skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I get your points, but I disagree with your contention that the fact that all users of the system used a shared username and password doesn’t complicate the case. We’ve established that an IP address is not strong evidence for identifying an individual. IP address != authentication. What _could_ have established strong evidence tying the alleged unauthorized access to an individual’s identity would have been _actual_ authentication of the _specific_ user. But they don’t have that, either, since they shared one set of credentials.

You said, “they have an IP address which points to a specific one of those users,” but that’s not actually the case. They have an IP address which has somehow been related to the accused (though how is unclear to me since you note above there’s no linkage of IP/customer/date) — maybe they know she sent an email from that IP address at some point around the time of alleged crimes. But in any case, without providing evidence that the IP address is _only_ associated with the accused, and _not_ with any others with similar opportunity and motive (for example, any others with access to the shared username and password who might want to access the data for similar reasons, or wanted to frame the accused for hacking and put an end to the her very public/politicized efforts), then they don’t really have strong evidence of anything - basically only enough _not_ to rule the accused out of the probably large pool of possible suspects. How many other current or former employees had access to the shared username and password? When were they last changed? How many others who _weren’t_ ever authorized to access the system but could have compromised/gained access to these credentials since then? How many times have they been written down and left on a sticky note in some public or semi-public place? Do they ever have controls in place to prevent guessing/brute forcing the credentials (with one login for shared between all users, automatic account lockouts or resets seems very unlikely).
I agree. The biggest takeaway that economists tookaway from 2008 was that not enough money was handed out.

It is why at the beginning of the pandemic the Fed was aggressive.

It is why Powell said there was way more risk of doing too little than too much: https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2020-10-06/fed-...

If the government had boosted unemployment in 2008 along with more stimulus we would have gotten closer to full employment before early 2020.

I cannot think of a single bad consequence that happened in 2008 because the government spent too much. Is the gesture to the fact that all the banks didn't totally implode?
Hmm. I don't think that those are the only two options, though; disparities can exist for reasons other than historical marginalization or unconscious bias, and by framing the debate exclusively in those terms, you are blinding yourself to other possibilities. I'm most concerned with the second option, however, as it's too broad a category. The "lingering side effects of discrimination" can be used to explain every negative outcome afflicting a community, and be used to justify pretty much any remedy. It's a dangerous tool, as it very easily obscures directly addressable causes of problems in favor of wide, epic narratives of historical oppression. And I suspect that certain people favor it for aesthetic rather than effective reasons - it is much easier to raise support from people by saying that their problems are caused by the malicious or ignorant other than that their problems are addressable and solvable at the community level.

For example, you can assert that urban violence and gang warfare are the results of generational poverty and discrimination of black people - you'd be right - but that assertion doesn't necessarily offer the most accurate or useful model of the issue. Most importantly, I would argue that it shifts the focus for the solution onto external factors (wider discrimination in society) rather than internal ones (such as, stop being violent with one another). The second option sounds ridiculous, but it has worked in the past. [0]

History is too easy a scapegoat for current problems. Thinking of outcome disparity only in the contexts of history and unconscious bias leads to distortions in the solution space. Unfortunately, by reframing debate around racial and historical lines, certain people have been able to extract wealth and influence from their communities without providing actionable solutions or illuminating easier interventions that would greatly aid in solving problems. I'm unfortunately a pessimist in this matter; the racial divide is a very useful one to certain interests. With a small investment of wealth and prestige to media outlets and academics, they can keep the people in lower economic classes biting at each other rather than focusing on the much more oppressive and harmful background radiation of wealth inequality that serves as a precondition to their actual struggles.

The social ramifications of slavery are negative; no one can reasonably dispute that. But the reason that the prison state is expanding, social programs are crumbling, violence seems ever-present, and the outcome of every successive generation is worse and worse is the ticking along of vast systems forming the bedrock of the American economy. These systems do not care about the race of the people ground beneath their wheels, nor the gender of the blood that slicks their gears; they accept all to offer their bodies and lives in supplication, to suborn their will to alien gods and inhuman reckoning.

That's just my opinion, though.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/disruptin...
Much of the web you visit logged in anyway, like facebook.
Structurally it's something like cognitive behavioral therapy I'm sure. The doses probably won't be high enough to be tripping much?
I see no evidence of a changed mind as the first paragraph promises. Just a heap load of burdensome details in a fictional hypothetical.
This is really nice!

Here is an attempt at fish port:

function notifyme
set MSG $argv[1] "Terminal is done"
set TITLE $argv[2] "Done!"
osascript -e "display notification \"$MSG[1]\" with title \"$TITLE[1]\""
end

disclaimer: this is first fish function I ever write so might not be the best way to do default values; I'm using hack from https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/88682
Common arguments for a wealth tax that I have heard (some are moral values).

