skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Bose wireless headphones that come with a built in headset.

They have constant connection / sound issues (Windows 10) and quality with the headset is poor, and need a daily charge to be useable.

Not going to use them again for a long time, not sure if it’s the (terrible?) Windows Bluetooth stack to blame or the headphones or both, but overall a huge regret of a purchase. Back to trusty cables I go.
Could you add your email to your profile? Is the location just in Hawthorne/LA?
I think I successfully communicated, and I'm getting upvoted, but my wording was imprecise. Would that I could edit to add: "[...] if you thought that is what it would do."
What is the problem with the company’s owners being the largest beneficiaries in a transaction in which they are choosing to buy or sell their own assets?

1. Competition for the sake of competition is not an end in itself. Competition is a means to an end, not a promise or guarantee. See also: the T-Mobile and Sprint merger.

2. New businesses are started as new opportunities arise. Wherever a market inefficiency is perceived, there are people who seek to exploit this inefficiency for their own benefit. Even the businesses that fail employ some people for some time; it’s not important that the same businesses that exist today continue to exist in perpetuity, but that the business environment continues to encourage people to take new risks and start new ventures.

3. Stop bailing out failing businesses. Would it hurt the S&P 500 if a FAANG company filed for bankruptcy? Yes, but that’s irrelevant. Socializing losses only encourages more businesses to take on more risk than would normally be acceptable to them and their shareholders if they think there’s a good chance they’ll be bailed out by taxpayers. Sometimes businesses, even big businesses fail, and that’s part of the environment, not something to be prevented at all costs. The stock market is a reflection of market activity, it isn’t the market.
I'm not sure I understand the aim of your message -- the recount did what it is supposed to (well, count again). What does that have to do with the press-release from YouTube?
We don't usually see rocket engines cut off in that much atmosphere, but it's probably normal.
I agree with you, which is why I commented. I believe in the value of startups and their role in disrupting business to provide old services in a better way or to provide entirely new services. However, I also want startups to facilitate virtuous cycles so that all stakeholders move forward [1].

DoorDash fulfills the former but not the latter. DoorDash's business involves 3 stakeholders: restaurants, drivers, and end customers. DoorDash hasn't done well by drivers given the tip stealing scandal. DoorDash initially benefited restaurants by expanding their addressable markets, but as DoorDash now extracts substantial commissions and any modern restaurant is required to have a presence on DoorDash, they're essentially just rent-seeking. Regarding customers, this comment thread demonstrates how controversial DoorDash is. Yes, DoorDash provides a delivery service that didn't exist before, but they're also engaging in shady business practices (e.g. claiming free delivery with DashPass, the Chicago and Philadelphia fees designed to look like government taxes rather than additional DoorDash fees, and other dark patterns). In my opinion, DoorDash's net effect on the restaurant-driver-customer relationship is negative.

I think DoorDash has found a way to make a ton of money without actually creating a net good for the restaurant-driver-customer relationship. Kudos to DoorDash for finding a way to make tons of money, but I personally can't support any company that doesn't actually create a net positive value on society. I accept that I'm in the minority here as evidenced by DoorDash's market cap, but I hope my thoughts on this at least prompt a discussion about the value and role of startups in society.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_ci...
I still think you were correct, you just underestimated how long it would take for this to happen if the company was actually competent (unlike MySpace), and all the money that could be made in the meantime.

Facebook The Platform's userbase keeps getting older and less engaged, millennials and younger have largely shifted to instagram. Taken by itself, Facebook the platform doesn't have great looking prospects.

Instagram is the current hot thing, and is keeping Facebook The Company on the growth trajectory, but it too will suffer the same problem eventually.

Now that Zuck is under so much scrutiny, he won't be allowed to acquire the next hot social platform. When instagram isn't the "it" platform anymore, Facebook is doomed.

My prediction: if the US government does nothing, Facebook the company will slowly peak and then start shrinking over the next 5-10 years and the problem will start solving itself.

Their data moat becomes infinitely less valuable if the graph of users and engagement is a downward slope instead of an upward one.
Probably oxygen, since the fuel tank had low pressure
I would've expected a shared design library that had all the standard widgets, and then each page / area of the UI to be implemented and managed by the individual teams.

