skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No. If you do any of those things wrong then you will get charged.

There aren't bot accounts. There are people telling other people to buy who are probably selling (there is a reason why DFV isn't posting anything but account updates). No conpsiracy theory around bots, the people manipulating the market are there, they are posting on a public forum. It doesn't get more cut and dry.
> The OP isn't arguing against outsider/non-expert discussion.

Yeah, he's just strawmanning and shaming a hypothetical group for the applauses of a circlejerk.
I don't know exactly, but it sounds like the word is context-dependent. During war, it means people who aren't in the military, but during peacetime it means people who aren't expected to risk their lives in more ordinary ways.

[If the jobs of firefighters seems irreproachable or lacking authority compared to military or police, then maybe it would help to remember that firefighters turned their hoses on civil rights protesters in the 60s. No doubt there are many similar examples of firefighter's behavior being clearly outside of the what is thought to be typical of civilians.]
Presumably severe includes some people who don’t need hospitalization. Some high risk patients can get new monoclonal antibody treatments that may prevent them from needing hospitalization. Some people are sent home from the ED with oximeters and told to come back if their oxygen saturation drops below a certain threshold and a doctor calls them everyday. Hospitals in hard-hit area have to be very judicious about only admitting patients who really need it so there may be some severe/high risk cases that are just closely followed as an outpatient.
>> To be fair, professional medical advice was especially low-quality in the early days of the pandemic.

They primarily suffer from dogma IMHO. For example, now they know people with breathing difficulty should be kept in prone position. I dont know if that applies outside of Covid19, but I thought it was really interesting to see them learn it. Like "oh, what we'd normally do is bad but this variation is good".

Medicine also suffers from a fear (justified) of litigation. If they dont follow accepted practices they may get sued if someone dies. The funny thing with Covid was watching that fear when there was no accepted treatment. Seeing them say "The FDA hasn't approved that for covid" when they hadn't approved anything at all yet.
It seems a bit wrong to target this to doctors exclusively. Is it just because the cost of your service would be prohibitive for someone not using this professionally?

Anyway, I'm not a doctor but one of those types that love looking into everything themselves. I'd be interested in having access to something like this for my personal research.
No idea why you're getting downvoted -- whether or not you're able to do it depends on if you are one of those exceptions and that is an important part I missed in my original post. I was referring to market makers, as I think it goes without saying that a retail investor or small firm will not be allowed to do something like write a naked or near-naked call, but you know what they say about assumptions.
Because when you buy a share on the market there is no notion of it being "a true share that someone sold to you" or "a borrowed share that someone sold to you". The only way to prevent double-lending is to prevent all lending.
So it's WSB fault that the news outlets spun the narrative to confuse people?

Sorry, but hasn't the news spinning and generally misconstruing news stories to the benefit of their advertisers and financiers agendas been the issue the past few years?
Errors Are Not Exceptions
I suppose that we could imagine any kind of nonsense. We call that fiction not science.
That's only if you include all infections within the two week window between shots. If you look at the tail end (ie, after the shot has time to be effective) it seems more like 90.
No, they are not. They are literally instruments of the government’s monopoly on violence.

I have no idea why you reference a dead politician’s antiquated analysis of the role of the police.. shit has happened since 1850, and I personally believe catholics should not be barred from parliament. Also, not everyone lives in the UK.

Edit: as an example: what’s “sir” Robert Peel’s view on facial recognition...?
*Worse
E.g. A lends a share to B, B sells to C, C lends to D.
Now say another shorter, X, needs to cover their short and thus buys a share from C, now for this trade to settle C has to recall their share from D and then give it to X, who would then use it to cover their short. If D now fails to give back the share to C, then the trade between C-D is FTD which would then cause X trade with its borrower to be FTD since X needs C's share to settle it.

So they could have locates but still fail to settle. Though, I'm not unequivocally excluding that some naked shorts may have happened. I just find it more plausible than hedge funds and brokerages allowing huge amounts of naked shorts, which are already illegal.
Well, one assumption is that the exposure is actually a meaningful number to an investment bank.
Thanks. I suppose if you had minimal or negative churn you could take a break. Where do you feel the churn is coming from?
The contrast between the response to Astrazeneca and J&J is striking. Similar efficacy numbers, but Astrazeneca is still banned and got terrible headlines. J&J has all positive headlines. I don't know if this is just because more time has passed and people realize it was dumb to not approve Astrazeneca? Is "Supercovid" just making people realize we can't wait around?

I think J&J, Astrazeneca, and Novavax all easily surpass the "net expected benefit" threshold and should all be approved immediately. In the US, this would allow us to end this thing within 90 days.
> Too busy to use the very internet which some of them probably helped build

I didnt know Vincent Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee et al were HN users.
Enormous difference between having a margin account and trading on margin. A margin account simply means you're allowed to trade on margin, not that you have actually done so.
If we continue like this, humans will be long gone before we reach that point (IF we reach that point at all).
Where Numbers Come From
I'm not against that, but it's not trivial to implement either.
> On the other hand the UK has a higher CFR and a higher per population mortality than the US, so...

