skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I absolutely am capable of masonry, I just don't do it much because I'm also capable of getting (by using money) someone else who's capable and willing to do it for me. Same applies to just about any other thing anyone outsources in their lives, but the end result is the same - the advanced work gets done. Other animals don't demonstrate any of that.
Why would you (Google) not prefer for someone else (yahoo!) to pay for something that benefits you? That Yahoo! leadership didn't renew the contract should tell you how much being a default search engine is actually worth. Why would you (actual you) believe that Google would provide nearly all of a "competitor's" revenue? that somehow makes more sense? The pontificating about privacy Mozilla does is total nonsense. They serve their users up to Google's surveillance enterprise without hesitation. They're a puppet to fool gullible hipsters with fashionable social statements.
>they just suffer the consequences of their addiction

No, their family and society as a whole suffer as well. I'd even go on to say that drug addiction is usually more destructive towards others than towards the addicted individuals themselves.

I'm not advocating for keeping the so called "war on drugs" up, but let's be real here, people.
Apparently that's not known to science, but I feel certain that it's genetic, innate and not learned. It's inconceivable that I'll ever "acquire" a tolerance for that vile inedible substance. My partner loves it though.

https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-liquorice-whether...

https://www.shared.com/your-black-licorice-preference-depend...
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it is relevant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the Constitution.
كلمات اغنية اخفيت جرحي عبدالعزيز العليوي
I can see that happening, but I don't think a private business should be forced to do it.

Now, I think they should do it, but because they want to. If anyone is to take action, I think the way to go is to reach the obese people and help them. Explain why they should not visit the restaurant anymore.
> One of the frequent comments on HN in the past is "HN may not be the targeted demographic."

I saw a similar comment here before that made sense to me: "The more Apple distanced itself from power users, the more money they made".
Blacklight, a tool to see how the websites you visit are tracking you
Show HN: Summarize links you are about to share
I go maybe a step further: I send out project-specific surveys that have things like impact metrics (How significant has the impact of Project X been, in terms of dollars, hours of effort, or deals won), classic NPS type questions (If a similar situation arose in the future, how likely would you be to reach out to me/my team for help?), and questions that dive into how the project went, how it was organized, and more.

I really should turn that into a business now that I think about it.
That's uncomfortably close to Eurocentric claims of superiority that point to their colonization and exploitation of other countries in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century.

I don't necessarily buy it. A pacifist civilization might be "dominated" by a violent civilization, but they might still choose death over becoming violent themselves.
On the other hand, there are more kangaroos in Australia than people...

Or if that doesn't tickle you, how about: cockroaches!
My favorite quote to think about: What’s the biggest problem in your field and why aren’t you working on it?

Hamming knew how to make you think
Parental touch soothes pain signals in babies' brains
A quick lookup if you forget how to undo a Git commit
I think the ability to 'reprogram' oneself. We are currently more or less stuck with the genetic code we receive at birth. A species which is able to modify their code at will would be incredibly adaptable and would likely surpass us very quickly.
> It's a very acquired flavor...

I don't think that it is actually "acquired". You liked it as a child, and still do. I find it to be vile and inedible, and always have. This preference seems to innate and fixed.
Easier said than done. I developed a hearing aid app for iOS.
I tried to do this sort of thing for many years, with mixed results. One constant is that no matter the outcome of my efforts, whether something I built made the company money or was a waste, there was seldom any kind of conclusion or major takeaway. Making an impact has rarely helped me, not with promotions or prestige or even with getting a raise. Impact has been disconnected from any sort of return almost everywhere I have worked.

What does get rewarded is your social network and your ability to present yourself in a pleasing manner. Even the concept of "career growth" seems like a relic from a bygone age, as if it were possible to measure a human's value to their company on some linear scale, when in fact the vast majority of "growth" along that scale simply results in a schedule packed with inane, endless meetings. Meetings in which social network and presentation come to dominate a structure that can be accurately described as a primitive pecking order. The value of expertise rapidly decays in rooms where no one actually does anything anymore.

The advice in this article seems to be that if you just keep your head down and focus on making these impacts, someone, someday is sure to notice. It might take 20 years of being a doormat for the politicians, but you'll have retained your dignity (just perhaps not your keen sense of irony). And on that fabled judgement day, when at last your patience and diligence are recognized by a panel of wizened software elders, you will have earned passage into programmer Valhalla (another dev job, almost certainly reporting to another politician).

