skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my network of professional friends and acquaintances, I see more moderate liberals leaving the Bay Area for Austin than I do conservatives.

The conservative folks seem to look more towards Montana and Idaho.

Relatively small n, but still...
If there's something worth criticizing it's just how large and non-obvious it is to figure out what Spring(/Boot) does. And before you know it you're digging into some PostProcessBeanFactoryInitializerDooDad.

I've come to appreciate some aspects, but it's not obviously good to me, like a lot of stuff it's just various tradeoffs.

I like Java and the surrounding ecosystem/community because it's boring.
Once the infrastructure is in place to assess this kind of tax, it'll be a matter of time before it starts applying to those with >10M wealth, then >1M, etc
They marketed it as a game that could played that way, so it's on CDPR for setting incorrect expectations, not on the people playing for doing what the marketing told them would be part of the fun.
Great reasoned argument. I have been paying annual renewals of 50 domains for over 15 years. I fall into the sunk cost fallacy every time they come up for renewal. Anyone want to buy a great domain?
I don't think I was assuming anything in particular about the intents.

it's a rather important thing not to check on actual data, including residents in the sample, isn't it? they just never bothered to test the algorithm, didn't even review the results it spit out, before delivering the results as a plan? (it is quite possible indeed they didn't, I'm not saying that is a coverup for some other motive, I'm saying that is incompetent). What was the QA process like? Who was involved in it? From the article, apparently not any department heads or medical staff in general.

That's not a competent design process for something so important, is it?

That they never bothered to see how "the algorithm" treated residents demonstrates that they didn't give a shit about residents, not necessarily that they were intentionally screwing them.

The administration doesn't say much about how the algorithm was designed, they just say "oh, it was an algorithm." I think many people believe that "algorithms are objective" and they are trying to play that.
In all my arguments I'm saying that this logic you present doesn't apply to English. Nothing was proven because my points weren't addressed.

You're not respecting my time with your grammatically correct comment above. You can shorten your comment by mangling the grammar and preserving the meaning.

>We have better things to do in life. Respect the person who will read the code. Be concise

See that sentence it's wasting my precious time you can get rid of a lot of unnecessary info and preserve meaning.

>We have better thing do. Respect reader. Be concise.

There. same point but more concise but now you sound as if you have brain damage. My point is we use programming languages and english to communicate a point, but clearly in english nobody takes any effort to respect anyone's time. It's full of wordy unnecessary stuff and the entire population of english speakers actually prefers reading this very verbose english then reading obscure code.

I am saying because of this contradiction all your logic flies out the door.

Bring the level of verbosity of code to the level of verbosity in english. We don't complain about english, we actually prefer it over code. So clearly nobody is actually caring about 'saving' those precious seconds of reading long grammatically correct sentences. Who cares if someone uses it as a function name.
Goliath vs. Goliath: Facebook vs. Apple and data privacy
Look at the route Islam took with Zakat. It's a form of "charity tax" that depends on wealth. However, your scenario does not hold, the government will not force you to sell your company or any shares it in, because those are not subject to Zakat (at least not directly). Gold and silver over a minimum amount are taxed at 2.5% per Hijri year, while produce is taxed at a different percentage.

Taxation of company shares depends on many things, such as the debt ratio and value of products the company owns. It's very possible to owe only a tiny amount, or none at all, while still doing business and making money. This is the superior approach which has proven to work if you look at history.
A hack this big is bound to have plenty of HUMINT. I think it would be hard for either government to cover that up.
> Not big fan of taxes in general

Statements like that never augur well for what follows.

> Why not call it what it is, a pre-death estate tax?

Do you have a cogent objection to estate taxes? Many would consider them the fairest of all possible taxes, since your property rights - past, present, and future - evaporate at death.

> it should be done at the time of use or income generation/realization

Why? What's the rationale, besides personal benefit/preference? Taxing money in motion reduces motion, which is hardly a good thing except when the motion itself is illusory arbitrage (e.g. HFT).

> double jeopardy laws

Double jeopardy is a concept of criminal law applied to humans. It's certainly the wrong term here, and arguably the wrong concept. Even your own "time of use" standard leads to the same money being taxed multiple times. Why should it be any different when assets are held instead of exchanged (see above about money in motion)? Henry George and others have made eloquent arguments for taxing wealth - especially land - instead of income. It has been tried many places and times, generally with good results. Do you have any substantive counterargument, or just random phrases plucked from a pseudo-libertarian website?
> Why should residents who are young and very low risk be a high priority?

Maybe they shouldn't be top priority, but if they're dealing directly with covid patients they sure as heck should have higher priority than a VP or administrator that's been working from home this whole time.
It says encoded, not encrypted. base64 is an encoding.
It also says obfuscation, which isn't encryption either.

