skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The column is fudging the facts to justify its bombast title.

Example:

> A systematic review found that placebo was just as effective as surgery in over half of the cases studied, and all of the recent trials comparing surgery to placebo have found that surgery was no better than placebo.

We note that that the text doesn't tell us...:

1. which kind of operation is supposedly not very helpful.

2. which kind of medical condition(s) were studied.

3. whether the relevant medical condition is transitory/accute or chronic;

4. whether the condition is known to be amenable to non-surgical treatment;

5. what review this was, exactly, and where one can read the details.

6. what, exactly, the review reviewed.

7. what happened in the less-than-half the cases.

8. what chances of success the surgery purports to have. i.e. it might be a surgery which proponents suggest solves the problem in 45% of cases and has little effect (but no significant negative effect) in 55% percent of cases - in which case you "get what it says on the label".

Also, I would assume are almost no, or no trials comparing surgery to placebo where surgery is known, or reasonably assumed, to be efficacious. So those "recent trials" probably considered surgical procedures which are apriori under suspicion of not being efficacious. etc.
Think about this: If the number of faculty positions isn't growing, how many PhD's should a faculty member graduate in total? Probably around 1-2 in their entire career, otherwise there is a glut of PhD's with no faculty. But with so many faculty members adding 1-3 new PhD's _per-year_ there will be so many PhD's with nowhere to go.

(Excluding fields with a good route to industry, of course, since there's plenty of "sterile" industry positions where the researcher is no longer spawning new researchers).
I started out believing that COVID is blown way out of proportion for the first couple of weeks, seeking evidence that mortality rates are lower than people thought, etc (not that it's a conspiracy or whatever, just that we're overreacting).

But reading papers about it looking for data to support this, then hearing accounts of medical staff, and discussing it with friends made me do a 180 pretty quickly. It could also be the social atmosphere around me, I'm not sure, but I do remember totally flipping my position and understanding what an idiot I was, it wasn't a very gradual process.
Everyone knows it's a drug. It also has a handful of applications in medicine, but so do a lot of drugs. Doesn't mean it's for everyone. As a recreational drug, the societal and personal harm associated with consuming marijuana is rather low. And nobody with any integrity is acting as though smoking something isn't bad for your lungs.

Weed has already thoroughly permeated society, no use trying to turn back the clock there. We should just stop arresting people for it and stop making it so you have to take unnecessary risks to get it.
My impression is that the consensus is reasonably strong that masks work in and of themselves, that is - they do act as a physical barrier against transmission, but, most infections are happening at e.g. family gatherings and in households, so the actual effects of masks writ large are more muted than proponents argue. Basically, it's like saying seat-belts work, which is obviously very true, but regarding them in a kind of isolation that forgets about setting speed limits.
This line of reasoning never made sense to me. The speed of light prevents there from being calamities that can wipe out an entire star-faring civilization at once. Once intelligent life has spread throughout a region of space beyond a few light years, I don't see how extinction is possible.
As a non programmer, I always secretly admire Jetbrains's software icons. So unique :)
For only a few pages, there is even staple-free stapling. It works by pressing the corner of the pages together hard enough.

Here is what the result looks like: https://youtu.be/Ik9a3MJunB8?t=27
Yes there is still a long way to go, but not 15 years....

50% of Server Market is HyperScaler. That is a possibility of nearly half of Server Sales gone. 97% number is no longer accurate as AMD has gain some ( rather small ) market shares in terms of revenue. But Intel is still >90%. ( In Revenue, not Volume )

In the short term most hyperscaler are only going to be switching may be around 50% of their infrastructure, since x86 will still be in demand. But the trend is set and there are no reversal. And Server Segment is the most profitable segment. That is 25% of profit gone in the short term.

And if you now include AMD for the remaining x86 market, you are looking at another reduction. Depending on how AMD is executing ( Which in my book is not nearly good enough on their Server Segment, mainly due to conservative planning for Capacity )

AMD is also for the first time in history really competing in Notebook market with their APU. They have a lot of lessons to learn with regards to working with Notebook manufacture. But again the numbers suggest AMD is making lots of inroad, holding back by capacity again.

You then have majority of the volume driven by OEM and Business usage. These CPU are low margin business. But AMD are not interested in those, and Intel needs those to fill capacity, so they are fine.

