skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Scientists can't prove anything. They can only make statistical correlations and establish causation to a degree.

What this means is that whenever you use the word "prove" with "science" it is colloquial. It is always colloquial.

The statistical methods used in social sciences are no different than the statistical methods used to "prove" things in physics.
I was wondering where I knew that name from... there's a module about Ryan & CircleUp in the HBS Disruptive Innovation Course - https://online.hbs.edu/courses/disruptive-strategy/

It was one of the more interesting companies profiled and I found the module very cool. If you read this Ryan - thanks for being part of it, and all the best for the future.
I think the target market might not be considered. Warehouse's, professional shoppers, emergency services strike me as prime customers. Maybe even office buildings to help people find meeting rooms and people's desks.
Doomscrolling is objectively the best thing that I can do for the environment. If I put my phone down, I'd get bored, be productive, and probably make stuff. No good comes of that.

People aren't stupid. But there's little incentive to exercise one's intelligence, once the dopamine pathways get plowed the wrong way too many times.
The only people who expected democrats to defend monopolies because they were ‘friends’ has either a very cynical or naive view of the influence of business on the Democratic Party, and very little historical perspective.

Arguments that would essentially allow monopolistic behavior has pretty much always been firmly inside republican laissez-faire circles, and those allies are still very much there. Railing against tech elites may play great for tv, but let’s be honest - Peter Thiel, strong advocate of monopoly, still spoke at the Republican national convention. There’s a good reason they overruled fact-checkers when conservatives violated their prescribed rules, they know where their bread is buttered.

https://www.engadget.com/facebook-overruled-fact-checkers-to...
> which led to the rise of Trump

Trump is just a middle finger to the Democrats woke policies coming from social science university labs and generally more artistic people, which indeed tends to be over representated in the entertainment industry.
Fantasy Books of All Time
Trees are regularly using in OSINT

This is great for the military. Scary and interesting times.

I saw a celebrity post from their backyard the other day. That's as good as a GPS location, except it still takes time.

This needs to be automated for real time location data. Startup idea, facial recognition is old, tree and structure recognition is cool.
That makes a lot of sense. I'd be curious for a link or reference to that research if you remember any details.
Reading this is like reading about my own experience. I went through a similar period several years ago as an executive. I was leading engineering for three separate products and dealing with some very difficult stakeholders. I was also in a new relationship that I was trying very hard to maintain. The stress of all these things happening to me at once was colossal. I experienced a constellation of bad health symptoms. What I can't believe, in hindsight, was when I asked my doctor if this could be stress related. He asked, "do you feel stressed?" I thought for a second and said, "no."

I've never written anything about that time, despite wanting to, but this is the thread I wish I could write. Details aside the emotions are all the same. It felt cathartic to read this.
Oracle purchased Java (and MySQL) 2 years after Google made Android a huge success, specifically for litigation purposes.

It's not like Oracle designed Java, and then Google stole it. Java was supposed to be open. It was designed for this intent. Oracle bought it to destroy everything Java was supposed to be, and to prey on anyone who used Java for what it was designed to do.

When you can no longer innovate, you litigate.
Not to be confused with the earlier language named Neon, which was an object-oriented Forth.
I think many neurotypical people suffer from the same information overload, in that they treat mainstream media news the same way that many conspiracy theory enthusiasts treat their "news": zero skepticism (someone I trust said it is true, so I will accept it as true, regardless of the quality of or existence of evidence).

Now obviously there's a significant difference in degree of accuracy between the two worlds, but then one shouldn't forget that they're not dealing with equally difficult stories to investigate, or have access to the same investigative resources. Regardless, the same illogical behavior can be observed in both types, and an overload of complexity & information sounds like a very reasonable explanation.
Go back to reddit zoomer.
> The Tokio team plans to release Tokio 1.0 by the end of December 2020.

Shout out to the great work the Rust and Tokio community has put in to the Asynchronous IO ecosystem! Glad to see this happening.
I agree and I'd like to go further:

If you're out and about and a person comes up to you and shouts about how the world is controlled by goats in cow suits, your brain will quickly assess the trustworthiness of this person. Is the person wearing clothes? Is the person rambling/coherent/visibly intoxicated? Are the person's eyes shifting around/manic looking? Does the person smell weird? (I am making up random examples, but I am sure there are many things that every person will look at to gauge trustworthiness).

