skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>see themselves as the arbiters of truth

They are at some level. Of course, a newspaper isn't going to present all sources as being of equal authority. If someone is spouting nonsense at some point you cut them off.
I don't know what you mean by "civilian." In my life, that typically means "not in the military."

But being President of the US makes one the Commander in Chief. That's the highest military position we have in this country.
I would say having Obama promise Biden’s competitors sweetheart deals so they’d drop out of the primary is pretty close to having been selected. There’s no way he would’ve came out ahead on Super Tuesday without Obama putting his hand in the scales on this manner.

> If Bernie was chosen as the candidate, Trump would have won a second term.

And yet centrist candidates lost across the country, Biden won by slimmer margins than Hillary in many places, progressives won a slate of seats, as well as measures they sponsored like drug decriminalization and minimum wage increases. There’s not much use arguing a hypothetical, but the circumstances of Biden’s victory don’t jive with this sentiment.
US capitalism is based on the government taking land away from people that aren't developing, and giving it to new owners though.

That's the argument people give for why it's ok for the US to have taken land from the indigenous peoples at least. I think it's reasonable for the government to seize any property that has only been used for collecting rents within some timespan, and reallocate it to somebody who wants to make actual use of the land
And what happens to all the legacy office versions out there, or all the legacy csvs floating around? What you described works fine on a rolling release distro, but would be unacceptable for enterprise software. The current approach (opt in utf-8 with BOM to disambiguate between utf-8 and non-utf8) files is the best option that doesn't piss off their customers.
You can flag sarcasm or admonish the joker by pointing out the rules against snark. I often do that as a matter of public service.
Have not people checked and realized that trump got more votes this time ?

I think he did 62.9 million last time and is at 70.5 now.

More people got out and voted, and more people voted for trump than before.
An amicable solution instead of civil war, or being divided and conquered: how about a national divorce?
These measures are all completely obvious, reasonable, and cheap and easy to implement. So, why do you think they're not being done?
The prime minister of the UK isn't directly elected.
My freedom and privacy > end piracy
This sucks, and I have been there as well.

I really doubt a employment lawyer is going to do anything other than take your money.

Your time would better well spent, looking for the next thing. Doing better is the best revenge.

I wouldn’t worry to much about imposter syndrome, nobody nobody really knows what they are doing. Some are just better at concealing their fear. :)
This reminds me of the episode of Mythic Quest where they decided they wanted to ban Nazis--but then they started asking, "Who else should we ban?" The committee ended up with a horrifyingly-unwieldy list of hate/predatory groups. They felt it was just too many, so they put them all into a bracket and voted--Nazis still won.

By the time the meeting was over, the engineers had figured out a way to flag all the Nazis and just moved them all to their own instance. Problem solved.
I tried to read the content but IMO there are too many memes, make the content unreadable.
He does understand VC though? Just add blockchain to the name and get all the funding
It's a language agnostic binary interface. It's kind of hard to explain without getting into the technical details of how it works. For many years it was the only stable ABI on windows.
Meh, there are definitely problems that exist in 50+% of the population. To claim otherwise is either to ignore history or to claim that we in the modern day have broken free of the trend. Either is more stupid and unhelpful than recognizing that the trend existed and continued to exist. Was it not a problem when the majority of the population was illiterate, or in the 1920’s when the majority of the population got their information from news sources that were wholesale fabrications?

Besides, Trump voters appear to constitute something like 22% of the US population. That’s less than half of 50%.
Donald Trump ‘will not concede defeat’, says his lawyer
I'm not sure that's quite fair. They do write some excellent retrospectives and admit when they made mistakes, at least more so than almost any other news outlet I've seen:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pund...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-i-got-wrong-in-201...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/what-harry-got-wrong-in-2...

I have noticed them getting a bit more defensive recently which is irritating, but I think they are honest. There's only so much "garbage in garbage out" they can compensate for. If this ends up at +74 EV, which is where it looks to be heading, it'll be "Z=-.6" prediction (not actually normally distributed, but it's the easy calculation) prediction, meaning 27% of the outcomes were more Trump. It's not great, but I appreciate them giving a realistic model.
I’m 30. I’ve learned it the hard way that just because people are loud, doesn’t mean they are right and vice versa. Biden seems quiet and nimble.

I’d say give Biden a chance.
I think Trump appeals to some of the middles too. E.g. the "losers" of globalization. They are definitely not (all) radical right.

The thing is, Trump is just a symptom of some disease which the country has been suffering for many years. I'd say it's a mix of a lot of things, e.g. the decline of scientific education + decline of the middle class + a lot of other things.
And you can extend this pattern it by allowing "includes" which would signal to the backend to load and deliver the relations listed in the includes part of the query.

