skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Substitute "crystal healing", or "hydroxychloroquin" for "population-wide mask usage to contain a viral disease". To the medical sciences, these three are (were) more alike than they are different: they all are interventions that may or may not achieve a desired outcome, and may or may not have some unwanted side effects.

In January/February 2020, there was about as much evidence for either of those propositions. The evidence on masks was thin, and limited to use by professionals in a medical setting. Existing studies of their use as practiced in parts of Asia were inconclusive.

Yes, I know: Masks seem like a really good idea. The whole concept makes sense. There's a theory as to how they work.

But medicine stopped believing any theory as to what may or may not be useful around a hundred years ago, after killing countless people with bloodletting, mercury, vapour-vaping, whatever... All those interventions may seem ridiculous to you, but they all followed some entirely believable logic that accounted for all the known facts as long as one did not actually run a double-blind trial.

It's instructive to look at the fate of two of those interventions: masks and that quinine. We now know the former works and the latter does not. And I'll be immodest and mention that I considered masks to be effective from day one, while spending only about a week drinking Gin Tonics for health reasons, until the full extend of the seediness of that French doctor pushing it became public (and I had to go back to a different set of reasons for the drinks).

But at about the same time along each treatment's timeline, there really was more actual, or at least claimed to be factual, evidence for the Malaria-malarky than there was for masks. And while I'm supremely excellent at predictioneering, I utterly fail when trying to distill some set of specific rules to follow.

Maybe there's wisdom in numbers? Do a survey in the US right now, and you'll probably get 55 % to advocate for masks, 42 % believing in the insect-repellant. And that's about four months after the science on those questions has been settled.
Why Is Literally Everyone on Twitter Tweeting About Carp?
Yeah. That’s a helpful concept. I noticed that there are just so many technologies whose essential characteristics were discovered/demonstrated in the late 50’s/early 60’s. And by no means just in aviation.

It’s almost easier to name foundational technologies that weren’t discovered by then than the reverse.
I have the Raspberry Shake & Boom (https://raspberryshake.org/products/raspberry-shake-boom/).

I live in a condo/townhouse situation where the (underground) basement, second and third floors are mine. I mention underground because it's not one of those halfway things, there's a regular first/ground floor.

In any case, I have the shake in the basement on the bare concrete floor and when there's minimal noise late at night I can see a very clear signal if I thrum/drum(?) (https://images.app.goo.gl/i8cMPxef7kiQRFwh9) my fingers on my desk on the third floor.
This will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
This is a funny way to frame it and puts it all in perspective, exactly right.

If just telling people what is happening causes this reaction, it certainly makes you think.
Design patterns are considered to be things that you can’t express directly in the language (that’s the Design Patterns book definition). Monads can definitely be expressed directly in Haskell. The only thing you can’t do is prove the Monad laws in Haskell (I think?).

Other languages, like e.g. Rust (because of lack of HKT), cannot express monads like Haskell can.

But yeah, you can definitely call it a design pattern if that’s what the culture around the language is like. But it would be like Java folks calling interfaces with default implementations for something goofy like “Interface with stateless implementations pattern”, and even they don’t go that far.
They're also running up against significant competition in the form of extremely inexpensive local hardware.

Ten or twenty years ago a company with a thousand employees typically needed multiple racks full of servers, in some cases to handle the load but in many cases just because each separate service would have its own physical machine.

Today all of that can fit on a pair of local physical machines hosting virtual guests. A single machine can have over a hundred cores and terabytes of memory. Moreover, a physical machine can be amortized over ten years provided you have a load that doesn't vary significantly over time. And because it's such a small number of physical machines, you no longer need exotic local power and cooling solutions.

Cloud providers are already more expensive than this in many cases. They need every cost advantage they can get just to be in the game.
Yes, it takes courage to admit you were wrong in front of a global audience. I blame them for not having the proper fact-checking procedures in place for the podcast, but I applaud them for owning this and for their apparent willingness to learn from this.
Actions like these damage American moral authority in the region, and frankly within the American populace as well.

I often wonder where passionate distrust of the government has emerged from in recent years, and it is probably things like this which disillusion readers.
This is my main complaint. What's the point of having an open world if there's no mechanics. I can shoot a cop in the face and walk half a block a way and they'll just give up.
> Mutated spike protein

Hm. Let’s hope the vaccine still works.
indians dont believe in death as the final destination. we believe in reincarnation. why should my wealth go to some random person when it can help my family, friends or those that i deem valuable?

the kind of A type personality who is a wealth creator..by luck or intent..is likely uber A type that will not submit to dictatorship by legislation. if Jack Dorsey was forced to pay more taxes, he'd probably leave CA for Austin too. (twitter was in SF only for the time they have the tax break. right after it elapsed..coinciding with the covid SAH order, Jack was more vocal about going 100% remote..but the plan to move out of SF was always there even before pre-covid).