Most of the above goes out of the window on the internet. Even the shouting part does not usually manifest itself into a website comment (ALL CAPS is less offensive than someone actually shouting in your ear/many people don't know the connotation).
I think this theory is missing a component: the erosion of respect for experts. It at least seems like pre-internet, when people didn't understand the world around them they would default to trusting what scientists/doctors/researchers told them was true. But today, we've gone so far down the disinformation "fake news" rabbit hole that a large portion of the general public, at least in America, just straight up doesn't trust what actual experts have to say on many topics.
Got it, that makes a lot more sense.
> he should use official channels like a .gov web site to address the nation, where he can be held more accountable when spreading blatant falsehoods and certainly won't be censored.

I'm calling/writing my congress-critter today to ask that they look into doing exactly this
Sure, but it still wouldn't matter. It's not a good argument that Twitter "censoring" content actually has any relevant effect beyond its platform.
It's total absolute bullshit to say all police don't care about protecting you. You might have had poor experiences, but generalizing from that is a mistake.
It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to pretend that one side of the political spectrum is being oppressed even as they control 2/3 branches of government.
I don't follow your argument. Free Speech doesn't mean that anyone has an obligation to listen.

You can solve being saturated by noise on the listening side much better than on the sending side... much better because the listeners needs are diverse, because listeners must be robust against adversarial inputs (or otherwise the first madman with a random number generator floods you out), because the listeners time/sanity is what is at stake so that's where the incentives are, and so on.

The fight against entropy should be all of our missions but it can be accomplished without forcefully silencing people.
What infuriates me the most is that those assholes would pass a law without knowing what it means. UnFuckingBelievable, yet not.
These points are hard to understand for a layperson. People prefer simple messages like #takebackmath.
I think this is undoubtedly a relatively large contributor to the perception of modern stupidity.

Additionally, I read it as part of some of the written hypotheses, but, upon rereading, I don't know that the exact conditions are captured particularly well in any of them.
I suspect articles would be where you would go for "bullshit" as perhaps slightly more rigoriously quantifiable - stupidity is more a "in the wild thing". Generally bullshit is defined as a lack of concern for the truth vs what sounds good and supports the desired goal. A few axioms/metrics for "bullshit" for example:

1. Counts of unironic/unacknowledged logical fallacies - discussing psychology of loss aversion wouldn't be an example or even a strategic examination of loss aversion's performance and concluding it say has a niche. But stating it is better to not make an additional $10k without extra work or opportunity costs and pay a higher marginal tax rate on it? Flagged.
2. Claims which when examined closely are vacuous (having no meaning).
3. Unsupported claims which upon closer examination do not justify assertions but merely reassert more furiously.
4. Evasive chosen definitions that refuse to stay consistent as either specific or general in classifications.

One gap with it is a matter of hypotheticals and implications - even a theoretical model contrary to reality can be a demonstration against a hypothesis.

A fuzzier/snarkier example at a field level is a "SCI/Gen test" where even experts cannot distinguish noise from data indicates a lack of knowledge - although in a more positive sense it could just be a field's complexity being high such as description of a drug which interacts with proteins. I am no expert in it but given some infamously whimsical names they might not realize that a drug's complex organic compound that binds to the "Romero" prions wasn't a real specific subtype of prion without looking it up - let alone that the drug wouldn't bind with it let alone without unacceptable side effects.
Show HN: Redis Clone in TypeScript
> I just used one example as a point and it is much less important than issue of 3rd party verification. You don't know if manufacturer fixes the bug, when it is done and you never know if it regresses.

No need to preemptively audit the code, accident statistics will clearly indicate unsafe behavior and economic/insurance disincentives[0] will induce continual safety improvements. Either a car will be safe enough to operate or it won't -- remember ~40,000 people are killed by American drivers every year.

[0]The 'Fight Club' equation.
How is it inconvenient if, as you point out, you already have lightning infrastructure from the last 10 years of ownership? If anything, including usb-C to lightning is better for future proofing as it allows you to connect your phone to a new macbook for instance, which is capability you probably don't already have but may eventually need.
My theory has been that the stupidity is constant but the increasing accessibility of mass communication is allowing us to see more of it.
I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform".

If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff).

If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content.

Walking the line, and not wanting to take responsibility in some cases, but still deletin in other cases should be forbidden
Please stop spreading misinformation. It was only dark in the DVR footage provided by Uber. Actual photos show it was pretty well lit. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/uber-self-driving-tempe...

> Further, the report says that as long as Vasquez met the minimum visual acuity for a driver's license under Arizona law, and with the lighting conditions at the scene, she "could have seen and recognized that a person was walking across the road from a distance of 1700 feet away with or without the Volvo’s headlights."
Looking at the size of your catalog I'm going to guess that you didn't work with all those sites to distribute their apps through your site. Maybe I'm not understanding how this works, but wouldn't you need some sort of license to do this? If someone downloads the Gmail app from your catalog, but it doesn't work the same as the plain web client, they would probably blame Google and not you. I can't imagine Google would like that.
Right, and that would be a lack of the amplification which is exactly what's being discussed.
The formula for interpreting a rating out of 10 on an Uber service is (rating - 4) * 10.