--- (Utility)

- some people are poor

- some people are wealthy

We can take some of that wealth and help the poor

--- (Equity)

There shouldn't be much wealth inequality because inequality is inherently bad.

--- (Corruption)

Wealth as a form of power converts into political power which accumulates more wealth.

--- (Fairness)

It is easier to accumulate wealth if you are already wealthy. Therefore the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

--- (Community)

The wealth that we create is built upon the preexisting wealth created by others before us and by the community we live in. Therefore, should part of the wealth we create be shared communally?

The arguments for wealth tax don't usually take into account

- wealth accumulation as a driver for increasing wealth for everyone (even if it increases inequality)

- whether government is an efficient means of redistributing wealth

- whether there are moral arguments against wealth redistribution as a form of coercion

As is often the case in history, this argument will probably not be decided by reason but by power.
Not psilocybin, but this exact topic is covered in the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule, by Dr. Rick Strassman.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on his exact points, but the clinical setting was definitely found to have a detrimental effect on the experience.
Sadly, it looks like that the Chinese won't let that happen until it's impossible to figure out, either because they have something to hide or because it's just their usual modus operandi.
“The world's largest automaker will unveil a prototype next year.”
> Is there still a way around this (i.e. to run your own code on macOS) ?

In Big Sur I’ve noticed there’s now a “Developer Tools” entitlement in Privacy. I’m not sure exactly what it allows executables to do, but as it starts off with Terminal.app as a suggested entry, I’d assume it at least allows the given app to spawn unsigned binaries.
One of the best and most unique web sites I've ever visited also. It's 90's classic internet but nothing has come along to do things it does better.
An organization can be capitalist without being employee owned or authoritarian.

Likewise an organization can be authoritarian without being capitalist or employee owned.

And a company can be employee owned without being democratic.

Or can have relatively democratic decision making without any employee ownership.

These are all independent variables.
Ransomware – A Devastating Form of Digital Extortion
Wealth begets power. We have checks in place for political power (term limits, separate branches of government). We have restrictions on arms (tanks, anti-aircraft guns).
Not many mention it, but I would imagine 5 years from now many will.
Besides a cunning and evil plan to gradually restrict user freedom (/s) I can also imagine this is meant to control an OS feature that can be used to nestle some pretty audacious privacy-violating software, away from the rest of the OS restrictions.

Perhaps Apple will figure out some software control to sidestep this administration overhead, or just make it an xtra license to milk more money. After all Microsoft has been doing this since the beginning...
Docker for macOS Broken
Unable to mount protected Mac paths after upgrade to Docker 3.0.0
Whos carding pornhub? Why?
This has not always been the case. 10-15 years ago Walmart employees would detain suspected thieves or even physically subdue them.
Hah. Yup. Easier to talk about principles than details. :)

It reminds me of the new proposed tax in CA, where anyone over $N net worth has to pay M% of it per year. It'll be interesting to see if it'll help CA stay afloat, or if it contributes to the state's decline.

Isn't the whole idea behind making money to build a 'nest egg'? Seems like that counts as the small-scale version of exactly what you're describing.
The best summation I could possibly give is from the article you linked:

"In object-oriented languages, it's easy to add new types but difficult to add new operations. Whereas in functional languages, it's easy to add new operations but difficult to add new types".

Put more concretely: if your Java code base is full of one-off classes with little to no sub-classing or multiple implementations of internal interfaces, then Clojure might work for you. But if you have a lot of sub-classes and repeatedly implemented domain specific interfaces I would hesitate mightily before considering Clojure.

My team's domain was such that the operations were very fixed, but the types expanded constantly. There is only a fixed set of things that the back office can possibly do with a bond or a future, but new types of instruments come into existence (or sometimes our awareness) with pretty surprising regularity.

But the article you linked had a slight of hand trick with how they described multi-methods. They only give an example one multi-method. What if you need to emulate a Java interface with M methods on it? Well now you'll need M multi-methods with an implementation for each virtual "class". You quickly see how that falls apart if you need to add a type or an operation, since either way requires you to manually check and make sure that all operations are implemented for all types. Again, it works, but it's error prone.