This alone makes it impossible to get backend to return god entities with dozens of relations without explicitly specifying them.
I would strongly disagree. Scale is scale, and though I don't have the volume problems that FAANG have, I also have substantially fewer resources.

Being able to very quickly connect a series of tools and tech together in a way that is selective of the data being moved around saves me money and time, period. That matters.
I think it's a mistake to dismiss Trump in this way. I see Biden as a very safe and strong choice. Trump was extremely well-liked by his base. I think he is the most magnetic candidate that Republicans have fielded since Regan.

It took a huge effort, a strong and widely palatable candidate, a safe platform, a great campaign, a pandemic, mail-in voting, all the pooled power of the tech companies, and a lot of luck to take him down. Seeing how difficult it was just cements it for me that I am in a bubble and that tens of millions of people have very different worldviews and values than I do. It is very hard to admit to myself that my core values might not be widely shared by others.
Because that is just the basic, when doing web applications, besides handling HTTP requests you need:

- workload distribution
- security and authentication
- role management via some form of directory services like LDAP or AD
- running tasks in background in response for certain events
- mapping into various kinds of databases and information sources
- handling caching
- have a way to manage reusable components of html/css/js + respective backend code

Yep one can make use of libraries to achieve all of that, but then most likely they don't compose in an easy way, nor make an eco-system.
Neither is the President who is actually elected by the Electoral College and not by a popular majority. States matter A LOT.

Regardless, does this even matter in terms of how politically powerful that single person is?
One thing I found interesting about the final polling averages was that they were much more correct about Biden's share of the vote, even when they were very wrong about the margin itself (since these polls don't add to 100%, that's possible). See below for the 538 polling average vs. the current NYT tally (% for Biden):

PA: 50.2% vs 49.7%

FL: 49.1% vs 47.8%

TX: 47.4% vs 46.3%

OH: 46.8% vs 45.2%

IA: 46.3% vs 44.9%

NC: 48.9% vs 48.6%

WI: 52.1% vs 49.5%

MI: 51.2% vs 50.5%

GA: 48.5% vs 49.3%

AZ: 48.7% vs 48.9%

NV: 49.7% vs 49.9%

Most are within ~1% or so (some for Biden, some for Trump) with some outliers being Wisconsin (-2.6%), Ohio (-1.6%) and Iowa (-1.4%) in Trump's favor still not being so far off (relative to margins of error).

I'm not sure what that "missing" bit in the polls really means (undecided?) but it seems the issue was that that bit of the electorate ended up going entirely for Trump in many places.

(edit: had the PA 538 # wrong)
That's how it's been for at least decades. Democrats voted for Gore from hate of Bush. So this is a structural problem you're stuck with. Unless you come up with a stronger force than a pandemic with 100,000 fatalities.
This election was your regular 4 year reminder that the electoral college is stupid and that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact needs to be completed.
Trump is a great President, with a track record of being true to his word in the matters of policy, that was another big reason to vote for him.

But dems are trying to shove their agenda down people throats. If you don't stand up against lies, bullying and manipulation how different are you from people who conceded to Nazi thugs in Germany when they were grabbing political power through blatant propaganda and violence.
> Politics always exists in a context and one can't make rational decisions in politics without that context.

You can act outside of political historical context and I would go so far as to recommend it wholly. This kind of "context" (which is human ascribed) has no bearing on acting rationally. Pay attention to consequence borne by data, not past intent.

> I think our society suffers greatly because people don't know history.

I'm not sure how that applies to something that has circumstantial relevance, like past political conditions.
Not the reaction I expected, but a valid one!

Here goes:

There are best practices on the organizational side. I'd have to do some research to determine nonprofit and civic organizational adoption. My gut is that at least in the US, best practices adoption for volunteer engagement/management is not widespread. In my own experience, very few of the organizations I've worked with or know even kinda well have the capacity (and/or interest) in implementing best practices. And I would assume that informal neighborhood groups are not adopting them.

From the perspective of an individual, there are resources for identifying volunteer opportunities, though this various by jurisdiction. Some places have active and robust volunteer referral systems while others have lots of active civic groups (think Jaycees, Junior League) that are central to life in that place. Other places have nonprofits and people volunteer there.

What resources could help? Good question. I think that depends on what 1) people want and 2) organizations want.

In my experience, many people who volunteer approach their voluntarism as "take what I give you." Meaning, "I will give what I give, when I decide to give it, how I decide to give it and I'll do it the way I see fit." In some cases, this might work for an organization. I've seen it be accepted by organizations because the organization does not have time (more likely has not made time) to develop a volunteer program with job descriptions, intake, and every other important element needed. If an organization were to develop a volunteer program, a bunch of resources are needed including staff.

