skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Every Kalk AP bike purchased by a Cake customer sends one directly to anti-poaching conservationists

The purchase seems to cover the cost of manufacture of the second and to support the anti poaching efforts.

> it's not really about the ultimate piece of equipment you're getting, but the opportunity to give anti-poachers what they need to do their very good work. Only 50 Kalk AP bikes will be made, all of which are numbered, so if you're feeling philanthropic...
Please stop believing you are telling me something that I do not already know.

I’ve been following finance for decades.

American communities are under financed because of capital extraction to improve margins. It’s a mathematical fact which carries far more weight than your hand wavy generalizations.

The extraction has decimated US communities, empowered slave labor across the globe, and entrenched power in hedge funds.

Do the actual research instead of parroting cable news sound bites.

The same pattern happened when manufacturing was pulled from cities to rural areas 100 years ago. This time the capital was pulled from rural areas and sent overseas simply to improve profit. We can decimate the planet on any continent. We do it in Asia to externalize real costs and boost financial margins.

You’re talking in a pure emotional abstract.
This matches my understanding of the situation. It has managed to punish a sloppy hedge fund, but hasn't actually produced the earth-shaking results its proponents imagine. The result is a pump-and-dump that will almost certainly collapse sooner rather than later, and getting out now is wise.

Ironically, it sounds as if this would be a good time to short the stock. I don't have the appetite for such a bet.
Given that high blood pressure, and being overweight are concidered underlying conditions, people with "no underlying conditions" might be < 20% of the total population.
did I miss link or is there a parsing script yet?
There's a much easier way? Remove access to weapons. It's not a 2 way balance. America has chosen that access to weapons to commit crimes with is more important than personal safety or privacy, and no amount of giving up privacy will make up for prioritizing weapons
They can't have a democratizing investment brand, and then intervene in a way that wildly (and predictably) favors the fat-cats.

Whatever changes they make, those changes need to enable them to not intervene in that manner ever again.
Is there evidence Hubbard meant it as a joke at the beginning?
They were greedy, they over leveraged their positions, and when the market called them out on it exactly like it’s supposed to, they just turned the market off. Im almost surprised someone hasn’t been arrested for that move yet.
I'm afraid you are likely loaded with worms, even without your participation in this experiment.
What a waste of time. Maybe they should focus on the awful Issue and PR pages, instead of the homepage, who almost no one even uses.

Issue and PR pages desperately need pagination.
a tautologie is a form of turtle, I don't understand why the herpetologists haven't read my medium to understand that.
5.4.

manufacturing sites.
AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to manufacture the Vaccine at manufacturing sites located within EU(which, for the purpose of this Section 5.4 only shall include the United Kingodm) and may manufacture the Vaccine in non-EU facilities if appropriate, to accelerate supply of the Vaccine in Europe; provided, that AstraZeneca shall provide prior written notice of such non-EU manufacturing facilities to the Commission which shall include an explanation for such determination to use non-EU manufacturing facilities. If AstraZeneca is unable to deliver on its intention to manufacture the Initial Europe Doses and/or Optional Doses under this Agreement in the EU, the Commission or the Participating Member States may present to AstraZeneca, CMOs within the EU capable of manufacturing the Vaccine Doses, and AstraZeneca shall use its Best Reasonable Efforts to contract with such proposed CMOs to increase the available manufacturing capacity within the EU. The manufacturing site planning is set out in Schedule A.

Probably needs a lawyer specialised in this stuff and the jurisdiction where the contract is signed, but it seems like this is the part that EU says the contract included the UK facilities.

Anyway, whatever happens people of Europe wont forget this, even if it was purely EU's fault. You don't say you belong to a team, omit the vaccines of China and Russia and then be let to die off because the rest of the team says you should have signed better contract. Next time something important comes up, EU should think beyond the UK/USA.
That's not an argument...

Healthy is subjective but when you say it like that then, yes, everyone has something.

However, there are a bunch of things that will greatly increase your chances of dying from COVID: diabetes, obesity, cancer, immune-related illnesses so this is what I am referring to. It's fair to say that people with one or more of those (not an exhaustive list) are "unhealthy".

So, it's not misleading: it's people who are vulnerable either due to age or health reasons that are at risk of dying, no one else.