The dependency version drift could be solved by forcing every part of the application to use the same version, though obviously this increases the complexity of each upgrade.

My understanding from following angular development was that prior to each angular release they effectively beta test it across Google's estate - I think this is partly why the upgrade process is so smooth, because it wouldn't be tenable otherwise. The same pattern could be applied to a shared design library
The "missing votes" were found during the recount, and added t the eventually certified totals. So yeah, the system works. Whats the issue again?
Because (a) most of them predate the standardization of WebExtensions and (b) that API still isn't standardized enough to make building against it as cheap as building a chrome specific extension.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
A PhD would likely be very familiar with academic publications.
I just posted a gif of the landing on reddit and people are convinced it's edited and fake because they switch the camera almost exactly on impact. I kinda see their point!
You're definitely misunderstanding. Why can't companies reuse infrastructure? Does every delivery company build their own road?
It makes the point that saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" is not a helpful contribution to the discourse around free speech. And since this is a conversation about free speech, and the parent did exactly that, it is completely relevant. Using thought-terminating clichés should be avoided, even if they are technically correct in that particular circumstance.
It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation.

1 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit.

2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee.

I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless.

Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.
The Surreal Tale of an Airship Club That Might Never Have Existed (2013)
I just added it (thanks for pointing that out) but for anyone that wants to get in touch it is anthony.rose [at] spacex.com.

Edit: and there are other locations too, including Redmond, WA.
We had downtime once the certificate of the issuer of ours expired. Thus the SSL trust "chain" was broken an browsers no longer accepted our SSL certificate.

(Of course they annouced that via some channels, which our SSL reseller forgot to forward.)

A useful addition, or premium feature, would be to also scan the SSL certificate chain.
The exhaust was engine rich :)
The name of the blog is "Fisted by Foucault" ...
It was an example. You were asking how the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was being misused and I gave an explanation, that it is an example that some speech is not protected, which is not in dispute, but is often used as justification for not protecting other, unrelated speech.
can you link me a source that proves that the rejection rate of 6% went down to 0.02%? thank you!
My current wireless headset costs $10. My wife bought it on sale, cheap Chinese crap, but I'd prefer to go through 10 pairs in the next year than shell out $500. That price point is crazy
You could argue that people who are microdosing are abusing strong psychoactive drugs. It's interesting that you can take a full dose of such drugs, and have no desire to repeat the experience for some time (months, years), yet small functional doses is something that you would look forward to repeating every few days.

Speaking from personal experience, microdosing was something that I wanted to push to the limits of being a microdose until it became a "minidose". I was a bit relieved when I lost my stash (due to my own drugged up incompetence), it was becoming a way to just slightly trip out two times a week.
As strong as a full blown DMT experience can be, people abuse all sorts of substances with scary effects from solvents, to cough syrup, to Salvia.
Yeah this bothers me, whether Trump won or lost is kind of besides the point, the real issue is that clearly the media “wants” a specific outcome and has been doing as much as they can to make that outcome more probable starting even way before the day of the election.
This paper was 100% of my life for a few years at spriggy. One of the lines that almost made me spit my coffee with a laught was "that allows you to tie out balances and payments with zero failures (this is super unlikely)."
Building stock exchanges for 13 years before my time in consumer finance I'd say financial trading systems are a dream environment compared to post trade settlement and settlement is a dream compared to banking. Specially when you have multiple sources of truth, as described in this paper.
No collisions in the input does not mean no collisions in the hash algorithm. In reality there's book keeping overhead in a hash data structure that might be significant.
> When we talk about a "free" society, we are talking about government intervention.

I'm not sure how to respond to this without venturing into semantics. When we talk about a free society, we are talking about the freedom of the people who make up that society to pursue their own interests and livelihood without oppression or undue interference. It doesn't make it ok to aggress upon or oppress people if you somehow define the perpetrator of that aggression or oppression to be "not government."

> We don't mean that every radio station has to play my song, every tv station has to play my show, and every billboard has to show my message.

However we do mean that everyone have access to the airwaves and that everyone have access to telecom infrastructure and other utilities. The reason section 230 of the CDA is at issue here is that companies like youtube are legally protected from liability for content that they display, but there are no legal consequences for their refusal to show any content. This creates the conditions for them to unaccountably promote one side of an issue to the exclusion of another. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could be a bad thing.