My advice, would be to completely ignore all the performative speeches given by HR and others up in the hierarchy about values and goals and whatnot, because what tends to win the day in any group of humans larger than a handful hasn't changed in thousands of years: power. You either have it, or you must ultimately become a sycophant. Anyone outside that binary can be safely ignored, regardless of their impact, and plenty of companies do indeed blunder along on pure momentum, essentially forever, happy to ignore or absorb any accidental impacts originating from the fringes.

As the article itself states, few care about company-wide success, only about whether they will personally benefit in some manner. It's a boring, reductive game in the end, but the good news is that it's really no one's fault, this is just how humans operate. Rather than appealing to the better angels of our nature, as this article nobly attempts, I posit it is better to accept the situation for what it is and make your peace with being stuck at whatever position in the hierarchy you can stomach sleazing your way into. The author would rather have you be an idealist, forever searching for the right group of leaders that will value your principles and your hard work. Feels a bit like titling at windmills to me, and perhaps as though the author is fluffing up their portfolio of "leaderly things I have said" in preparation for their next presentation.
But if we take time to consider that animals may posses intelligence and rich inner lives, then we may also have to consider that our treatment of them is monsterous. Can't have that.
I used to work at a university and helped build some code for a few neuroscience experiments to the question of lacking technologists - absolutely yes. They basically work with whoever the computer person is in the team/lab, and rarely budget for that as a specific part of their research because how do you even do that? These people are hyper specialized in their field.

This isn't 100% true everywhere, but for the average researcher I think it is true in almost all fields of research.

With my Linux knowledge I was able to turn our solar physics lab into a machine that could pump out way more data than it would have being built by a guy who mainly knew FORTRAN and VMS. (Paul if you are reading this, I'm exaggerating, you have a PhD and worked at the SuperComputing center and are a genius, but I hope you retired)

Even looking back, I could have done a whole lot more if I knew anything about AWS back then, which I didn't, so I used my budget on bare metal all the time, which was a huge waste of time and resources.

I also think there are other issues, because a lot of this research has to have a specific structure, you only get grants for what you propose, and they usually won't give you a ton of money for a wild new idea that's not based on some prior specific precedent.

The entire way we advance human knowledge is kind of fucked up but I don't have a better proposal :)
Cool, in the same vein they can fuck off from iPhones if they don't like the conditions.
Indeed. There was an HN post on the dark web markets a week or two ago. The cops identified the package and informed the post office. They called the recipient and said "there was an issue with the address on your package, can you come down and pick it up?"

If you know you're receiving drugs through the USPS that should have been a huge tip off and his response should have been "I'm not expecting a package. It's not mine."
You know what's bizarre for requiring a prescription? Peridex — chlorhexidine mouthwash.

You can buy chlorhexidine gluconate concentrate (which is still not all that "concentrated" — something like 2% w/v) in the form of a medical or veterinary scrub — or even a floor cleaner — over the counter. But dilute it to 0.15% (at which concentration it would now become not-painful to put it in your mouth; but also would cause it to expire after a couple of days) — and then add the stabilizers and preservatives to it necessary to have it last a few months at STP? Well, now it's a prescription product.

As far as I'm aware, there are no risks from "chronic" use of Peridex as one's every-day mouthwash. Chlorhexidine does the same thing the alcohol in regular mouthwash does — it kills bacteria in your mouth. The only difference is that chlorhexidine sticks around keeping your mucus membranes aseptic for around eight hours (if you don't eat anything), compared to an alcoholic mouthwash's couple-of-minutes. So it actually protects you on a long-enough timescale for your body to get in there and clear out any biofilms causing you gingivitis, canker sores, enamel erosion, etc. — rather than just treading water in the fight against those.

I almost wonder whether the mouthwash companies are in some sort of mutually-assured destruction arrangement, where they all would like chlorhexidine mouthwash to be something they could sell OTC, but they don't want their competitor to be the first to sell it OTC (and win the market by advertising increased effectiveness), and they're willing to lobby to keep it prescription-only so that that doesn't happen.
> If federal CDC has authority over state evictions

The authority for this order is somewhat dubious; the statute can be read that way, but it requires almost the maximal possible reading of the law.

And that's without considering the Constitutional parameters of the issue, though Commerce Clause jurisprudence may be broad enough to make this nonproblematic as far as federal authority, but there are also nondelegation concerns with unbounded delegation to the executive.

> does federal also have authority over state lockdowns, reopening and choice of essential business?

Probably, and a lot more (and not just during a global pandemic, either), again, if the eviction rule is valud. There's probably some limits even so (you have to be able to at least spin a tenable protection against communicable disease angle.)
It’s still like that, except now they’ll be able to sell futures contracts for it.
The same 30% that they take on XBox? You also have to pay MS a license fee for every game sold on the XBox - whether digital or physical.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/as-epic-attacks-apple...
Sounds very related: https://80000hours.org/

80,000 hours is roughly how much we'll spend in our lives at work. If we focus that energy and attention well, we can accomplish a lot of good in the world.