It has to be very bad to dip below 4, so that 4.x is the only thing you really can look at.
Startups shouldn't negate the value of traditional marketing
It's disappointing how many examples in this thread are about lack of knowledge (or even just disagreeable beliefs).

If intelligence is taken to be about manipulating the world around you then this is to some extent connected to the ability to obtain and verify knowledge but the ability to act upon that knowledge is far more important. True stupidity is almost by definition self-defeating.

While I will admit that some supposed signs of stupidity whole 'flat earth' movement is catastrophically misguided, it is a bit sad to see people dismiss it with arguments that are somehow even worse than the ones given by the people who have somehow convinced themselves the earth isn't spherical (often with quite sophisticated, but wrong, arguments).
In the case of q-anon, that is exactly what happened. 4chan trolls were throwing spaghetti at the wall, seeing what would stick. Q-anon happened to stick, and off the rails it went.

There's been a bunch of people who have had "control" over Q in the past few years. The current Q, Jim Watkins, is thankfully the laziest and most boring of them, and hopefully the entire thing fades away after the election.
> I've engaged a few flat earthers to actually listen to their arguments

I found the best thing to do is stop there. Just listen, observe, try to understand. Be patient.

Unless someone comes to you asking a question, you're unlikely to change anyone's mind immediately, and even if they are asking opinions often change slowly if at all.

When we tell people they're wrong, we push them away a little, and our sphere of influence diminishes.
NYT's op-ed section is quite left-wing too.

They lost an editor for posting a mainstream opinion by an elected Republican... Note that they then shared the same sentiment about supporting police cracking down on protests in Hong Kong and received no internal pushback whatsoever.

The op-ed section isn't the news section. NYT is centre-left, NR is centre-right.

Anyway it won't hurt you to read things from the other perspective. The truth is often "in the middle" or only something you can triangulate after reading both sides.
Well. It seems like you can't narrate the latter without the former. What would you propose?
I don't feel attacked :) Some of these folks have indeed been randos from the Internet. Some of them are people that I've known well in real life and I'm convinced they genuinely think this. I could be fooled - I wouldn't know - but on my list of possible explanations, a desperate need for more attention than they otherwise get is high on the list.

I would suggest that it's possible this need is subconscious, and if they're believing nonsense because that need is so great, I'd consider that a mental illness.
Its is not censorship. No censorship has taken place. The article still exists on the NY Post web site and their newspaper. Their audience is still sizable.

Their article included personal information and was consistent with policies that have been in place for almost a year.

Twitter is not a public utility in the way that phone services are. They were (rightly) criticized along with others for letting mis-information run amok in the last election and beyond. They have (slowly) taken steps to listen to these concerns and this is what happens.

I full support Twitter in this. This is not censorship, this is limitation of deliberate mis-information and personal information.
I understand the theoretical argument, but empirically do you think the quality of ideas that people believe has increased from (say) 2000 to 2020?

It seems like there's a lot more going on than just faster dissemination, and the way information travels these days might have introduced new asymmetries and inefficiencies.
Algorithms are designed by people. People who have--whether benevolent / well-intentioned or not--particular values, agendas and biases.
Isn’t this just simple math?

Before mom & dad rambled at Dan Rather or their friends. Same old stupid, half thought out, tired stuff. “Commies! Righties! Lefties!”

Now it’s in our faces all day (or sold like that’s “the way”).

Most people are just people living out their lives.

Pretty sure dumb isn’t expanding but awareness of how much dumb there is is made more obvious.

It used to be one show called Jackass. Now 90% of YouTube is jackasses.
> Internet companies capitalize on this by bringing an optimized stream of stupidity for your viewing pleasure. Take a look at the front page of Reddit (logged out, default subs): Half of the content highlights stupidity of others: /r/IdiotsInCars shows the worst drivers from around the world, /r/insanepeoplefacebook shows the most bizarre clips from social media, /r/choosingbeggars highlights the dumbest negotiation attempts, /r/trashy and /r/iamatotalpieceofshit are selected stories of bad behavior, /r/whatcouldgowrong and /r/instantkarma are videos of people making bad decisions and suffering the consequences, /r/publicfreakout is videos of people fighting. Contributors hunt for the most egregious examples to post to Reddit in the hopes of getting upvotes.