It was even raised by an MP recently and he asked Boris Johnston why we're getting locked down when only 400 or so people with no underlying conditions have died... everyone else had underlying conditions related to poor health that made them susceptible so they should have been locked down and the rest of us left to get on with things.
“On Jan. 28, Robinhood halted trading of several rallying stocks including GameStop and AMC Entertainment”

No, Robinhood did not halt trading. They prevented _buying_ Gamestop and only allowed selling which can only do one thing - drive the price down.

That’s entirely different.

There’s a word for it: manipulation

It’s illegal.
I think you're reading too much into the example. Later on the author expands on the event:

> He was by my side as I experienced the flash of anger—which wasn’t so much about the fact that my friend hadn’t gotten me a gift, but the fact that he had endeavored to explain it away, to make excuses for himself, and the larger pattern of behavior that was embedded in…—and that was when my eyes darted in the direction of where I knew the trash can was.

That's not even mentioning that we are not privy to all the details and history of the author's relationship with her friend.
Ask HN: What about Jetbrains and SolarWinds Hack
I've had a lot to do on my farm recently and haven't had a chance to catch up. Do we have evidence, insight or news about it? I would like to use a JetBrain product but would like to avoid malware. Specifically state-backed malware. Thanks to those who will take their time answering my silly question.
Do you have sources for your claims?

I've also looked into it a little and come to the opposite conclusion. Here is one study from Singapore in 2014 that showed surgical and n95 have about a 68% and 95% efficacy respectively at preventing SARS transmission https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4293989/ Masks have also been shown to provide protection against the common cold (many strains of which are also coronaviruses) and seasonal flus https://www.livescience.com/7661-masks-protect-colds-flu.htm...

In the absence of more specific information about SARS-COV-2 early in the pandemic, surely it would have made sense to default to using the preventative measures that were known to be effective at controlling SARS and other known respiratory diseases? Especially when these measures come with no real risks.

It's true that they didn't know with 100% certainty, and China's misinformation about human to human spread in the beginning and not allowing the CDC team in early to investigate certainly didn't help either. Maybe these experts, including Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO, just made what turned out to be very bad judgement calls and they honestly thought that masks wouldn't prevent the spread of the disease. But by far the likeliest explanation in my mind is that these institutions knowingly lied to the public in an attempt to manipulate people into not buying masks, and I still find that to be absolutely unconscionable.
What you've described is basically the definition of Libel.
Because Gamestop is a business that is in the process of adapting to changing market conditions, which generally requires capital, and when market analysts go big on shorting in public it depresses stock price, and issuing stock is a major common method by which businesses raise capital.

As another example, lots of people assume Elon Musk got mad at short sellers because he took it personally, when in fact they were fucking with his ability to raise money he needed to ramp up production and meet manufacturing goals.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. Large funds making public bets against a company have a material impact on that company's liquidity.
Ok, thanks, good to know. I misunderstood from their website.
> Sure, why not?

because if youre having liquidity problems, telling everyone that creates an incentive for them to liquidate on your platform and leave, creating a death spiral resulting in the destruction of your company and preventing everyone from liquidating in the first place. a bank run, but for RH and their clearing firm(s).

in other words, they were and are doing whats best for their customers.
> currently we have a particular nasty flavour of it, that deserves its own name (e.g. hypercapitalism?)

Corporatism.

It's publicly-traded corporations that cause many of these negative effects:

* Since investors treat corporations as black boxes that are just numbers going up or down, they are separated from the non-financial ethical consequences of what the business does. We all, through our 401ks, probably own stock in companies doing outright horrendous things to human rights in developing countries or harming the environment.

* Investors put pressure on corporations to grow at the expense of all other things. Corporations that fail to prioritize that will be replaced by better-capitalized corporations that do. It is an evolutionary environment where the primary selection pressure is growth.

* An effective way for a corporation to grow is, instead of competing, simply acquire competition to reduce selection pressure and then do things like regulatory capture to rig the system.
Despite their best efforts, up to date can never truly be up to date, can they?

No shade, we love up to date; we just see ourselves as a complement.
Your criteria for moderating/censorship is that the post suggests a conspiracy? Are you not worried the scope might be wider than intended and the net cast snag ideas tagged as conspiracies that aren't or are later discovered to not be?

Or is the criteria that it's a negative and implicates mainstream institutions?

I'm asking an honest question in good faith because I'm nervous at people conflating fringe ideas and extremist ideology with merely non mainstream ideas or suggestions.
I have no idea whether you're an admin, or just a prankster "dang", but it's true no one should kick the progressives while they're down.