> You would think that with such a right-wing userbase,

The userbase here is not right-wing.

> the aspect of Youtube's private property would emerge in the conversation.

Its been brought up numerous times. Almost every time section 230 reform is mentioned, in fact. Which is good because these issues need to be hashed out.

> But that's not the issue, instead, the "CeNsOrShIp" crowd is more concerned about having white supremacist ideas widely marginalized in polite society.

Poisoning the well doesn't advance the conversation, rather the opposite.
Hi Anthony! Congrats on the mostly successful test, and a huge thank you to your colleagues.
We're still discussing the plans for 2021 given the challenges w/ CV19, but feel free to ping me (email in profile) and I can send you more info.
Reposted with the URL a few minutes later https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25366680
Without A think tank for how fb should be split, this suit won’t succeed in court for no reason other than impracticality.

Without sustaining rules there is nothing stopping another fb from coming in the future.

Without rules and without a master roadmap, I can’t see the judge agreeing to this. Like sun tzu said the battle is won before the first shot is fired. And this is a losing battle.

Here is what I think of an ideal future. Platforms need to be separated and service providers need to be separated.

They can be one company but separate management with no influence between each other.

Messaging platforms can be separate with interoperability. As long as management is separate.

Facebook properties are a combination of friend network, share portal, news aggregator portal, ad display, ad filter, messaging platforms, data analyzers. And more than I care to know.

This is too much power under one management.

By splitting platforms from service providers seeking customers on those platforms, and allowing customers to disconnect from those platforms and move to other platforms, a large fracking sound will be heard.
I read it. And what I found was nearly 200 pages describe various forms of collusion between Trump campaign officials and various Russian actors. True, there was no "treason." But that's moving the goalpost. If we stick with "Russian collusion," the Muller report confirms that it was, in fact, rampant--albeit not chargeably criminal. ("Collusion" is not a crime.)
(Charles Stross) So you say you want a revolution?
You can vote on election day even though you sent a mail in ballot earlier right? They just destroy the mailed in one.
> However, there isn't a word said about this on CNN, MSNBC or any other heavily left-leaning media sources.

That's untrue, nor are those "heavily left-leaning" sites [1]. With a quick google search, I can already see that CNN did report on it [2]. There's no reason for it to be a "huge news story" because they caught it, it wasn't malicious, and it didn't affect the vote tally in any meaningful way.

[1] https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

[2] https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-trump-us-el...
Do'h! Realized I made a typo :')

> That modesty sound right, imho

Meant to say: "That doesn't sound right, imho"
nope. He said "there are very fine people on both sides" in regards to protectors of Robert E Lee statue on one side, and BLM protestors who wanted to deface that statue, on the other.

The next day when asked to clarify, he explicitly condemned white supremacists.

There are people who don't want Confederates statues to be defaced, and they have nothing to do with white supremacists.

In fact he condemned racism dozens of times but you never saw it on mainstream news because of their agenda.

If you slander someone as 'racist' many times people will start to believe the lie. Your comment is an evidence of how effective that is.

It's an excellent political strategy that worked out great for the Democratic party.

Edit: Here you go

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6PFZNruJes

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hybkzCWb_w

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPwS5qwxXYs

4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JmOSsv-KSg
The Trump people are alleging that there was fraud, frequently with no specifics. Where they have made specific allegations, those allegations have been roundly disproved. They then continue to say there was fraud, see my previous statement about smoke.

The fundamental problem here is the impracticality of proving a negative. In order to conclusively demonstrate that there was no fraud of any kind we would need to have an audit trail from citizenship being granted (largely at birth) through votes being tabulated. That's impossible. So we have standards for what things we investigate and how we investigate them. Those standards have been surpassed out of an abundance of caution in virtually all cases this election cycle.

As an aside, it's interesting to me that the group which normally screams the loudest about government inefficiency and the waste that comes from the government are suddenly the people screaming that everything needs to be checked and rechecked at huge cost to the tax payer when there is very, very little chance of anything changing. This is going to be in textbooks in the future under the heading "Loss Aversion", which I guess means at least we'll get something out of the money we're lighting on fire?
We had echo chambers long before we had an Internet. Read Rick Perlstein on the John Birch Society, for instance.
Great, so you know the area. What about the experience with the people then? Because that's where the perspective comes from, not the location. If you haven't spent much time with the homeless, criminal, and their countering police and federal agencies here then you don't actually have the experience.