Back to my original comments for a sec. Getting involved is kind of like the wild wild west. Jump in an do something, there's little organization or governance, particularly on the street-level stuff of trash pick-up, etc.

Here's an example: When I worked for then-Mayor Vince Gray, there was one winter that was colder than usual. VCG wanted more than the helping the homeless during hypothermia season status quo. So leadership and staff got together to develop the city's cold emergency plan. Basically, anyone without shelter was encouraged to get on a bus or go into a non-shelter on the coldest nights. We fed people, gave them stuff (dry clothing, etc.) and caseworkers were available to help if people wanted.

At something like 2a on one of the first days of this plan, I was doing a site visit to a bus. (Did the staff need food, water, etc.) It was dark out, save for the bright street lights that made the snow-covered everything sparkle. All of a sudden, there's singing and laughter. A small group of 20-somethings came in happy as could be carrying cups of hot chocolate, boxes of donuts, hot pretzels, and more. They handed the food out, chatted for a few, and then took off for the next bus. This merry band of do-gooders made me smile. They made many on the bus smile. They came out in the wicked cold to make sure that people who were homeless had warm food and drink. All I know about them is that they lived around Georgetown and were in professional programs.

Stepping up, doing something can be something as simple as this.
There was an unprecedented shift in Latino vote towards Trump this election. Those workers that risk their lives to enter the US illegally have more in common with the working-class majority that voted Trump then the costal elites working to usher in socialism.

Identify politics (Latinx) were a massive failing in the Latino demographic.
Sony XEL-1 The first OLED TV from a decade ago
Thanks, I couldn't have said that better myself. I'm no guru. We just seem to have lost touch with why we even have democratically-elected leaders in the first place.
Your anecdote reinforces the critique of fraud and I welcome it.

The argument is to increase the integrity of elections, not offset fraud by one side with fraud by the other and call it even.

There are a lot of anecdotes of fraud, and they keep coming up, enough to undermine the integrity of our elections (as evidenced).

If this was an issue of financial accounting in an organization, I’d wager your behavior pattern would be different - the recurring anecdotes would indicate a substantial risk that needs to be mitigated by putting controls in place to ensure the integrity of the accounts.

Instead, in this instance we are being told not only to look the other way, but are being told recurring anecdotes of abuse don’t warrant substantial procedural changes and improvements in accountability.

As Glenn Greenwald said the other day, this situation is either by choice or ineptitude. But it’s not a non-issue.
A lot of people here are talking about the "healing the division" but what if the path forward is to figure out how to exist with the division? We need to start getting more creative than just wishfully thinking this polarization is going away anytime soon because news flash, it's not. So what is the step forward?

A national divorce needs to start being talked about more seriously. It's at least peaceful and amicable, and better than the other alternatives (civil war, foreign conquerors, authoritarianism, etc).

This isn't "giving up" on the problems per say, but instead, accepting reality and thinking of solutions going forward. Thinking the left and right can be unified again is as wishful as thinking Artificial intelligence won't displace anymore workers.
I'm not, maybe I haven't explained clearly, because you've just repeated the 'a ranking as high' bit that I don't understand rather than answering it. Does it refer to her having been a senator, or to now being VP?

From what you're saying, I think it's that she's first female VP and also happens to be black and also happens to have a South Asian background?

I don't have an agenda here, I just didn't understand that paragraph, and, if I'm correct in my understanding above, think it was written in just about the most confusing way possible.
While a valid topic for a lecture or handful of folks, missing gravity or matter at distances greater than we’ll ever travel are like missing white kids’ pictures being put on milk cartons in the 80s:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing-children_milk_carton

Part of the universe will remain unobservable, until we can bend space that far safely.

What about making liquid nuclear fission better instead?
Washington, Oregon, Colorado all have universal mail-in where every registered voter automatically gets a ballot in the mail (though you can still drop off your ballot, or vote in person). California is _largely_ mail-in but I don't think it's universal...
They're complaining about votes being counted in states run by Republicans when both Republicans and Democrats are watching the count.

Trump formed a committee to find voter fraud and for years it failed. It silently disbanded. The heritage foundation has researched voter fraud too, and it has found little to no evidence.

If that doesn't satisfy them, what will? You're basically saying we have to convince a group of people that fucking unicorns and dragons don't exist.
I never took web ui performance seriously as a topic until I started using Jira cloud.
The remaining point of having states would be that local state law can still vary.

This is true even if we got rid of the senate, the EC, and every federal body had purely population-proportional representation (which I am in favor of).
> Nobody says backend work will magically disappear,

That was literally what was directly stated in the original comment I responded to.

> but ignoring a generational improvement only because of job security concerns is insane.