The important thing is they now realize BigTech censorship is a problem for all Americans, and not just conservatives.
I've certainly never been bottlenecked on date parsing :) However, many/most of the high performance python libraries are built in C code, and compiled down into something the python interpreter can use directly. There are lots of python bindings written in c++ to native c libraries as well, I know I have used ZeroMQ pretty recently. Rust is done the same way- the code is compiled down into objects that Python can use directly- its not like running a javascript interpreter in your code.
I have used the app for years and left a 1-star rating. It is still there, but think it's most likely shadow-removed from the visible ratings.
The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later.
The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about.

What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
Non-pointy-haired-boss: Newbies, go get yourselves a github account, so that you can start contributing.
Noobs: [scrambling to find the right repo]

Almost never happens.
This rant is rather misguided.

For easy problems, it doesn't much matter what you do, as long as you don't limit your computation time to some unnecessarily-small amount. So let's assume you're trying to sample from some complicated distribution that you don't know much about, and for which you don't know how well your Markov Chain mixes.

It is then highly likely that whatever point you start at, regardless of good intentions, is not representative of the distribution (saying it's a possible point is obtuse). You don't want to include that point in your estimates. Hence you want to discard burn-in.

By the way, a kernel of truth in the rant (though not actually mentioned) is that if you are using just one chain, you should not discard more than about 20% as burn in. If you are tempted to discard 50%, then you don't really know that the chain has come close to convergence. You may say, "this function of state is near 20 for the first half, then drops to around 10 for the second half, so I'll discard the first half as burn-in". But you're fooling yourself. For all you know, if you ran the chain longer, it might go back to a state where the value is 20, moving back and forth between these two modes, and by discarding the first half, you're throwing out half the distribution, getting drastically wrong results. (The longer the chain stays at around 10, the less chance of this being true, which is why discarding 20% as burn-in could make sense.) An exception would be if you had good prior reason to think the first 50% couldn't be representative of the distribution, but in that case too you'd be better off running for longer (if at all possible) to make sure the second half isn't also unrepresentative.

However, if you're trying to be as sure as you can that you're getting the right result, you should be running more than one chain, even though they'll have to be shorter (given a fixed budget). Geyer rants against this too, on the basis that using all your computational budget for one run gives the greatest chance of convergence, but this makes no practical sense. At a minimum, along with your long run, you'd want to to do a few extra short runs to see if they end up going to radically different values that are never visited in the long run - in which case you'll have to rethink the whole thing. A good general guide would be to run something like 5 to 10 chains, for equal time, and checking whether they seem to have converged to the same distribution. (If not, you need a better Markov chain, or a faster computer.) Of course, doing a huge number of short runs is also bad. Moderation is good.
Another possible explanation I've heard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
We're talking about serious stuff: cancer, immune disorders, diabetes, obesity etc.
Open practices for a sustainable technology transition
I recently read a story in the book 'Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion' (by Robert B. Cialdini):

> I GOT A PHONE CALL ONE DAY FROM A FRIEND WHO HAD RECENTLY opened an Indian jewelry store in Arizona. She was giddy with a curious piece of news. Something fascinating had just happened, and she thought that, as a psychologist, I might be able to explain it to her. The story involved a certain allotment of turquoise jewelry she had been having trouble selling. It was the peak of the tourist season, the store was unusually full of customers, the turquoise pieces were of good quality for the prices she was asking; yet they had not sold. My friend had attempted a couple of standard sales tricks to get them moving. She tried calling attention to them by shifting their location to a more central display area; no luck. She even told her sales staff to “push” the items hard, again without success.
Finally, the night before leaving on an out-of-town buying trip, she scribbled an exasperated note to her head saleswoman, “Everything in this display case, price × ½,” hoping just to be rid of the offending pieces, even if at a loss. When she returned a few days later, she was not surprised to find that every article had been sold. She was shocked, though, to discover that, because the employee had read the “½” in her scrawled message as a “2,” the entire allotment had sold out at twice the original price!