And finally, it talks about hashes (without even claiming cryptographic hash functions), and but it's not about the base64 strings...
They are at high risk of infection because they are exposed to sick people as part of their job caring for the sick... how is that not obvious?
It doesn't seem to you like the game should be played in the way they reinforced and strongly & continuously advertised?

And you're wondering why people are angry? It's your prerogative to cut CDPR as much slack as you wish, but let's not pretend that those who don't do that are in the wrong.
You see this with... Countries of hundreds of millions of people. The idea that one person is running the United States is ludicrous. The amount of over-attention on the current president is just an amazing case in point. This approach doesn't scale and the resulting lack of progress is holding us all hostage. /rant
The death squad sort of thing is part of why I believe Smith is an unreliable narrator in 1984. Real regimes don't mildly torture problematic people and then keep them around at length, as if they were boys[1] enforcing a boarding school hierarchy, instead they get rid of them shortly and cheaply, for instance by one-way helicopter rides.

[1] although the very puerile "it's no fun ruling unless the ruled know you're doing it" is the only explicit answer the book gives to the question posed by where Goldstein's text is left hanging: of what does "...the original motive, the never-questioned instinct that first led to the seizure of power and brought doublethink, the Thought Police, continuous warfare, and all the other necessary paraphernalia into existence afterwards..." really consist?
It's only ironic of you buy into the narrative that Russia is somehow more evil or malicious than your average superpower.
I think it's telling that when Facebook wants to reach people in power, it takes out ads in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. When it wants to reach nobodies, it uses Facebook.
Dyalog APL has a safety blanket of procedural programming[1], it's another strange aspect of APL and the internet that it seems almost completely overlooked - unremarked upon and never discussed. e.g. this is roughly a prompt-for-username and validate-username code:

∇result←verifyUserName userName

isValid←1
message←''

:If (userName≡'')∨(8<≢userName)
message←⊂'Please enter a name between 1 and 8 characters long'
isValid←0
:ElseIf ' ' ∊ userName
message←⊂'Please enter a name with no spaces'
isValid←0
:EndIf
∇result←isValid message

∇userName←getUserName

nl←⎕UCS 13 10 ⍝ carriage return, newline

:Repeat
⍞←'Enter a username: ',nl
newName←⍞ ⍝ Read from keyboard input

nameIsValid message←verifyUserName newName

:If 0≡nameIsValid
⍞←message
:EndIf

:Until 1≡nameIsValid
∇userName←newName

It's unexciting compared to the dense showoffy codegolf APL which is normally posted on the internet, and what you still don't get with it is things like `string.Length` or `or` or `Console.WriteLine()` etc. That is, procedural/imperative APL looks like APL and doesn't save you from having to know APL symbols or execution model. But it could save you from having to wrangle some weird mathematical dodge around a simple :If/:Else branch or trying to use ⍣ when you really just want to write :For i :In 2 4 6 8 10

It has an OOP/Class system as well, but that doesn't save you from having to know APL either.

[1] I don't think NARS2000 does, and I'm not sure about the bigger IBM / Sharp APLs. I don't think J or K have.
> "Spring ... will probably harm ... your intellectual development."

I just started some client/contract work with Spring as API/middle, I'm curious about your opinion on Spring especially on this context of Careers. A niche to be avoided?
I do think your example should be as simple as:

try

{

_legacyCandidateRepo.SaveWithIncrementalBackoff(candidate);

}

catch (Exception exc)

{

HandleException(exc);

}

This way, the code is extremely readable, especially if you can easily "Go to definition" in a service, and the file this try-catch isn't 200 lines long.

Also, try-catch is generally an anti-pattern. It should only occur when you genuinely have no way whatsoever to prevent the exception, as such, it will be pretty rare.

Again, it does happen, for example we have an unstable legacy db we hit that we don't have access to, but it should be fixed asap.

Tbh, this is a constant argument between our juniors and I. They want to write 15 line methods, but I have found that they don't want to debug it.

It's constantly them building quickly on top of my code and then me having to fix theirs because they get frustrated debugging their own code.
This is exactly what Jo from the article wanted.

It turns out that in practice it is quite hard to actually get your loved ones to follow through with clandestinely offing you.

And the state doesn’t offer a mechanism for any kind of advanced end of life request.
Some bias is shown through:

#2 hackers and big bad government aren't the only reason for being leery about 'big tracking'

#3 People also buy damaging(mlm) products and products they genuinely hate from these same ads

but I agree with your other points.
That's a similar story to the old Cascade Tunnel. Part of the route is at least walkable (which I've done) but it's apparently closed at at least one point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascade_Tunnel I think it's the Iron Goat Trail that you take to walk along where you can. https://www.wta.org/go-hiking/hikes/iron-goat-trail
How could it be in any other way though? I just can't get into the viewpoint of people who are surprised. Did they think that getting to tenure is just a normal, default stage in life that you will progress to as a natural consequence of time passing? Do they also think that everyone who works for long enough at a company will become a manager, then a VP then a CEO and if not, then they either did something wrong and worked below expectations or the system failed them?