A type personalities like to follow rules because it makes it easier to compete in the game. because when you have rules for the game, it means everyone who is playing with you also acknowledge the rules of the game. there will be less conflict, more order and they thrive in such environments because it offer sufficient stability to focus on their goals.

they also want to be recognised and feted. some humbly and others crave it openly. even those who dont realise it enjoy it. california's environment will no longer foster what it did before.

have you ever been pickpocketed? have you ever given money to charity? which feels better? we are still pleasure seeking, rationalising apes. we like to say the words but we will still act with our ape instincts.

california should eliminate ALL taxes. and institute a flat consumption tax. and stop their dirty politics of turning their people against each other. inequalities exist for a reason. i have seen beggars in india with one limb and living in a shack with three children boiling pebbles for soup who are happier than millionaires in california.
Now just imagine if someone would replace the horrible refcnt with a real copying GC. At least 2x faster I would assume.
Introduction to gRPC – Part 4 (Final)
That’s just the city’s spending. Once you consider other sources, including private ones (nonprofits), it is much higher. The Seattle area was spending $1B a year on homelessness as of a few years ago, which is nearly $100K/year per homeless person (https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness).
Well, if all the people that actually produce the value (that is the workers) walk out on strike until the cat is belled, things would move.

Of course, that requires that strikes be legal. In the USA, that is frequently not the case.
Yes!! That was it!
Washing regularly also helps hygiene. As a bonus it doesn't
require cutting off a body part according to the suggestions of
a fairy tale.

Circumcision for hygiene is a bit like shaving your whole head
so you don't need to use shampoo(Edit: with the difference that
hair can actually grow back and doesn't have countless sensitive
nerve endings).
All of what you say makes sense to me, but one thing still bugs me – is it not true that reviewers live and die by their reputation? If they brown nose publishers to not lose out on first mover advantage, to the point where they’re essentially aiding and abetting a bait-n-switch, does that not hurt their standing with the consumers of their reviews? Aren’t they in the trust business? Are their revenue streams so dependent on the good will and reach of publishers that essentially they are forced to be shills? I genuinely have no idea how this works, but it sure does seem odd to me.

I’m still curious about what potential legal ramifications there might be for a reviewer saying a product is great when in reality it doesn’t even work, and they know it.
I think your analogy perfectly captures why we must criticize it.

Both Fauci and the Times made an elementary mistake/miscalculations that reflects terribly on trust people place with them.

The media then lambasts anyone who uses this to sow scepticism about these institutions, calling them conspiracy theorists instead.(which is true for certain cohorts, but wielded as a blanket statement)

My trust in various academic institutions has gone down by orders of magnitude since the UCL/NE Journal and many of the other covid fiascos. The statistical and scientific rigor employed by experts and epidemiologist seems to be massively lacking.

Similarly, a series of missteps by the NYT has led me to (a much larger degree than the previous analogy) lose trust in its reporting. Sadly, there do not seem to be any alternative sources outside of either reading the papers directly or finding specific individuals I place high amount of trust in.

Both are all too time consuming for someone with a full time job.
>At the very least, they did a poor job of communicating this in the public sphere. The sound bites many Americans got was to not wear masks, which is quite different than "wearing masks is not a suitable substitute for social distancing".

CDC isn't to blame for this. At this point there was a TON of political interference and bureaucratic restrictions on what they were allowed to say, and they were reined in very early. There were lots of entire careers and stuff some people call "my life's work" held in the lurch there.
One of my grandmothers had dementia in her final years, so I watched her go through these stages. I think you've described the stages quite well. In the first two stages, she suffered terribly; I never noticed a stage 3. My grandfather put up a heroic effort to care for her at home well into stage 4, but eventually she had to move into a nursing home, where she spent several more years in stage 5.

But it looked to me like those were some fairly happy years for her. When she was of sound mind, she was always worried about countless things. Now she was cheerful, watching the world in wonder, and occasionally flirting with a fellow resident.
It is not a country. As much as you like it to be one.
Google’s algorithms were definitely “magic” by the standards of the time. Altavista never got much better than literal keyword search even when they introduced PageRank-style weighting. Google immediately had useful results from misspellings, questions, and related keywords, and only got better from there. Plus it was much faster; responses in 1-2 seconds versus 5-10 sometimes for AV. Maybe what you said is true, but they were deep in the hole as soon as Google launched.
> Honestly, my major problem with wealth inequality is not that rich people get to have money; it's that wealth concentration leads to power concentration. That's not healthy for democracy. This is probably extremely controversial, but I say go ahead and collect a wealth tax and then burn everything you collect. It's not about the budget, it's about limiting the power of billionaires and the corporations they control. There are probably better ways to accomplish that goal, but a wealth tax is at least a start in the right direction.