Defrecord & defprotocol work much better. We ended up trying them and they were ... okay. They work, with some footguns, most of which I can't remember anymore, but if you end up going too far down that road (like we did) you end up asking yourself why you're writing Java in Clojure instead of just writing Java in Java.
I really appreciate the use of math here for a sense of scale. That said, this analysis overlooks the relationship between supply and demand on price and availability. Because housing is relatively supply inelastic a small increase in demand can drive large increases in prices.
That said I think it is a valid point that the current housing shortages in the US are caused by bigger forces than 100 billion dollar company. Long term policy initiatives at the local, state and federal level have all contributed to the skyrocketing cost of housing, and these should really be higher priority than hotel zoning reform.
Not necessary at all, and one of the first things I turned off as it was distracting and would sometimes force you into weird positions in order to catch a pokemon.
Sadly too many people think they will get free houses, money and cars from this without having to work.

After driving past community housing to see all the new model BMWs all the welfare people have, it seems lots of people will always continue to make bad decisions.
Basically it is the same thing as Java Applets, Flash, ActiveX, PNaCL, just this time everyone jumps of joy using it, because it is "safe" [0].

And then use it in scenarios like IBM i TIMI, z/OS language environments, P-Code, M-Code, Dis, CLR, JVM,..., and call it "innovation".

Whatever, I just ride the wave, need to keep that CV updated.

[0] - https://www.software-lab.org/publications/usenixSec2020-WebA...
Crab bucket mentality.
You absolutely don't need to pay the $100 license fee to develop for iOS. That fee is just required for distribution
> They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language

Certainly not when they are spending hundreds of hours writing the next great LRU Cache or Bubble Sort so they can pass interviews every other year.
We’ve recently released an option to run Cypress tests on browsers in our cloud: https://testingbot.com/blog/testingbot-cypress
I found this when I used Cypress at a contract last month - ended up just using a Makefile `make test` to run every suite.
But aluminium is even worse. The co2 footprint is many times worse than Glas or even plastic.
Traditionally you may read an article like this:

https://247wallst.com/services/2020/11/17/airbnb-gears-up-fo...

>Airbnb Gears Up for IPO, Finally
Chris Lange
November 17, 2020 10:35 am

>Airbnb has filed an S-1 form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its initial public offering. The company did not mention any pricing details in the filing, but the offering is valued up to $1 billion. Airbnb intends to list its shares on the Nasdaq under the symbol ABNB.

>The underwriters for the offering are Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Allen, BofA Securities, Barclays, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, Mizuho, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Jefferies, Wells Fargo, Baird, Canaccord Genuity, Cowen, D.A. Davidson, JMP Securities, KeyBanc Capital Markets, Needham, Oppenheimer, Piper Sandler, Raymond James, Stifel, Wedbush, William Blair, Academy, Blaylock Van, CastleOak, C.L. King, Guzman, Loop Capital Markets, MFR Securities, Mischler Financial Group, Ramirez, Siebert Williams Shank, Telsey Advisory Group and Tigress Financial Partners.

These are the Wall Street investors who are going to take the company public by purchasing huge amounts of shares from the private investors (like YC) and equity owners (like founders & early employees) who held the private corporate shares until then.

They will negotiate an issue price of the IPO which is what they will be paying the earlier private shareholders who cash in. This is like the wholesale price. It determines/is-deterined-by the overall company valuation at this point.

After that the shares will trade publicly on the exchange which the underwriters represent.

Any broker on that exchange can get shares for you at market prices after the market exists, and sell them to you at retail markup above that or not depending on your account terms.

If you want to actually participate in the IPO you may ideally have an account with one of the underwriters who is a dealer, such as Raymond, James & Assoc. listed above, and agree in advance to their mark-up above the issue price, to purchase for your account upon issue.

In this case that would have been a way to acquire at a price well below the market's opening price.
Check out https://maps.org/

Therapy while "tripping" is very different then the "recreational way". Remember, set and setting are important.
You ask the ISP who owns the IP who was using it at a specific time, when it turns out to be your former employee’s home, you ask for a search warrant to sieze her computers as evidence. Then you try to match logs on a device with logs on your servers, and additional evidence perhaps as well in order to establish beyond reasonable doubt that this woman did indeed do what is being accused.
I actually found the second link quite informative. I'm quite willing to admit that I was ignorant to the fact that different types of glass are not recyclable (or at least not easily so).

It doesn't help when comments like this are flagged. People need to get over their insecurities.
It looks promising.

I've used most of other front-end testing tool in the past (selenium, puppeteer, playwright) and none of them support drag and drop if I remember correctly.
How about just bringing it back without a tax? Works pretty good in Switzerland...
SoC doesn't make as large of a difference as you'd think.

There are now enough transistors on chip for a reasonably good on-chip GPU. Plus you get better bandwidth between CPU and GPU. This is independent of the instruction architecture. The PS5's SOIC does some of the same things, though it's an x86 instruction set, not ARM.