See: Effective Altruism
Amazon announces Luna game-streaming platform
> - abstract interpretation using a streamlined version of the octagon domain.

Do you have any links/source code where I can read up about this (possibly in the context of compilers)? I've never heard of the term octagon domain before.
I really do wonder how humans would've adapted had we been aquatic animals. Energy usage via fire is not possible, and it seems other energy usage under water is much harder than simply creating fire, so we could still have the same level of intelligence as now, yet be so far behind technologically than we are now.
> the downside of functional testing is that it's slower

This is certainly true in some situations, but not all, and I think it's important to make decisions based on the tech stack and tools available. For example, I've found that React + Enzyme + jsdom is a way to write frontend functional tests that are both fast and reliable, so in a codebase like that, I strongly prefer functional tests because they provide much more confidence. I've also found this to be true for software running against low-complexity data stores that are easy to fake, and for things like compilers that are running fully in-memory anyway.

> when a functional test fails it not obvious what is broken

FWIW, I've found that with a good debugger, it's usually pretty quick to start with a functional test failure and trace the issue to the level of specificity that I'd have if it was a unit test failure. But like the other point, I'm sure it depends a lot on context.
WHATWG is also somewhat less subtly a vehicle for Google to turn Chrome into the only functioning web browser.
effective -> selfish seems equally scientific
How could a human physically come close to building a microchip? We're much, much, much too large for that to be possible.
The idea behind semantic web was to embed intelligence in web content through semantic markup, so that downstream agents could make sense of the content.

However the semantic web didn't have a business model to drive adoption. It assumed web content would be authored with semantic indicators that could later be harvested usefully (including commercially), but failed to consider what incentive or economic paradigm would compel content authors to embed semantic indicators.

Meanwhile, the problem/opportunity was solved in other ways.

Consider this example:

- - -

The promise: machine intelligence

“At the doctor's office, Lucy instructed her Semantic Web agent through her handheld Web browser. The agent promptly retrieved information about Mom's prescribed treatment from the doctor's agent, looked up several lists of providers, and checked for the ones in-plan for Mom's insurance a 20 mile radius of her home and with a rating of excellent or very good on trusted rating services. It then began trying to find a match between available appointment times (supplied by the agents of individual providers through their Web sites) and Pete's and Lucy's busy schedules.”

(The emphasized keywords indicate terms whose semantics, or meaning, were defined for the agent through the Semantic Web.)

- - -

The problem was solved by commercial services e.g. google maps in which the semantic layer is provided, retained and exploited by the service aggregator, google, which monetises the service through advertising.

Ironically, "machine intelligence" has not come to mean semantically enriched source documents, but rather, elaborate computationally intensive processes applied to harvest commercial opportunities from unenriched web content.
On the other hand, a Playstation 5 is $500 plus $50-$70 per game. A PC is even more expensive for the latest hardware. At $6/month it would take you 7 years before it costs you more renting than owning at which point there could be a PS6 and more games to buy.

For someone like me that rarely plays games, I'll probably sign up for a few months to play something that interests me then cancel it after I lose interest. I'll enjoy not having a console I hardly ever use sitting around collecting dust.

The fragmentation with movies/tv platforms has been awful, but Spotify has been amazing for music. I've probably listened to more music than I could ever afford otherwise. I don't think the price of movies has really changed either and you can still purchase them, so people are definitely making a choice to go with streaming over physical ownership. Go to any Goodwill and you will see shelves of discarded VHS and DVDs. I don't think people want to buy the VHS, then the DVD, then the BluRay, then the 4K BluRay and whatever 8K thing comes after anymore. Technology is changing so rapidly that's it better to pay a pittance each month now and wait for the next better thing just around the corner.
I was misunderstood, my bad, bad writing.

My question/wondering was on: why the hell would someone buy drugs online, and how to they accept the risk on consuming these when they arrive. Buying an iPhone cable online is a risk I can accept. Buying heroin online (I don't do drugs) it goes beyond me on the risk acceptance of such deed.

I get it that darkweb has a scoring system like Amazon, eBay, Etsy, but heroin? Cocaine? Weed?

It is not about "police can't charge you" it is about "who the hell is going to inject something that was bought on the darkweb in their veins??

What goes through their mind? I assume not much since these are people who buy heroin, online.. so that answers my question.
The 100GB of game data I have to wait around to download.

The 100GB of streamed frames happen while I'm playing so I don't care.