Scene from the movie Idiocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Idiocracy&oldid=9...):

https://youtu.be/1hj_7U40z5I?t=19
The thing that sucks is that it's hard to know what the lesser of the two evils is. Sure, Google lets you install whatever you want on your phone, but they're also an advertising company that wants to track everything you do. I'm probably better than the average Android user at blocking most unwanted tracking and avoiding malware, but the situation isn't great.

I've never had an iPhone in part because I'd have to pay a yearly fee for the privilege of doing what I want with my device, and practices like the one described in TFA make me very uncomfortable with Apple as a company. I think this (in a Twitter thread linked from TFA) really sums it up for me[0]:

> Hardware DRM being used for meta-moderation of a general messaging app is totally unacceptable.

[0] https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1315314586988421123
cough, open web standards exist. The public sector should be required to adopt those immediately.
Tbf Android is also starting to converge back toward mainline. AOSP is one patch away from booting off of it, assuming you have drivers. To that end, Google is beginning to move the ecosystem toward a generic device kernel, with a set of hardware interfaces for handling those drivers in a standard way across devices.

This would enable custom kernels to target a range of compatible devices at once, which (among other things) would then simplify porting over alternative Linux-based OSes. Including the convergent ones we're starting to see pop up on way less impressive hardware.
> When big tech platforms can amplify or decrease thoughts, sources, and even political candidates voices, they literally decide politics.

That's been happening for some time now, by algorithms that are optimized for outrage, engagement, clicks, etc.
You could make a case that optimising for engagement - and getting stupidity - is a predictable outcome and therefore itself stupid.

Imagine what would happen if social media algorithms started promoting the opposite. Engagement would drop, but there might be some interesting second and third effects.
> I understand Apple would prefer not to participate in this.

Apple is a legal person and has to make a moral judgment call.

It made the wrong one.
agreed that most software can be made to run, but not all of them. The other issue is drivers, old drivers won't work on Windows 10 but will on reactOS
> I've been here over 10 years and I don't really recall seeing anything other than blatant spam or crap removed in that time.

Well, besides the usual "who decides what's 'blatant spam or crap'?" response to the "it's only bad stuff that gets censored", I'd suggest you haven't really been paying attention, then. Take a look at dang's comment history[1] and you'll see a lot of warnings before ban but also plenty of bans and references to previous bans, usually for substantive, not spam, reasons.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
You could use the $90 million to diversify your real estate assets or pay down your debt.
> I mean that when confronted with that they're clearly irrational. And something's gotta be going on their heads that makes them cling to this hypothesis.

The way i've heard it explained that makes the most sense to me: "people are convinced (rightly) that there is something wrong with our world and society, they just don't know what it is. Conspiracies provide answers and a framework to accommodate that feeling."

The opposite of knowledge isn't no knowledge, it's bad knowledge. The creation of a parallel reality is not so unreasonable response to nothing nothing about our current reality.

We all need something to hold on to.
Why? What's your reasoning exactly?

Should private companies have any regulation at all? Should oil companies avoid pollution? Should ISPs ensure quality of service? Should medical companies ensure safety? Why is it that trillion-dollar companies that are larger and more powerful than anything else before should not be regulated when it comes to something as crucial as our freedom to communicate?

I find it ironic that another major HN story today is another instance of Google wiping out someone's account without any recourse, erasing their online presence and decades of data. Is that the new normal? Megacorporations ruling our lives without reason or appeal?

The world has changed. Social media is no longer just a website. It's communication fabric with network effects larger than entire nations that surrounds our lives. We either deal with it accordingly or risk losing much more.
I used to frequent Quora and stopped specifically due to this. Leave a few answers on popular topics, especially about apps, and your inbox is flooded with requests to answer questions like "Is it true that X company is the most amazing and affordable software development outsourcing service?" and "Why is Some_Random_App much better than Popular_App_That_Our_App_Copies?". Sometimes they were brazen enough to post questions about X app with names like XMary or XJohn.
Hi everyone! I wrote this recently to spend more time with TypeScript and to learn a bit more about how Redis was implemented. There are definitely some improvements I could make with the implementation, but I had a fun time building it and learning about the RESP protocol. I thought I'd share in case others found it interesting as well.
You didnt read the article, did you?
An old 4chan truism says,

> Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.

- DarkShikari, Hacker News - in a comment on 4chan, 2009, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011498

A decade later, it still applies...

Since then, this has always been one of the most overused 4chan memes, with more than 100 variants of cute image macros. I always assumed it was a 4chan meme, and it was a huge surprise for me when I realized it actually came from Hacker News... Top 4chan meme from Hacker News?! It was beyond my imagination, I obviously underestimated the richness of cultural exchanges online.

And it was from a well-known x264/ffmpeg developer...
Cool. So `void f (double a, double b)` is like `f : R^2 -> R^0`, where R^0 is a singleton set.