I'm not totally convinced by this. in fact, I'd argue the opposite: wealth is the result of power, not the cause. consider jeff bezos; I'm sure we would all consider him a powerful man. is he powerful because the shares he holds are worth $200 billion (on paper), or is he powerful because he controls one of the largest companies in the world?

here's a thought experiment. suppose there was an asymptotic tax that limited net worth to a maximum of $1 billion, so jeff bezos would only have 0.5% of his current assets. how much would his power be diminished? I tend to think his status as the founder and CEO of amazon would put him in a pretty similar position.
While it does depend on the C project, in general it's not the sort of language you can really retrofit pervasive refcounting into automatically. Even if it worked, I think the set of people currently using C who would be willing to switch to such a system, but hadn't already moved to another language or started using Bohm, must be quite small at this point.
Shouldn’t new strains be more contagious but less deadly?
Solarwinds accidentally leaked (via Github) the FTP credentials to the infrastructure used to distribute builds in late 2019 [1].

I'd be curious to see if the digitally signed bad versions are similar to digitally signed good versions, i.e. if there's any chance the attacker found/developed a hash collision against an otherwise legitimate build. AIUI it'd be a pretty big deal since it would point to a vulnerability in SHA-256 (which is usually how Windows binaries are signed), but this is apparently a nation state we're dealing with? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[1] https://twitter.com/vinodsparrow/status/1338431183588188160/...
But "Democrat supporters" sounds worse, which is why they use that word instead.
You queued it to a very inauspicious place, because of all of the examples in the talk (many of which are quite good) the elixir example is not accurate for the elixir community (in 2020, anyways)
in theory this looks good. reality is a bit different. I constantly have problems with my left and right neighbor (middle of pandemic and this ahole is doing a barbecue with loud music since yesterday) about their lack of consideration (this in my parents house, where I am right now). In my apartment is no different... loud music, stumping on the floor... that kind of problem you have on a building. my father have a huge heart and does all kinds of good things for people, and I watch him getting screw over by the same people he helps (this includes people he hire to work for his small company).

each passing day I feel more and more inclined to buy me a piece of land with no one around it, build a small house in the center of it and never interact with this kind of people forever.
Basil Portfolio Blogger Template
Even if you only report facts as they happen bias is injected by what facts are reported and what stories are covered or omitted. The reporter will naturally be drawn to stories that match up with their perspective on the world. It's very difficult for us to actively and constantly challenge our own assumptions and seek out evidence that contradicts them.

I've thought about this a lot. I think that if an outlet is reporting on some statistical fact. Like the frequency of mass shooting deaths for example they should also place that in perspective against car accidents, cancer, heart disease etc. Contrast that with crime and murder trends over a large swath of time etc. This way people can properly contextualize and rank the real risk in the situation and separate it from the sensationalism.

But even if all of that is carried out. There is still bias from what the reporter chose to write a story about.

I think the worst offenders of situations like this are the investigative NPR style stories where a reporter seeks out an individual's story as a means to emotionally manipulate the reader into a particular policy position. It's far better to look at the larger statistical picture. You can find a sob story to emotionally manipulate people towards quite literally any policy position imaginable.
> A judgment call of "likely enough true" when the reality is "entirely fictional" points, in my opinion, to either a lack of judgment

Completely justified and reasonable judgement that something is "likely to be true" can be sometimes be incorrect because that's what the word "likely" means.
Pretty interesting. Wonder what SpaceX uses for there CPUs?
As a keen photographer myself and someone who's done similar projects [albeit not on such a timescale] I've got to 'say I found that body of work pretty underwhelming. Look through any family album and you'll find similarly uninteresting content. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. But I guess, if you call something "Art" people often invest it with more significance than it merits.
I've worked on titles going through LotCheck and TCR (now known as XR if I'm not mistaken), I'm perfectly aware of how verification goes.

I never implied that it's about bugs that suck for the player, in fact I said the opposite: "Usually the requirements are things that would reflect badly on the console like locking up and crashing vs "not being a fun game" or something."

---

What I'm saying is I'm aware of what Cyberpunk 2077 means to these companies, especially with the timing in relation to new consoles and the holidays. 2077 is the kind of game that moves units.