So in the next 5 years you are looking at roughly 25% reduction of profits or revenue. Now of course Intel are making their own GPU and are expanding into Network and SSD. And more importantly the market for both PC and Server is still expanding. Which means despite having a lower market share in terms of percentage the revenue number may not be as bad. But again, there nothing even on paper that suggest Intel could change its course. They couldn't even give a valid argument in Investor notes or Technical Forum meetings to clam the market.
To be honest, I never understood the point of companies publishing post mortems after outages. What is it supposed to accomplish? We the users don’t understand their infrastructure anyway, how are we expected to understand the post mortem? Besides, as the users why should we care why things went down? The fact is, they did. And that’s the only thing that matters. I don’t feel better knowing WHY I lost my services. I just feel bad BECAUSE I lost them. Or are post mortems supposed to reassure users that the outage won’t happen again? It doesn’t reassure that either because by definition unpredictable outages always happen due to something new and unpredictable. This post mortem certainly won’t stop the next outage from happening. We KNOW there will be more, we just don’t know when. Or are post mortems supposed to show that the company takes full responsibility for what happened? But they always do and are fully expected to. So it’s meaningless. No company would ever say “we don’t take responsibility for this error we caused”. Even in the case of massive data leaks, which cannot be reversed, companies always take full responsibility. And it doesn’t help anyone.

The only thing post mortems show is that the company didn’t do their job or was careless or disorganized or confused. But we already know that, because they had an outage.

So what’s the point?
Just add these filters to uBlock Origin:

www.google.com###lb
www.google.com##html:style(overflow-y: visible !important;)
I am not sure that it is about content. It is more about some important factors of contemporary businesses and especially startups:

- Scale Economies - the more you invest the more profit you get

- Network Economies - platform business models like Amazon

- Counter Positioning - Vanguard and ETFs

- Switching Costs - this is why Facebook still exists

- Branding -

- Cornered Resource - patents etc.

- Process Power - this is why governments still exist :)
Excuse me, what the fuck?
Not developer, just a lone data wrangler but FWIW Jd has made me much faster at exploring data. I now use Jd to create my datasets and use R just for the models. IMO, it's far better than using R to tidy things.
Recruiting?
Personal incentive. I wanted to play the game as soon as it was out, and the download can take quite a while.
I think the academic path should be compared as analogous to other “creatives” paths (eg writer, musician, artists), although probably less extreme.

People continue to do it because of the ownership of the work, the nearly unlimited potential upside from discovery, and the ability to build on serendipitous discoveries into your own portfolio.

The downside is being stuck in a bad situation in academia can be psychologically damaging and difficult to recover from.
That looks very interesting indeed! But it's so absurdly expensive that you have to wonder who the target audience for this service is? From their "Use Cases" page it seems that this is geared towards (shady?) online marketers (which would explain the price) rather than privacy-conscious individuals. Would be awesome if they offered a plan for normal users priced similar to a normal VPN service...
I find a lot of older music sounds very muffled and poorly mastered where as some modern stuff like Tipper are incredible experiences especially on high end headphones. Some of this modern stuff is completely unreal. But if all you listen to is old music and the top 10 pop songs I'm not surprise you would miss this.

Have a listen to this, its one of the most amazing things I have listened to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIXH6sb1ss

Nothing from the past is able to match this level of incredible stereo effect.
That’s just false:

No liability for taking down generally

[...]unless[...]

C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice [...]

USC 512.g.2.c
Maybe that's how people talk in 57 years.
are you saying you appreciate music less now? or are you policing others' appreciation?
Reminds me of the lawsuit brought against South Park by Brownmark Films over the recreation of their infamous video, also done in a faithful “side by side” manner. Interesting that the courts decided the opposite in that case.
There's also the perverse incentives in the american medico-legal system: surgeons get sued for not performing surgery, or performing surgery badly, but they rarely get sued for performing 'unnecessary' surgery unless its completely egregious. If the patient has a history/examination which could indicate a need for surgery, and the patient has given informed consent, the surgeon is very unlikely to be succcessfully sued for operating. I'm not implying this is a consious decision on their part, rather a subconscious influence of their training, anecdotes from other surgeons etc.
People tried this with video games, and gamers built an entire political movement to destroy the possibility of critique.

People want the unquestioned clout of being canon, without all these inconvenient academics interrogating the text.
I'm sorry, but in this case I disagree. Whether the device was smart or not is irrelevant.

If there is a connected device in a supposedly otherwise secure network that allows traffic in or calls home, that device is an attack vector. Pure and simple. The only safe assumption is that such a thing is an insecure, unmaintainable black box that was put together by the cheapest fly-by-night contractor.

A "smart" device is worse, and guaranteed to be a dumpster fire. One should not be allowed anywhere near a secure network, regardless of its function. Printers, VoIP phones, climate control systems, ... they're all the same.
Sometimes you need the flaws to show the ideals in relief
DRY is the cause of, and solution to, all software development problems.
nope, Mark Rober did a video on this. It's urine and sweat.
This article [1] has a section with several references on that, with the most used technique [2] being depicted in fig. 3 (this is from 2016 so there might be a more recent technique around now).

The basic principle is to mix a solution with lipids and one with the mRNA and pump it through a channel with herringbone-shaped incisions that generate turbulence in the fluid. Apparently, the turbulence makes lipids surround the mRNA and stick together to form the nano-particle.