Ah yes. People who have only one database with a magical tool try to berate people with significantly different requirements.
" legalization show that significant portions of America think drug-related activities are not "immoral" or "wrong" and should not be criminalized."

Weed is not crack.

Conscientious voters are not on the front lines of seeing the problems that drugs cause, just the opposite, are probably more likely to know people who go to Burning Man occasionally and who don't have a problem with a little bit of this or that now and again.

I live in a neighbourhood with homeless people and can indeed assure you that 'drugs' are a massive social, health and criminal problem, it's really a pain to have to remind people of that.

Crack, Meth and Opioids/Fentanyl in particular are fairly corrosive, the legalization of them would result immediately in a non-significant chunk of the population becoming adversely affecting, causing a health crises somewhere on par with a pandemic.

Opioids are already a massive problem, huge source of addiction and they are quite a controlled substance.

In Canada, they don't prescribe 10 or 15 or a small bottle - often they will give you literally only two or three pills max - because they are so excessively addictive.

It's shocking to have to get people to look beyond their own safe neighbourhood to remind them of out ugly it really is and can be out there.

Weed is not a problem and possibly not Mushrooms (although it will take some weird regulation because it's literally poison) - but almost everything else is off the table.

America is literally in an opioid crisis, and it's disturbing the same people in the 'pro mask' camp seem to want to discount actual science of addiction, overdose etc. when it comes to a 'problem' that interferes with their 'recreation'.

So we 'like' the CDC, right? Scientists? Public health? Esp. during a pandemic? I do! Have a look at their data. [1]

Also, from the Lancet [2]

We wear masks partly to 'not propagate' an actual disease - some forms of drug addiction are the same thing a social disease that is communicated by the actions we take. It's not a big deal to 'wear a mask' and it's not a big deal to 'not do crack'.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths/drug-overd...

[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The laws of the world are enforced through violence. It's the ultimate power when it comes down to it, so yes, if you want maintain peace then you must also have the capacity to engage the most violence.

This is how peace is kept, regardless of how you feel about it. More importantly, power fills a vacuum, and the choices in the absence of the USA are not exactly better for the world.
Well, I can only tell you what happens in California (which has been for decades the path the US as a whole takes):

Republicans will become a minority party with no power at all. Democrats will get mad that there are Republicans on the ballot, so the rules will be changed to allow two Democrats on the ballot, a progressive one and a "liberal"/moderate one (and no Republican). This allows progressive policies to continue, and the legislature ends up being a supermajority mix of progressive Democrats and liberal Democrats, with some useless Republicans from a few low-population counties.

There's absolutely no reason the US won't follow this same pattern: it works.

(You can also see the Democratic Party's progressive/liberal split today with the DSA. That's just the CA dynamic going national.)
It didn’t work with right to bear arms. You can’t bear arms in NY or CA because local law says so.
Truly a fascinating method. Apparently, the most effective mosquito population control technique.

The counter-point argument offered at the end of the article/video is totally lame. I find it slightly annoying when journos feel compelled to seek contrarian positions just for the sake of form, regardless of the quality of the arguments.
The bible is a bunch of stories that people believe in. They listen to the priest, read it for themselves. It has value at an allegorical level though. Believers believe it has the truth.

Science has its articles of faith. They pay lipservice to the scientific method and truth. In reality it is executing mathematics or some defined process. It might find the truth in that process, but this is a siloed truth. It is not true to say it is arriving or will ever arrive at the greater truth, if it does not align with corporate or governmental interests.

You yourself may testify to this, given that you say you were hunting for grants. Did you feel that this was about discovery and understanding the world or something else?
A fun fact: ”Kamala” is Finnish for ”Horrible”.
I like Swift more than any other curly brace language, and I use it for functional programming. I have pure Swift apps in the App Store and continue to work on Swift projects.

But compared to something like OCaml or Haskell, the syntax is just plain nasty for real fp. It feels clumsy and verbose - like wearing a pair of hob-nail boots for ballet dancing.

However, I think they made a good trade off in terms of balancing readability, power and progressive disclosure.
<< These are all important things to talk about - when you dismiss it as "oh yeah, polls are never perfect," you prematurely shut down the conversation. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. The polls could be better and it's important to talk about how.

I think the complaint is that here the polls were not just imperfect. They were at best, misleading raising questions over methodology ( lessons, apparently, not learned in 2016 ), wishful thinking, and their usefulness, or, at worst, attempts at influencing desired income.

I can absolutely agree that polling is not an exact science, but now it is twice in a row that polling science has grossly miscalculated the mood of the nation.
So how fast are these?

Will the RAID rebuild time finally be longer than the average lifespan of a drive?