This benefit is for those who value their time highly and want something to 'just work' without having to bother with installing stuff, updating, buying and setting up new hardware every year, etc.

Imagine you only have 30 mins a month to do gaming... Like many busy adults... With a PS4 or PC, you'd spend most of your 30 mins waiting for updates to complete.
I am following the "Compiling a Lisp" series, its great, please keep posting, and thanks for your effort.
> Besides lacking thumbs, dolphins would also have a pretty hard time harnessing fire as a tool.

I keep reading about this, and I don't see it as a major problem.

Sure, it might take a while for them to even grasp the concept of fire. Much like it took us a while to grasp relativity.

However, once they know it to be possible, it's an engineering problem. They can build their forges above water. Holding breath to operate them (until they can do it remotely) is inconvenient but they are pretty good at it.

There's also a fair bit of construction they could do without even resorting to that. Humans can weld underwater. They could too.
Out of interest, what was their tech stack based on?
Wireguard and HIP don't allow people to reserve human-chosen names in a single namespace and then resolve conflicts between users trying to reserve the same name. Solving that problem in a trustless decentralized way takes a blockchain-type system. (The problem is sometimes called "Zooko's Triangle". There weren't any known good solutions to it before Bitcoin happened.)
That’s the silliest perspective on this case you could have. Apple gave publishers the right to set their own prices, but in return required they don’t undercut those prices on other platforms.

Apple had only a a small market share at the time.
Publishers could have said, nah, we are happy with Amazon, and refused to agree to Apple’s terms. This is about as clear a free market as one gets, that it became an antitrust issue shows how crazytown antitrust law has become.

This was attractive to Publishers because they were terrified of an Amazon monopoly. Amazon selling ebooks at cost did nothing for Publishers long term because it was killing other ebook competitors. This offered a viable competitor to be an ebook outlet.

Instead the misguided Justice department and a judge made Apple back down and what do we have now? Exactly what publishers feared, an Amazon monopoly.
Yet. Coexisting near humans, it's likely that the environment will incentivize smarter raccoons.
Show HN: Wttime – A Fuzzy Time Parser
Uhh, kubernetes would be an immediate example. A massive piece of software that has been adapted into every major cloud provider, with all those cloud providers working on that same piece of software.

While Google may have done it to make their own Cloud offering better, it ultimately has succeeded in saturating the container compute market and with their own success has brought plenty of competition.
The question is whether anyone has actually done that in reality rather than telling stories about the theory.
this hits home. I worked on a team that wasn't high priority. I had issues getting our teams features prioritized cause every team had about 6-8 dependent teams in order to ship something and when I had these discussions to get our work on other teams backlog's, I was told they didn't have the bandwidth to do work for low priority teams.

I needed my bosses help getting my teams work prioritized on the global roadmap. He informed that our team just wasn't high priority enough this quarter. Then fast forward too performance review he said I didn't do enough to get work prioritized.

I quit 3 weeks later.
It's interesting, I think I would broadly characterize a lot of the preening work as administrative type tasks, like writing down a process for something as you say, or making a style guide, or a maintaining a table of something, etc.

And what I have observed happens is that some people (higher ups) assume that this kind of administration is actually "management" or "leadership" and promote people, who themselves think that administration is leadership, etc.

The solution is probably to work somewhere else, but I think the root cause is the bundling of admin or coordination type work with seniority and leadership, where somehow it is assumed that because you're a better administrator that e.g. technical direction should also rest with you.
One of my friends worked directly under one of the brothers. He had to double any of his objectives: his revenue goals, his hiring goals, his layoff goals. Whatever it was, he had to double it. It was to the point of absurdity. He would be berated for any missed goal.

Samwer brothers never cared for innovation. They picked whatever worked in the US and made a copy. They could either sell to the the US market leader, as they did with their first company when they sold to eBay, or IPO. All that mattered was to grab the market and get investors to value on the growth.

And to be first, they hired new grads or junior McKinseys they could impress with high pay while giving monkey equity, while pressuring at will.
You can actually see one of the inspectors in the photo with the networks. He looks precisely as I imagined.
"It sounds like the law enforcers need to do better at enforcing the law"

While true, it's a non-sequitur.

OP made the point that banks serve criminals and asked then who are the "real crooks". You asked if bankers can serve everyone neutrally rather than be expected to exercise "personal morality". Which is a fair question in my opinion

Questions of individual moral duty aside, however, banks are not merely neutral when the law forbids them from specific activity and they decide to do it anyway.

Now your goalpost appears to be that banks should be able to do whatever they want if law enforcement cannot do anything about it, which is a very strange stance, to be honest