[1] http://www.future-science.com/doi/10.4155/tde-2016-0006

[2] https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5555/647.full
For the same reason some non-programmers seem to also value conciseness:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

I think it may boil down to highly respecting the readers' time. If something conveys the same information to them but is shorter, it will appropriate less of the precious limited time of their lives. Notably this then becomes a subtle balancing act of estimating their knowledge and intelligence: make it too short and some implied context may be lost and require extra effort to research from them. An extreme example is science papers - the same paper can be clear and concise for you if you are an expert in the domain (the usually assumed audience), or an overwhelming effort if you're not.
I use a similar approach: first code, then take a refactoring session and look if some repetitive code can be "condensed" in a common method.

By the way the copy-pasta code is very resilient: a bug introduced in one place cannot spread, because the other code is duplicated and old.

Instead if you have too much condensed code, you end up with complex method which are difficult to maintain, because you have a huge "coverage land of code", and you get scared when you need to change it.
I think you either severely overestimate the capabilities of a C64 or underestimate what it takes to put a modern user interface experience together.

The C64 had a resolution of 320x200 pixels with 16 colors. That would cover about 1,5 square inches on a modern phone (modulo the colors, another factor of 6 to 10). You could not dream of re-rendering the whole screen with any FPS number. Games had to resort to all kind of tricks to create a smooth experience, and whatever was put on screen was pre-rendered content combined in clever ways. Calculations involving floating point like a mandelbrot set in said resolution took hours to days per _frame_.
I’ve written a ton of microservices in Java and have recently started a new project using a very similar architecture, but with Go.

I had a chance to reflec on what I like about Go, and what I miss from Java. To boil it all down:

* I prefer the Java language over Go, for a bunch of reasons, although neither is perfect.

* I very much prefer using binaries over bytecode objects, so Go is much better here.

* The JVM is a very large runtime to associate with your code, and the startup time is still much longer than for Go (or it was a year ago). This makes Java CLI tools slow, and a great CLI can help make a great product.

* I prefer Go’s approach to the standard library; easy to use production ready “for dummies” implementations, instead of abstract “reference” implementations.

* I specifically don’t like Go’s use of capitalisation to mark fields and variables as public, since I find that collisions between type and variable names are really common.

* Go’s “idiomatic” practices are much saner than Java. I’d already stopped using getters and setters in Java, along with dropping several other abstract “best practices” (factory factories!!?? “Fluent” APIs??), and Go really embraces a light approach here. So I guess I don’t really like idiomatic Java. I got the feeling I wasn’t alone, tho.

* In general I like how Go feels like it’s a Unix tool, where Java always felt like they were trying to rewrite the world. This approach always felt odd to me, considering where Java came from.

* I have really come to hate the “everything’s a framework” approach in Java and abandoned it a couple of years ago. Especially, Java EE, Wildfly, Spring, JPA etc. they all add enormous weight and complexity without realising any material benefit. It’s not that it has to be this way, and I think things were improving, but so many Java libraries were just massively complex and abstract, for no good reason.

So for my use case, Go is clearly the right choice, but after 12 months working in Go there is plenty that I miss about the Java language. I had really high hopes for the Java AOT stuff but it seemed to stall (maybe I missed something).
While changing the reported device names can just make the VM a little less obvious, I suspect there will always be clues that indicate a VM. For example:

- Do network adapter MAC vendor ID's make sense?

- Does the hard drive size make sense?

- Which 3D acceleration features are supported/work correctly?

- How much graphics RAM is there?

- Timing-based methods

It's a bit like detecting private/incognito mode in a browser. Everything worked great, until websites realised there are ways to detect it, then became a game of cat and mouse.
How should I approach learning about the matrix protocol? The api is a simple json over rest, but that doesn't seem to reveal much about how eg conflict resolution strategies are defined and implemented or how to conceptualize the data model. Any pointers?
Except maybe vinyl, I've gone through it all: taping songs off the radio, burning minidiscs and CDs, Napster, eMule, Pandora, iTunes, etc.

I love Spotify and the actual way of consuming and discovering music. Some say that music taste stagnates as we age but I come from a metal and rock background and I have been making escapades into electronic music (including EDM), funk, soul, and more in my late twenties and early thirties, and I expect this trend to continue into old age.

None of this ever happened when I was in my teens, where I would just buy the metal magazines, go to the metal record store, and speak only to metalheads. Part may be me, but another part is certainly Spotify / music streaming.

My only criticism is that Spotify's music recommendation algorithms are really subpar. When I like a new song, I tap "Go to Radio" and it shows a playlist of related songs, but it seems like it relies too much on the preferences of other users and on obvious connections between artists.

