on a special project and not to ask questions.
So it's not controversial to suggest a poor diet leads to things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease, nor is it controversial to suggest that the novel coronavirus is much more deadly for people with preexisting conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

For some reason though, if I put those two things together and suggest people eat healthier during this pandemic, it's this incredibly controversial thing to say, at least where I live in the US.
Heh, despite the fact that you are being rude to me I'll still answer in good faith because the distinction is important.

If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses (yes a once in a century event) are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities.

I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. But we've known for months that this isn't nearly as bad as feared. It isn't the second coming of smallpox. Yet we still have most of the restrictions and shaming from March, even to this day.
It sounds like it was really just a few hours of one engineer’s time, when he didn’t have any imminent deadlines. Not enough to compromise any ongoing projects.
Been using BB10 Passport for past year as a daily driver. I wished a next gen device with BB10 would be available in the same format.
Next up: Chromecast

(We desperately need an alternative to Chromecasts, they are becoming too dominant)
Only 30 countries with a larger government revenue than about 100 billion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...
How long until it's you the one that needs to be banned?

I sincerely hope there is someone there to stand for you.
I don't really understand how this train of thought seems viable. Even the most profitable company in the world might be overvalued and then this investment isn't safe but risky, especially if the profit is primarily from rising prices and not dividends. So, how can one think there is no alternative and it's "safe"?
> You’re right, I’m an economist, not a doctor. So I look at the world in terms of trade offs. And the trade offs western societies have made with this virus are so unlike the trade offs made with any other infectious disease in recent memory that it makes me concerned about what the new trade offs will be going forward.

I would hope economists would make judgements based on more than aping what happened "in recent memory," but somehow I'm not surprised. IIRC the last time we had major pandemic like this, gathering places were closed (like now), social distancing was done (like now), masks were worn (like now), and some people chafed against the restrictions and decided that it was better to endanger others (like now).
I think you missed the point here. It is not about the benefits of chess or minecraft, but the fact that he started sinking all of his available time into it, and hence didn’t participate in other activities anymore (such as playing chess). Games and videos are notoriously addictive.
Probably out of good faith. Can't be accused of not helping the US government. Also sets a bar of how much help they'll willing to offer. Maybe also wanted control over who had access to their information, rather give it to them then have it stolen
In app purchases are a huge market. This site puts it at $50 billion a year in the US alone:

https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/15/app-stores-saw-record-204-...

It's a huge market and Apple takes a 30% cut of that for not doing too much. The margins have to be bonkers.
Here's the link to the original article - https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret-ip...
This is incorrect.

Honestly - I can't blame anybody who could be found lurking, let alone posting on hackers news to think there's no way that this isn't common sense. However, it's not. It's really, unfortunately, very far from it in the U.S.

I now cannot easily find it (at least in a brief search on Google) because of recent bullshit regarding the keywords, but a few years back, there was a medical case that briefly made news. Woman in her thirties, not mentally deficient (by any diagnosis anyways), job holding, etc - was hospitalized at near death from a variety of issues that had gradually become quite severe.

Cause of the issues? She'd, by her, family, and friends accounts, not drank plain water in years, pushing near a decade. The majority of her fluid intake, that entire time, had been Coors Light (sparingly sodas, other sugary/alcoholic drinks that weren't plain water). Her justification as to why she had no idea this could cause any bodily harm is because it was "light"

It's bad. Truthfully, I'm happy for you that you get to live a life where you don't know/haven't been exposed to how bad. But, it's bad and I don't see it getting better any time soon.
Also, banks tightened lending standards for real estate (commoners). My guess is that they didn't do the same for corporations. So all the money went to corporations... Probably stock buybacks; so it went to shareholders; tax-free too; and even when the shareholders decide to sell, they'll only pay capital gains tax, which is lower than income tax.

The stock market is a scam. A the biggest pyramid scheme the world has ever seen. CEOs who understand how the system works and willingly participate in it are criminals.