I'm very specific in the wording of my comment, it's not that games normally ever get a pass, and it is a standard checklist... but I also know Sony and MS giving CDPR wiggle room not out of selflessness, but out of "psuedo-necessity", doesn't sound impossible.

I'm not saying it's common just because you have a AAA title, but 2077 comes across as the "perfect storm" to see this happen.
I'm perfectly willing to check Bing or DDG or anything else I can find when google insists on misunderstanding my query. Google had exact word match, symbol for symbol, it had reliable logical operators, it had reliable string query. None of that is nearly as reliable as it was 10-12 years ago, and searching for some mildly controversial topics will get google practically yelling its opinion at you, rather than just searching for text matches.
The model is pretty broken. I'm curious as to whether stream-to-own platforms like resonate.is will take off, as artists need a bigger payout for it to be sustainable. But I expect interest in new streaming services to be stagnant. People aren't interested in shifting between services that are functionally identical to the consumer.
The novelty of such works, however, is consumed when seen for the first time. You can never see a work of art for the first time a second time. And that's important.
I grew up in the southern US, and we didn’t learn a lot either beyond a couple chapters about local native populations. I learned much more in some classes in college — the American Southwest has been home to several very advanced civilizations and the archaeological record is astounding.
Deep Learning from Java and Scala
They are still better than most of their competition, even the non-lunatic ones like Bloomberg or Forbes. We should praise the system when it works, when you have a systemic failure it's too late.
Emergence of a Highly Fit SARS-CoV-2 Variant
"Cut taxes and everything will magically get better."

Can't believe people still buy this bullshit.
I wonder how it is possible to control for that? They mentioned only controlling for health, but what about thousands of other things?

Few as an example:

1. Individuals who do high risk activities might be less likely to do volunteer work.

2. Individuals who simply have bad habits in life might be less likely to volunteer.

3. People who die earlier won't even make it far enough to be in position to donate.

4. Poor people are less likely to be able to donate and can get less care for medicine, have worse conditions generally.

I see thousands of such examples, I don't think it's possible to control for all of that, is it? You would have to

1) List all of those things that should be controlled. I imagine already this to be an amazing feat.

2) Somehow gather all this data from people.
> that's called journalistic integrity

OP is deploying the "everyone is biased so why does it matter" falsehood/trope/myth pushed by the right wing since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed (which directly led to the rise of the Fox disinformation channel). It is a nefarious argument that goes deep because any nitwit can preface an outrageous claim with it and sound "fair".
Building a Search Engine for Datasette.io
It is unfortunate that you consider the stance to be "outright ignorance", when what you are really questioning is how would such a thing be implemented.

That is not an easy question to answer. The approach you suggested is certainly one that could be considered. You mention that most people would sell those shares for cash.. well that is cash in their hands then. That is money they didn't have before that they now have, that they can then spend on goods and services correct? Is it not redistribution of the wealth of the deceased within society?

It sounds like you agree with the principle, but are worried about the implementation. I would likely consider myself to be in the same boat. However, I am not even seeing any public conversation about it, or an attempt to move in that direction. I think the conversation should be

"This is what we want to do, this is fair wealth redistribution.. now let us come up with ideas on how we can make this work".
The statement is not archaic. It is an inevitable consequence of technological progression. Your comparison between advertising commercials and songs of a favorite band is a very poor comparison and doesn't make any sense. It makes as much sense as comparing your favorite beer to having to split a bill at a restaurant i.e. a completely invalid comparison.

It would be more like saying "kids these days have no idea about waiting for a dial-up modem" which would be true.

Or the prior generation saying "kids these days have no idea about the excitement of having a pen pal and waiting weeks for a response" which would also be true.

Or saying kids these days don't know the sense of accomplishment of being adept at reading a map. Also true.

Or kids these days don't appreciate having to memorize a friend's number and having to speak to their friend's mom first. Also true.

Or kids don't appreciate how when you used to travel to a foreign country for vacation, you were 100% gone and unreachable from your contacts back home. Also true.

Every generation feels this way. I don't see why anyone should get upset at this truth.
"Literally" everyone?

Methinks you need to consult a dictionary.
I don't think an explicit effect system is required to implement most (maybe all?) of the optimizations. Actually I think these techniques are probably applicable to many strict, mostly-functional languages with few to no cycles or mutable references. In fact, they cite Lean as their inspiration for many of these techniques.
Trump downplays Russian hack in comments on breach, implicates China
Medical professionals should not be in the early rounds of vaccines.

If the vaccines have a delayed negative effect you cripple health care.

Vaccines are great once they've had years of testing, but risk management would tell you to play it safe with critical staff. If the vaccine disabled 20% of medical professionals in January how many people would die as a consequence?