Pandora in the mid-2000's already blew it out of the water in this regard - I remember going through a personal golden age of music discovery thanks to it. I could not believe how spot-on the recommendations felt and how they could dig out superobscure stuff that resonated with me. I don't know what the state of the service is right now but if it was just as good as in the 2000's and it was available in Europe I would pay for it without a doubt. What's surprising is that Spotify's recommendation tech is so far behind, and that they don't seem to care.

Other than that, I can't think of a single non-essential service in my life providing more value than "$9.99 a month for unlimited music". The utility to cost ratio is off the charts since I use it for six or eight hours daily and it costs peanuts.

If there was a nuclear apocalypse and I had to listen to cassettes on my pipboy, I'd surely be nostalgic about the good old days of music streaming.
You can use memory wipe from your cyberdeck for that
> a lot more people are primarily on social media services like YouTube and twitch. The people they follow cannot play popular music because of DMCA take downs.

Pretty sure tons of people discover music through Tik Tok
You raise a lot of good points, but I'd just like to comment on the "I can't for the life of me understand why you do this to yourself" part. I'm a postdoc in astronomy, and my situation is pretty good all things considered. But I think for many people their work becomes their identity, perhaps starting as early as childhood, and leaving is an enormous identity crisis. Going from being "the kid who has always loved space" to working on ad-tech or finance might as well be the same as changing your name, moving to France, and just hitting reset on your life. The "sunk cost" goes much further than just career skills.

The situation is actually very similar to what I've read from folks in game-dev. Almost one-to-one. And like you suggest, these sorts of situations probably all have their root in the supply/demand of labor imbalance from people choosing the career out of passion and being willing to sacrifice on many fronts for the opportunity to do it.
You are right in everything you say, and I'm just replying to your comment because it seems like a good place to say my piece:

Why do we (devs) know that one-letter variables are bad, but still don't know that one-letter generic types are bad?

Why do we put up with this (random function from rxjs):

export function concatMap<T, R, O extends ObservableInput<any>>(
project: (value: T, index: number) => O,
resultSelector?: (outerValue: T, innerValue: ObservedValueOf<O>, outerIndex: number, innerIndex: number) => R
): OperatorFunction<T, ObservedValueOf<O> | R> {
return isFunction(resultSelector) ? mergeMap(project, resultSelector, 1) : mergeMap(project, 1);
}

Why T and not INPUT_TYPE or whatever it is (see? I can't tell!)?
It's also easier to do scripting with J since you can just use files. The (Dyalog) APL workspace infrastructure is very powerful but a bit heavy to use when all you want is a simple script. Of course, large banks and Fortune 500 companies seldom use just simple scripts, so that makes sense I guess.
I cut garlic with my chef's knive, for the added benefit of being able to use the large blade area of the knive to wash my hands with afterwards. Works really well to get the smell off and "I wash myself with a knive" has a pretty good ring to it.
Your argument that income is diverted to the rich to increase tax revenues doesn’t work if you think income is transferred to international corporations and billionaires as these groups tend to not pay much tax. I guess you could make some argument about income tax paid by the employees of those international corporations but many large companies don’t have particularly well-paid staff.

I think you’re conflating two different issues
FWIW these issues in ops are referred to as a “brown out”. Everything “works”, but at a huge reduced performance. Usually without alerts because nothing has completely failed.
Start at 2min08sec:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyugCJ40IIw

“You’re using a clothesline as a flagpole”.
Check out Baz Luhrman’s Romeo & Juliet with Leonardo do Caprio ... it’s all original language but in a modern setting, it’s really very good!
It is very very very rare you see this on HN, VSC is slow and bloated. You only ever see people claiming it is fast, or fast enough, or very little difference to Sublime.

The bar of quality are quite low for lot of people.
When I looked at the videos, I haven't even thought that it's possible to get so many light effects out of 7 year old cards. It turns out it isn't.
I think this is a very real concern. On the other hand, now that we’re approaching the limits of miniaturization specialized silicon seems like the clearest path, on the hardware side, to achieve continued performance gains.
You can be streaming while not listening though. I tend to leave my music streaming on after I leave the room because there is something quite enjoyable about walking inside and hearing music.
What a great write-up. I used to work in metagenomics, where we would assemble environments with hundreds of bacterial genomes. We developed a deep-learning approach to binning the assembly, Vamb, which worked really well. In hindsight, our approach to deep learning was quite naive, so I can easily see more skilled application of DL completely outclass all existing approaches to binning. So while DL indeed would have a hard time with assembly, I'm not sure that's the case for genomics as such.
> Travelling characters looked like they actually travelled.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't recall Tyrion and Bronn being very well equipped for long travel when they first journey together.

Or Jamie and Bronn when they set out on their little quest.

And I didn't see much in the way of supplies when Jon Snow and company hunt for a walking corpse in a tundra far north of the Wall.
Retroviruses carry reverse transcriptase which does exactly that: turns RNA into DNA.