Neither the PS5 nor the Xbox use AMD CPUs. Intel has a big problem.
But.. they didn't apply like everybody else. pg made an /apply2 endpoint specifically for them: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1337011619268882432

I doubt they were given special treatment afterwards. Their interview probably went like everyone else's. But how can it be true that there was no special treatment beforehand, when it was a special /apply2 endpoint?

Of course talented-but-disadvantaged people have a shot. None of this is to say that they don't, and no one implied that special connections were a requirement. I know how hard YC works not to overlook those.

My position is that there's nothing wrong with it being a special exception. Instacart seemed to be, too. But that's different than saying there was no exception.
Raycast (YC W20) Is Hiring Backend Software Engineers (Remote, UTC ± 3 hours)
> Of course they are increasing demand by being cheaper (because they can ignore fire safety regulations and a ton of others that hotels have to follow, therefore having an unfair advantage).

This seems like a regulatory arbitrage that shouldn't exist to begin with. Why should the fire safety regulations for a hotel be dramatically different in expense than the ones for the equivalent apartment complex?

> They are increasing demand in the same way more and bigger roads do not reduce but instead increase traffic.

People consistently get this wrong. Bigger roads don't increase traffic. Congestion suppresses traffic. If there is a congested two lane road because it's carrying traffic that would require a four lane road, so then you build a four lane road, you then discover that the four lane road is still congested. Because once you remove some of the congestion, the demand it had been suppressing comes back and you still don't have enough capacity.

The distinction is important because there is a point at which you actually have enough road capacity to satisfy the demand that exists when it isn't being suppressed by traffic congestion. It's just more than you might have expected based on the amount of traffic observed when the road was congested.

> In addition to that they can ignore zoning laws and therefore move rent prices up in areas where hotels are not allowed to be.

The solution to which is to eliminate restrictive zoning like that, so that supply can respond to demand.

The primary reason that short-term rentals are zoned differently is local regulatory capture by hotels to limit competition and keep prices high. Without restrictive zoning, short-term rentals don't have to come at the expense of long-term housing because you can build more housing and have both.
> Food is a global market, water isn't. It's easier to import food than water since it's much lighter for the price.

Exactly. These futures are a local market much closer to weather futures than fungible markets like crude oil or soybeans or even natural gas to a lesser degree, exactly because it's uneconomical to transport regular water over large distances. So these futures markets have little to tell us directly about anything other than local conditions in California. They allow local farmers to trade risk with other market participants such as speculators or the sellers of the water.
Yeah, goats will eat everything.

Two goats chew film tape. One says:
- This film is nice.
- The book was better.
How to increase CSS-in-JS performance by 175x
I haven't heard of caffeine triggering epilepsy, but yup, here's a link:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29414557/

Good to know. It wasn't reported that the Florida pilot had a seizure, but he too was too jacked up to concentrate on flying. Had it been a seizure, it would be tough get an aviation medical renewed because it can't be proved that LoC won't happen again.

Fatigue Countermeasures in Aviation (Mountain Dew Highest Caffeine Content)

https://www.asma.org/asma/media/asma/pdf-policy/2009/fatigue...
Totally agree. Inequality shouldn't matter if people's purchasing power and quality of life has improved significantly regardless. Life expectancy in the US has improved dramatically over time (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...). The US also has one of the highest GDP PPP per capita in the world despite being one of the largest by population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...). And worldwide, extreme poverty has also gone down significantly over time (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under...).

The tendency of younger generations to demonize America's economic systems and conditions really seems to be the result of widespread envy as well as ignorance to how poorly alternative systems function. Perhaps this is because socialist/Marxist nations were once the subject of recent history, but now are turning into forgotten ancient history. My feeling is that this envious focus on inequality is also a symptom of the relative luxury of this time period. A populace whose needs are met can afford to attend college for years, getting degrees that aren't valuable, then argue that they are victims, and then spend excessive time on manufactured outrage in a life that is remarkably easy.

Real poverty is incredibly rare in America. Anyone who has traveled to developing countries knows this. We have a system that innovates remarkably well and has lifted quality of life worldwide. This focus on relative inequality does not make sense.
Indeed, look at how people talk about wealth, as if it's untouchable: If we tax the rich, they will move to another country, or take away our jobs. Even a perceived threat is a threat. It's as if talking about taxation is a form of lese majeste.

There's something I noticed some time ago, brought into relief by the COVID crisis: We can apparently talk about any means of dealing with the crisis except dipping into private wealth. When it comes to paying for the crisis, working people can choose to pay for it with their livelihoods or their lives.

We can apparently ask people to sacrifice their lives for the sake of "the economy," but suggesting that people sacrifice their wealth is seen as too absurd or reckless to even consider.