Who starts a PhD and believes strongly that they will with high likelihood become profs? You have one prof as your supervisor and the same prof has many more PhD students. Do people not notice this?

After a certain point of bloat, growth cannot be sustained. Especially in America the system has ballooned up to an unreasonable degree and will collapse when people realize that value is elsewhere and will refuse to pay into the system through tuition.

Prestige, status, attention, fame etc. are scarce resources. Not every garage rock band can become superstars, most will not even be able to sustain it as a job or even to earn nonnegligible money.

Prestige is zero sum because it is relative. If everyone can become a professor then being a professor will inflate its meaning (already happening). But be assured there will be new concepts to signal prestige and people will be disappointed that they aren't all getting that prestige.
The idea here is that it’s easy to find a safe, welcoming host nation with low taxes, and still be able to benefit from the functioning economies of the nations you left behind. However this is a pretty artificial system that only exists when there’s a lot of broadly-shared wealth and stability in the world. This kind of capital flight to the bottom is going to systematically undermine that stability. At the point where things start to seriously malfunction, nobody’s going to give a crap about a little bit of tax.
Now that is something that I would pay good money for, a steammpunk GTA, an artdeco GTA or a synthwave neon GTA (though a new Vice City will do).
Agreed. I was a heavy user of Info Seek at the time (I especially liked how they highlighted search terms in the results) but it was hard to deny how much better Google results were. For a long time I just used Info Seek first and would try Google second, but after a while I realized I was just using Google. The results were impressive.
None of the patients I came in contact with over one year (around 20) had any pain. Physically, they were all surprisingly healthy.
His current yearly comp is a function of what the board believes his value to the company is. If we want to talk about the legitimacy of his stock holdings being worth as much as they are, then we need to have a different, but similar conversation which is how much value has Amazon added to the world and how much should early stage entities involved with Amazon be rewarded for adding that value. If we assume that Amazon is fairly valued and that Jeff Bezos's holdings of Amazon are in line with his contributions, then it again makes sense for him to be worth what he is worth.

If we assume that it's illegitimate for someone to prosper that much behind growth and optimism that growth will continue (ie he didn't sell his stock), then the legitimacy of the net worth of every single direct or indirect (eg via ETFs) investor in Amazon, every single indirect beneficiary of investments in Amazon (eg recipients of pensions whose funds hold Amazon), and every single employee with an equity stake needs to also be questioned.

Sure there are some differences here such as stock options, but even if we divided Bezos's net worth by 2 or 3 to account for this I don't think it would make much of a difference.
Watch Brazosport vs. Wheatley Live Stream 2020 Football Game
https://boxelder.instructure.com/courses/37973/pages/live-sp...
This! California had had a lot of tax revenue over the last couple of decades but doesn’t seem to have much to show for it.

Where is the explanation for how the money was spent, why it hasn’t paid off, and what would be different?

As far as I can tell it’s not ‘earmarked’ it’s just more tax for the general fund.

Also, Earmarks have never been trustworthy so it wouldn’t matter even if it were earmarked.
Not really a new thing. The Soviets would point out the defects in US society as much as the US would highlight defects in the USSR.

And granting asylum to persons who have fallen out of favour with an enemy/rival has a been a thing back to at least the time of the Peloponnesian War and probably before.
Also, right now in Canada, assisted death is not available if your pain is from mental illness.
New, faster-spreading strain of coronavirus confirmed in Britain
I've been working on a side-project that aims to be a self-hosted alternative to centralized social media. The core idea that anyone should be able to easily host their own private website where they control access and retain control over their data. With RSS protected by http basic auth, people can create their own feeds. I'd love some feedback on this model if anyone cares to share some thoughts: https://simpleblogs.org
This is what happens when people are told to move where the work is.
They just aren't using it correctly. If there was a way to just give homeless people the 50k in a UBI esque way things would drastically improve.

Unfortunately I don't believe something like that is practical unless it's done on a national level.
Is this true? This makes me want to cry for how bad SF governance is.
Ombudsmen are typically hired for this reason.
Another messed up thing I've heard is that many hospitals are prioritizing vaccines for WFH Administrators over staff that are actually working at hospitals..

Its a weird system, I asked someone I know who is doing her residency how many times she's been COVID tested this year... just once. Apparently as long as you're not working on the COVID floor there isn't really a requirement at her hospital.
Well, it would be surprising if the Ottomans had discovered and colonised the Canary Islands (not to mention Cape Verde or the Azores), which were used by Columbus in his voyages to the Americas.

