skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah. I wanted to use an RSS feed with IFTTT but it wasn't 100% spec compliant. I ended up having to use https://www.pipes.digital/ to split the feed apart, filter out the bad tags, and create a new feed before IFTTT would use it.
When I first heard of abstaining from water while fasting I also had a strong emotional reaction to the idea.

After realizing that water is a byproduct of catabolism, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it is beneficial.
There are existing open-source solutions that from what I hear work quite well. I would personally like to see a low-cost hosted version of one of these so I can use it without ever having to think about keeping it running.
No you can't, your ballot will be invalid.

The ballot shown in the article explicitly says "Fill in no more than one oval for each candidate".
Jet transitions from red to blue, with green as a neutral color in the middle. It happens to transition through yellow and cyan to give more possible shades (~more resolution). It's a bad color map for various reasons, but I think it's perfectly fair to call it divergent.
Yeah, I'm always terrified when someone crosses the street irresponsibly. Pedestrians are very unpredictable so often I just have to cross my fingers and hope they weren't stupid enough to make obvious mistakes but lazy enough to take dangerous shortcuts.
As an introvert working alone and remote for 13 years, full-time pairing sounds like a nightmare.
This is completely false. Pretty much all voting systems are susceptible to tactical voting, e.g. gaming the vote. This was formally proven via the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem[1], which showed that the only way for a voting system to be ungameable was to either have a dictator (a certain special voter who always picks the winner), or to pre-constrain the output space to only two alternatives.

This critique certainly applies to Instant-Runoff Voting, the algorithm in question here. It is known that IRV often incentivizes voters to not rank their favorites first [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard%E2%80%93Satterthwaite_...
[2] https://electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/
Maine has produced some great material for explaining how this all works, with more than a few web pages for it.

Here is a large PDF of examples on how you would fill in a sample ballot: https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/pdf/RCVMarkedBal...
Cloud infrastructure revenue grows 33% this quarter to almost $33B
Did you count all incidents or only the ones that happened in real life and not the simulations?
It would hurt the current duopoly so you can expect a significant pushback against it.

If MA passes theirs it could pick up real mainstream momentum though.
Not really. On the contrary, he's succeeding quite well - being on good terms with Facebook is now essential for any government seeking to get reelected, or seeking to stay in power (in the case of dictatorships). Zuckerberg wants to outwardly lean Democrat, but inside, it's all about maintaining money and power. Just check his natural progression - first laughing at the idiocy of his Harvard peers for sharing their personal details out in the open, all the way to very recently trying to launch his own crypto coin, which would have enabled his "alliance" to gather data on spending habits of its users.
Yes. If you ship any eBPF programs that utilize kprobes and/or read kernel structures that change between kernel versions, you have portability problems. See https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/bpf/blog/2020/02/19/bpf... for a good overview of the problem that CO-RE intends to solve.
If it's anything like the Australian approach, you indicate preferences by numbering boxes[0][1]. The ordering of names on the ballot is determined by drawing names at random.

[0] https://peo.gov.au/assets/images/image-library/have-your-say...

[1] https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/e5ace64c596cd5aa508068ac...
In Canada it’s been used by the Conservative party for their leadership contests. Both times, the response to the winner has been “Who?”.

So in a field with a lot of contenders it can favour marginal candidates.

You also end up with an absurdly big ballot. Past, say, five ranks the choices are hardly meaningful.

I’m favourably disposed to this type of voting but those are a couple of downsides.
> No, because those are laws, and those regulations exist for a reason.

Therefore you wouldn't see any problem with regulations or laws that restrict the rights of companies to enact this sort of policy that Mailchimp is.
> I find their writing unchallenging, never broadening my worldview or making me rethink my preconceived notions.

Why would you want that? Amateurs adding a personal spin on topics they don't understand is bad news. Reading that will just make you more misinformed.
Healthcare Mobile App Development for Doctors
> Has anyone come across strong, detailed arguments against it?

There's a simpler way that's much easier for voters to understand: "approval voting." You mark all the candidates you approve of, and the candidate(s) with the most total votes wins.
> is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about [X]

While true, this technicality can be applied to almost anything. This type of statement tends to shut down discussion instead of encouraging it. We should be striving to come to a consensus on topics and to share perspectives - not to just throw our hands up because we might not have perfect knowledge.

Regarding QAnon, while media stories might be sensationalist, QAnon itself is a disturbing trend. QAnon originated in conspiracy theories (on 4chan) and is still promoting some pretty fringe theories.