But since you have such a long history, what part of my previous comments are you disagreeing with? Care to tell us what in CA has improved over this last decade?
Have you even tried google news sources critical of Whitmer, Cuomo, or Biden? There are plenty of critics.

Of course, it’s hard to be more critical to them than to an idiot who told people to inject bleach; that’s just to be expected, though.
NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) supplement anecdotally reduces the tolerance that builds. Time passing also reduces the tolerance - I initially was told to not do MDMA more than every 4 months maximum.
How the candidate echoed the conspiracy theorist on the campaign trail
Except this is fact-based article. The issue at hand is that there are widespread claims being made that are completely baseless. They are not substantiated by facts. Videos that are making claims without any evidence are not equivalent to an actual scandal/controversy that is backed by evidence. In other words, the claims being made in this election will not be presented in the same format of the article you shared because no one can point to any actual widespread election meddling or vote tampering. I really am blown away why this fundamental distinction is so hard for people to grasp. I can make any false claims about anyone or anything. This does not inherently make something controversial and give it credence. If on the other hand my claims were not fabricated and have merit, then they may result in a scandal/controversy. It seems like you believe because this is being said over and over again that it somehow deserves attention or is credible. That's a really unfortunate position. You cannot will facts into into existence.

"Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right even if no one else is doing it." ― Saint Augustine
Ask HN: How to delete the Hacker News account?
I guess under GDPR you should be able to, right?
GP's quote implores the reader to do the balancing. When journalists do it (especially poorly) it becomes just another facet of a the publication's/writer's bias.

That's not to say that a good counter argument shouldn't be presented in the article, just that a moral mandate to include both sides often creates that false balance
Oh? I have an intrinsic right to the land that I currently own, the car in my driveway, and the computer I'm typing this on? How did that intrinsic right derive? And why don't I have an intrinsic right to, say, the land of the entire continent of North America?

Property rights are entirely a social construct. They are not intrinsic; they are created and granted solely via the formalizations of that social contract in the form of the state.
>So, maybe I'm not understanding something

You're right about that. Most claims about election fraud have absolutely nothing to do with the two links you are shared.

And your links don't show fraud. And your links don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia let alone the election as a whole.
You need `ncc run` to run the generated file.

https://github.com/vercel/ncc#commands
Already 7 months ago evidence was seen of Trump rationalizing away future losses. He mobilized plans to defund the Postal Service, deligitimize drop-off ballots, and claim that the Democrats were going to engage in fraud.

I'm sorry but that's just not it, at least not this time. When you have a narcissistic psychopath that needs to feed his ego, and army of yes-men who have no regards for laws and ethics, it pays to be extra careful. It was partially because of this dilligence that plans to remove drive-by ballot drop-offs by Republicans were thwarted.
> granting Google (or anyone) the power to decide what is true or false

Certainly Google has the power to decide what they think is true or false on their YouTube service.
Yeah, it's a matter of risk. Rightly or wrongly you could get hit with a lawsuit that says "we have infected your entire control plane; open-source it or die" and every cloud provider has to weigh that for themselves.
That's my suspicion as well. If it's methane rich then the exhaust would have a lot of soot due to incomplete combustion. If it's oxygen rich then the burn temperature would be much higher than designed, and every internal metal surface would get oxidize in a hurry.
Or for an even more recent example, the scientific community largely rejected plate tectonics initially
> You'd probably use BDD in a SAT solver.

Uhm, I'm not sure about that. Most state-of-the-art SAT solvers nowadays will rely on CDCL [0], which does not need BDDs. A recent paper [1] is quite clear on that:

> The Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) solvers form the core of the algorithms for solving the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT).

There is a huge slide deck [2] which contains (in the first part) a lot of details about modern SAT solving. Highly recommended reading for those interested.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPLL_algorithm

[1]: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-51825-...

[2]: http://vmcaischool19.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/~vmcaischool19.daemo...
How to think about clean power generation
An exploration of a useful framework for thinking about clean power generation and what's required.