I suppose the question is why wasn't there an empire that spread across the European continent at the time of Columbus.
Weirdly similar experience. I too discovered Google in my college CS lab, when I noticed the (then) weird looking homepage. I had been swearing by AltaVista at the time. But it was with Google that I was able to, for the first time, get what I wanted without having to go through multiple pages of search results. A search engine giving you what you want within the first few results of your very first search attempt was just not a thing. Crafting search queries was an art, and so was wading through results.
The relevant code was (allegedly) not part of source control, but inserted during the build process.
I mostly agreed with you until:

> Nobody needs a somewhat smarter version of AskJeeves.

That's exactly what I need. It's not right for everything, but asking questions is the natural form of information seeking for a human. Being able to do that well is a huge value add.
Peanuts already means something with a value so close to free that it’s not worth worrying about. “That’s just peanuts compared to space.”

Might be true of stickers too. To a parent, “free as stickers” probably means something that’s likely to go right in the trash bin without being used.

Naming is tough.
This is the same algorithm many companies use for benefits programs
The society is regressing when everyone is entitled for being offended for one thing or the other. As a staunch “old school” yankee liberal, I hate the way neo-liberalism has propelled this to new heights. We used to tolerate being offended. God forbid if I say something you don’t like - especially in high visibility situation. This bothers me deeply. If I have a giant microphone for the entire world, I would tell everyone to toughen up a bit and ignore people who offend you. Let them have their word. Let them speak.

Right now as it stands, I am in the Silicon Valley and it feels like I can be hung for using the wrong pronoun even.
Generally campsites do not need the small-scale timber “clearing” that happens when humans go camping and look for firewood for their small fires. All that ends up happening is a brutal macro-deforestation in the 100 yard radius of the site. The “protection” is to stop idiots from cutting every sapling in sight, which really does nothing to reduce that forest’s overall composition and fire risk.
For those looking to avoid alzheimer’s / dementia, there’s evidence linking it to metabolic dysfunction, and intermittent fasting has been shown to help in mice.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-growing-science-...
You don't have to leave the US, just move back to the sanity that is called the "eastern seaboard".

If we're comparing high-tax states, I think NY is better run, and more interesting overall than California. The only think Cali has going for it is tech (relatively unimportant to the super rich), and warm weather.
In this case the language crusade prompts us to think about our assumptions more deeply. The comment did bring my attention to concepts I had not noticed before.

There is an adversarial aspect to it, but it's no different from debating ideas. You're just questioning certain premises, it doesn't mean you have to discard them afterwards.
At all levels, sure.

Most states you know have established clear guidelines sayign who gets it and when? Including specifics on what medical staff within a hospital system would get it? Like not just "health care staff" or "first responders" (everyone in the Stanford Medicine system is that already right, this is about who within that group gets it).

Please back that up by showing me such clear guidelines from a few states. It should be easy to find this, if indeed most states have done this, presumably in a very transparent way for something so important and contentious, right?

I don't believe most states have.

(It doesn't make it easier that the federal government told states how much they'd get them REDUCED it, and in general is only committing to telling states how much they'll get a week in advance).
> Far as I'm concerned, aside from the extra millions of dollars they've spent on AI research, it's the same old story.

It's interesting because it seems like the UX equivalent of "burning down furniture to heat the house" -- how does this kind of thing become so institutionalized at companies?

Is this merely the natural end season of the corporate life cycle where after innovation and growth the now engorged and dying corpse must be parted off and sold by the pound? There's something so uncomfortably Darwinian to me about that. But I suppose that's also why it's common -- it works.
Yes, I do believe that the amount of wealth people get from a company should be proportional to their contributions to that company. Of course, this is very hard to give a clear number to.

Still, one way to go about this is to assume that workers and employers are rational economic agents and look at their incentives and bargaining power. Obviously, an employer will never employ anyone for more money than they believe that employee will contribute to the company (assuming no nepotism, fraud, corruption etc). However, an employee may well accept to work for less money than they are actually contributing, since they have ~0 visibility into this number, and much less bargaining power than the company, especially at the lower end.

So, in for a large company without powerful unions, we can virtually guarantee that employees are each receiving less money than they are actually contributing - with shareholders correspondingly receiving more money from the profits accrued. Additionally, shareholders also have more money based on how over-valued a company's stock is, which employees gain nothing from.

Now, the real question is of course "how much more wealth are they getting from the company"? I don't have an exact answer to this question. However, one way to look at it is that Amazon has ~800k employees who at MOST could collectively own the ~20% of amazon stock on the open market, while Jeff Bezos owns ~10% of the company directly. This would mean that Jeff Bezos personally would have to contribute as much as ~400k people to the company for his contributions to be in line with the value he extracts. I just don't believe that Amazon could be where it is if it replaced ~400,000 employees with a second Jeff Bezos. Honestly, I don't believe that Amazon could be where it is if it replaced 1,000 employees with a second Jeff Bezos.