> It is easy to fault the tourists for their foolish purchase decisions. But a close look offers a kinder view. These were people who had been brought up on the rule “You get what you pay for” and who had seen that rule borne out over and over in their lives. Before long, they had translated the rule to mean “expensive = good.” The “expensive = good” stereotype had worked quite well for them in the past, since normally the price of an item increases along with its worth; a higher price typically reflects higher quality. So when they found themselves in the position of wanting good turquoise jewelry without much knowledge of turquoise, they understandably relied on the old standby feature of cost to determine the jewelry’s merits.
Speaking as a math major, gamma means, like, a million different things. It’s just a letter. There are only 26 latin letters, 24 greek letters, the capitals, and then a few oddities like blackboard bold, fraktur, cursive, etc. You run out pretty quickly and end up reusing letters.

Just like pi means different things in different contexts. It might be a permutation, projection, a function which counts prime numbers, or it might be half the period of sin. I might write π(10) = 4, or π ≈ 3.14…, or for π in P, etc. I might say that π is the right inverse of ι, in other words π∘ι = id, and point to some digram with a bunch of arrows.

Delta is not just “a change” in this context. It is specifically the rate of change of an option’s value with respect to the value of the underlying security. Just like pi, delta and gamma mean different things in different contexts.
I think focusing on how it hurt GameStop isn’t the right perspective here. I think it’s more about how greedy and over-leveraged the short holders were. When average Joe goes crazy over-leveraged, the entire world says “well duhh, you took a risk and now you have to pay.” But when a hedge fund does it, they get to just make a call to turn the market off for a few hours and try to bail out their shorts? The hypocrisy is stunning.
Starship Robots Complete One Million Autonomous Deliveries
So Michael Mauboussin is kinda of my obsession in this area. Basically, if it's a field with a lot of luck involved in outcomes, don't trust the experts (finance and economics). If it's heavily skill based (chess), trust the experts.
No one wants to be a resident in a Potemkin village.
Loved that video. The avalanche theory still has some explanatory power as the proximate cause of the first point, although Lemmino points out how crappy the design of the stove was in the first place IIRC.
CIDR Coverage Calculator
Oh, I know, I wasn't trying to correct you or anything. I was just adding on to the correct answer to point out that PyO3's naming scheme is part of a popular trend in Rust libraries.
> 2.4 V peak-to-peak up to 1000 m cable

on a single pair @ 10 Mbps and can also do 500mW of power, too.

Better than ARCnet.
I'm not Google, and I agree that obviously they made the wrong call here. I'm just showing that there is a distinction between a review and an attempt at manipluating the score, even if proving it requires insight into the heart of the reviewer. Google doesn't have that insight, but they are pretending they can guess.

As I suggested in a sibling post, a two-star review should be immune to this accusation, so if I were you I'd use a strategy of "two stars is the new one star".
> nobody gives a shit about your code when everything is working

So true until the executives are all like "Your team is not performing / low velocity" we're moving your job/team to $CHEAP_COUNTRY
You don't take a position based on a company's business model, you do it based on whether you think a stock will go up or down. That's it. Business model is one signal, as is the current stock price.

Hedge funds took short positions because in their model, given GameStop's business and whatever other factors, the stock was due to drop. That's valid, but it's no more valid than the WSB model that the price would skyrocket because overexposed hedge funds would be forced to close their short positions. What is the fundamental argument that GME was overpriced at $20?

Also, "unsophisticated investors" are not the only ones participating for non-fundamental reasons. When Citadel pays for order flow from Robinhood and then gets out in front of those trades, they're not trading based on fundamentals, they're trading based on momentum. Is that not also interfering with the ability of the market to price GME efficiently?
For all those thinking that this is some type of large-scale conspiracy by different entities, consider the following:

- Google automates everything and adds its 'AI' to it

- Even 10K reviews in such a short space of time will trigger the AI and then it will probably flag or even remove those reviews by itself (the AI is probably trained to see this as fraudulent)

- The whole app review thing is probably gamed already and the actual fraudulent reviews are never picked up because fraudsters are (sometimes) good at being fraudulent

I have no vested interest in Google and actually think people should de-Google as much as possible, but this is the same company that gets featured on HN frequently for its non-existent support.
Burrowing a Gopher Hole (2017)
Look up the “8 kinds of fun” if you haven’t seen it before. It’s a really compelling (I think, at least) framework that explains why looking at games as just collections of mechanics doesn’t communicate whether you’d actually enjoy them.

I feel like a broken record posting something about this on every thread about games, but I really think it’s worth spreading around.
I prefer "deceptive pattern". They try to trick you into thinking some option doesn't exist, that some default is the only way to do things, that you'll benefit from some harmful thing, etc.