In my opinion, the real danger of QAnon is their use of social media to take people further and further into their theories. I was disturbed when the "save the children" campaign was in full force on Facebook/Twitter. I did not need a media story to tell me about QAnon in these moments, I could personally click on stories and follow the rabbit hole back to QAnon. They led to conspiracy theories about politicians trafficking children, the "deep state," etc. These were not hidden - they were only a couple clicks away from the "save the children" posts that were trending. These types of conspiracy theories do not contribute to any sort of rational discourse - they only push people farther into the QAnon group.

I believe Facebook (and Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, etc) has the responsibility to not allow these "rabbit holes" that feed conspiracy theories. Otherwise, anyone with enough influence to generate these echo chambers can use them to influence large swaths of the public into believing things that have no basis in reality.
Because this is how the First Amendment works (in the physical world as well as digital) and how Section 230 works. Section 230 has some exceptions, but those exceptions are very limited at this time.

Section 230 was implemented to ALLOW for moderation, not to prevent it.
How to Build a Diet and Nutrition App
do you have information to back that claim up?
There are numerous ways to compare voting systems. There's a good selection of comparison methods on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_system...
I have to admit that I dislike the Maine ballot design. I think the "number each box" approach is simpler and less error-prone.
For me (Firefox 82 on Ubuntu) everything works fine out of the box. #screen has "font-family: Courier New,Fixed;" set.
Re Dockerfiles: Right now, we need to rebuild your docker images from time to time (e.g. when we make some changes to the kernel). That means that if you create a docker image with `RUN pip install numpy` and we need to rebuild it in a year, you might get a different version which might break things. The correct solution here is to encourage users to always use `RUN pip install numpy==1.19.3`. We already do this in Python cells (when you run `!pip install numpy` we query PyPI and suggest the last version to you), but we haven't added it to Dockerfiles yet. So to set the expectations we have this notice in the docs.

Regarding other issues: We currently record every execution in project history. That means even if you run cells out of order, you can still get a list of commands that shows how you got to the current state.

The next step for us is to start subtly notifying users when they are doing something that could be an issue later down the road (for example executing cells out of order). We already built this, but decided not to ship it yet because it needed more love. The second thing we are working on is interactive/reacting execution. This is very very very cool and brings the experience from the notebook to the next level (at least for me), but needs much more testing.

Reproducibility vs flexibility (in the sense of letting the user do whatever they want if they know what they're doing) is a difficult problem. In the end, it's going to be a combination of friendly nudges and much better experience if users are following the "reproducible" path. However, we never want to limit users in what they are able to do.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this and would be happy to chat about what you're thinking. Feel free to email me at jakub@deepnote.com.
Leet code styled interviews
It would likely have a larger impact on the primaries than the general election. Primary elections are full of strategizing about how to pick a set of issues that will resonate with a large enough fraction of the electorate to be competitive, but which don't have other candidates campaigning on similar issues.

Too many candidates running on a similar set of issues will split the vote and will lose against a less popular candidate running alone on a different set of issues. So they end up needing to consolidate (which can involve some wheeling and dealing like promising that the candidate who steps down will get a position in the remaining candidate's administration).

This is essentially what happened in the 2016 Republican primaries. The more moderate candidates never consolidated and so split the vote among themselves. By the time they had seen the writing on the wall and dropped out, Trump had built up a large enough margin that the only remaining candidate (Cruz) had no chance at catching up.

RCV will likely prevent a similar outcome in the future. But a further consequence is that candidates will have less incentive to drop out early in the primaries. So if RCV were instituted nationwide I would expect the primary season to be longer, messier, and much more crowded.
IIRC, the Burlington election as evidence of a failure isn’t universally agreed. Some point to it as an example of it working.
Because emergency braking isn't guaranteed to stop your car before you have hit a pedestrian. Plainly said: physics exist.
This is incorrect: people do better voting strategically even with ranked choice. To take an example, consider an election like:

32% of people: Clinton, Sanders, Trump

33% of people: Sanders, Trump, Clinton

35% of people: Trump, Clinton, Sanders

Now, this is a terrible election and there's no clear winner because people's preferences point around in a circle. Under traditional voting Trump wins, while under ranked choice Clinton is eliminated and Sanders wins. But if a few people preferring Trump > Clinton > Sanders had instead voted just Clinton > Trump > Sanders we could have had:

32% of people: Clinton, Sanders, Trump

33% of people: Sanders, Trump, Clinton

32% of people: Trump, Clinton, Sanders

3% of people: Clinton, Trump, Sanders

Then Trump would have been eliminated first, with only 32% of the first place votes, and his second place votes would have gone to Clinton, making her win. So by voting for a candidate they liked less, these voters got an outcome they liked more. Staying home and not voting would similarly have helped them.
It is remarkable how much he contravened modern academic norms: no work to bring in external funding, relatively few papers, very little collaboration, almost no PhD students. It's not an exaggeration to say that a young researcher with these characteristics today would likely get fired from any high-ranked American research university before even coming up for tenure review. Perhaps our modern academic metrics of merit are missing something?
You seem knowledgeable. Is there some sort of foundation or organization on RCV that I can back and parrot? I want to (gently) share the ideals of RCV with my social circle but it feels like me and a Wikipedia article against the world right now.

The zoo animals CGPGrey video is second-to-none in explaining the concept but is somewhat lacking in ethos.
I wonder how they focus the system on a particular area of the sky. Do they have an array of these systems?
I can agree with that, but the fact that it's believable is the giveaway.

Could you make a movie where being a doctor makes the main character a failure in life? Such a movie would almost certainly have to be a comedy where the character is a failure in spite of being a doctor, not because.
As long as it takes you to activate JavaScript, I believe.
Is the Great 2020 Tech Rally slowing?
How well targeted are soda taxes? [pdf]
Because leftists, just like rightists, are authoritarians. Neither side has principles or real values. Just agenda.

One side will say a small bakery is a private business who can serve whomever they want. The other side will say it's a violation of people's rights for a small private bakery to deny service to [insert whatever minority group they are currently using to further their agenda].

You flip the situation and now it's the leftists defending private companies to deny service... The same people commenting here defending "private companies" were the same ones screaming bloody murder about a small private bakery.

It's hypocrisy, it's a human trait. It's like how assange was a hero when he exposed bush, but now...

The exact same ones who claim big tech is evil when they vociferously defend big tech's censorship here. It's almost like they have journalist's logic/agenda.
Anything that can help me think less about colormaps when producing figures is a clear plus. I've actually started to prefer grayscale figures for this reason.
> So that takes the pool of people deciding from hundreds of millions (in the USA) down to like 3 or 4 individuals (depending on how final decision making power is distributed).

I would argue that the number of gatekeepers to nationwide mainstream dialog is much higher than 3 or 4 individuals. I think the number is too small, but 3 or 4 seems to me to be an incredibly hyperbolic number of individuals to name as gatekeepers to the entire marketplace of ideas.

If you think only 3 or 4 people control the entire marketplace of ideas for "reputable members of society", then you should be able to exhaustively name them. Who are these 3 or 4 people that control all of reputable society?

> An example of this is getting deplatformed from the few major "marketplace of ideas" platforms

It's almost like there's a monopoly concern I raised, and that the power is concentrated in too few hands. I did advocate for treating this as an anti-monopoly issue instead of a free speech issue after all!
Maybe we shouldn't be driving so fast in built-up areas?
AS36492
That is the hilarious part of the urbanites. They clamor for more legislation and regulation when they've A) never gone through the process of applying for a tag and B) tons of regulation already exists
Yes, in addition to that FPGA also appears under the hood of automobiles and electric vehicles.
Small Devtodo Equivalent in Bash
A simple devtodo equivalent in bash. Work is still in progress and requirements are >=bash4.4.

Probably it will be rewritten in bash5 and use loadable builtins for mkdir and rm, so mv can be removed also.
As a black man I agree with the homosexual author. I support Biden but the hard drive is clearly legitimate.
I would be fine with wolves living my area, but the wolves would not, so it's a moot question. We do have a growing population of coyotes nearby, and it's fine.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone but ranchers would object to having wolves around at all. They don't prey on people.
Gibbard–Satterthwaite only covers ordinal voting systems: it doesn't apply to, for example, approval voting.
Yep from $99M to $65M to $18M. From their 2019 annual report:

In July 2019, the ICO issued a formal notice of intent under the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 proposing a fine in the amount of £99 million against the Company in relation to the Data Security Incident (the “Proposed ICO Fine”). We mutually agreed with the ICO to an extension of the regulatory process until June 1, 2020 and the ICO proceeding is ongoing. In the 2019 second quarter, we recorded an accrual in the full amount of the Proposed ICO Fine for this loss contingency, and in the 2019 fourth quarter, we reduced the accrual to $65 million based on the ongoing proceeding.
> Eventually, the UI got to the point where it felt like using Duplos or something. It didn't have
to be this way! There are great low-to-no-code tools that have much more usable interfaces, like Scratch.

I had no idea what Duplos was so I had to Google it, but I can't imagine that for a complete non-programmer, the Scratch UI would be more clear than littler sticking giant building blocks together without issue. It sounds like the author simply fell out
of the target market for IFTTT, rather than IFTTT becoming _worse_.

FWIW, that Scratch UI screenshot was so hard to mentally parse. I would not expect a non-programmer to look at that and feel more secure in their understanding of the product at all.
That's an epic design.
Approval voting is simpler and has a similar end result.
> History shows limited liability spurred economic growth

Not even all forms of limited liability are equal, let alone all forms of corporate structure of which limited liability is only a part. To argue that all of the extensions to corporate personhood over the last 200 years are justified because of economic growth over the same time is not only to conflate different things but to confuse correlation with causation. That's where this discussion started - not with limited liability alone, but with corporate personhood in general, so I guess we can add the fallacy of composition to your trifecta. I refuse to engage with more such sophistry.
By the way, "Learning Perl" is also a great introductory book to a language.
> Math doesn’t prove the sky is blue on a sunny day.

Yeah, it doesn't. So it is not a truth, but a belief. It is pretty strong belief, so strong that it almost indistinguishable from the truth. But nevertheless it is just a belief.

> My main point is that of falsifiability. You don’t need math to make a falsifiable argument. However, much of our discourse can’t even meet this basic qualification.

Even falsifiability is a too rigid property for some discourses. My main point is that attempts to find a silver bullet to shoot "bad beliefs" are no-go. Knowledge couldn't be bad or good, true or false. It is the way knowledge applied could be good or bad.

For example, even "the sky is blue on a sunny day" could be misapplied. Take the sky of a Moon or a Mars for example, which are not blue in a sunny day. Or let us imagine atmosphere of Earth with a lot of dust after collision of Earth and an asteroid: on such Earth sky could be orange, or gray or of some other color. I mean that even "true" statements have limits of their truthiness.

As an opposite example, a "false" statement could be applied in a "good" way. Earth is flat? Oh, yes, it is convenient to think so when dealing with a relatively small area of the Earth surface. Or when communicating with people, who believe that Earth is flat. You need only to remember the limits of this belief, to not misapply it accidentally.

In math the situation a little different. Math statements also could go wrong when assumptions change (the sum of angles of a triangle could be not equal to PI, if triangle drawn not on a plane but on some other surface), but mathematicians make sure to strictly state all the assumptions as axioms and definitions. It is possible in ideal conditions, but not possible in real ones.
> That's only true in the first two rounds. In total more voters preferred Kiss over Montroll.

No, in total 4064 voters preferred Montroll to Kiss, while 3476 voters preferred Kiss to Montroll. "Preferred" here means either that they ranked a candidate above the other, or that they ranked a candidate and did not rank the other. (Some ballots ranked neither candidate, and so are not considered)

Edit: I did the math independently, but it lines up with the Wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_electi...
They've been authenticated by a forensic analyst that has been used by "mainstream" media before: https://amp.dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-...

The 64 page article NBC is talking about here is unrelated.
Australian here. Firstly, ranked choice voting is so much better than first-past-the-post and you should do it.

But since you asked, Australia has seen one problem in recent years. But this is a problem specific to the conditions we have here. Firstly, some background:

1. In the Australian Senate, the single pool of voters from the state are deciding on 12 senators (EDIT: oops, should be 6). This is decided by running the ranked-choice algorithm until 12 remain (EDIT: 6).

2. In the Senate, there are now dozens of parties, so the ballot is hilariously wide.

3. Australia has compulsory preferencing. You MUST rank all parties on the ballot.

4. Because you can't expect the population to rank dozens of candidates at the polling booth, each party can decide for their voters what order to rank the other parties. So how do the parties decide how to rank the other parties? Backroom deals. Who knows what the terms of the deals are. In any case, it's not the voters who decide.

The result is that minor parties like the Sports Party and the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, who each get almost no direct votes, jostled their way up just high enough on the preference lists of enough major parties that they ended up snagging one of the seats.

More details here: https://www.fairvote.org/reforming-the-australian-senate

But as I said, this is made possible by the specific conditions of the electoral system here. It wouldn't be a problem if the election were for a single candidate, or if there were no party-defined preferences (necessitating non-mandatory ranking).