B.1.1.7 variant. Coming (already in) the US.
You are right about the possibilities of reconvinations in coronavirus, but I refer this article https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2614 It's somewhat similar to crossover.
"Right kind of people" have no accountability to their advice. A doctor can't really just hazard a guess without actual facts to base them in or risk losing their ability to practice and/or reputation. "Right kind of people" can be and are often plenty wrong about things but it fades into obscurity and they are never held accountable.

Of course they are right sometimes but on many issues with a binary choice (should or shouldn't wear masks) that's a 50% chance.

In the long run you want to be able to discern hearsay, opinion, and rumors from facts and accountability to them.

You see it today when inquiring if a pregnant woman should get the vaccine. Doctors won't really advise you because although they maybe feel it's totally safe if you're far enough along, they would be held accountable if something happened. They can be "pretty sure" about things, but that isn't enough. Meanwhile, "very smart person" on Twitter can reference a bunch of content from unaccountable people that says it's safe and come off as an expert when they aren't. It's easy to be "right" when you don't have skin in the game and especially so when no one is going to hold you to account for all the times you were wrong or misinformed.
There's always going to be work for the FDA, there's an unending stream of new diseases/conditions and cures. I very much doubt they are worried about running out of work
I just don't see a difference in manipulating the markets through official channels versus unofficial channels. If CNBC wants to have me or reddit user r/deepfuckingvalue (Keith Gill) on their platform instead of WSB sure I'll give them some stock picks too.
That's quite plausible, but where could we look to see if that was true?
I totally agree that merit of arguments should be earned by the argument, but on HN there's an awful lot of bad arguments posited in terms of "I think it probably works THIS way based on how I imagined up the entire industry in my head" that then go on to try to make a "hoho those stupid industry insiders, they didn't see solution X" point on said completely imaginary model. IE, not very rigorous models being used overconfidently.

Closely related XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1831/
Not true at all, you Are totally discounting the fact that networks have value. The Bitcoin network is worth billions. The code is easy to fork but no one will use it. Facebook's network is no less valuable (and impossible to reproduce) as a physical network of telephone lines.

Facebook's network is EXACTLY the same as the phone company's physical network and should be regulated as such.
Style HTML CheckBoxes with CSS
Honestly disappointing that trolling is the top comment here. This is the kind of thing that we should hold each other above doing.
Miraculous Mozart
You're fined for violating the Prime Directive!

That said, when I saw that top comment I thought for a second I've confused the domains, this sounded like something taken straight from there.
I haven't seen a 4 socket machine in a long time.
Doesn't need to be every time, it "just" needs to meet or beat the current FDA record. The FDA has approved treatments in the past that turned out to be harmful for substantial numbers of people. If the industry could reliably replicate the FDA's present track record (which is, overall, very good) then the FDA could be shown to be unnecessary.

However, having worked in regulated industries I do not trust industry to do any better than the FDA. At least not in the long term.
It is a self-selected audience of HN readers who care enough to read comments on a historical dictionary of SF. ;)

FWIW, I have a copy of the 2006 reprint of Blish's 1970 omnibus edition. As I recall, I bought it because I read the term "spindizzy" in the OED effort from 20 years ago, which made me curious.
Your premise is still based on the idea that Apple has deliberately made out that Facebook is their enemy, but you’ve provided zero evidence for this. You claim that Apple have implied Facebook, but are you sure it isn’t just you incorrectly inferring Facebook?

If I say “I believe that company’s that abuse my data are bad, and we should do something about that” have I also made Facebook an Orwellian enemy?
> It is a matter of technology. Groups that get banned on regular social media will move to these new next gen social networks, and (almost) everyone else will stay on the old ones.

I dont understand what you think technology is.
These aren’t large positions and that is the point. If a short position that was 2% of your account suddenly becomes 10% of it, now you have a problem, and the problem wasn’t caused by a wrong investment thesis, it was caused by a mob of kids online.
Hopefully this becomes more widely understood. It's definitely not obvious enough for their target market to understand, and it's not a stretch to say they try to obscure it.
You can still make money of a joke if you are quick enough! Just @-mention Elon and here you go.
SEC Joint Statement Regarding Ongoing Market Volatility
The other issue is that it tends to be underspecified whether a discussion is about law or policy.

Someone comes in and describes from first principles what a reasonable system would look like, and then someone else haughtily chastises them because that isn't how the existing system works. But if you read it as they intended it, i.e. as a policy proposal rather than a legal opinion, then the fact that it isn't the existing system is the point. The intention is to change the system to make it that way and the desired response is either support or a criticism of the mechanics of the proposal rather than its basis in existing law.
At Netflix, I'm playing with an EPYC 7502P with 16 NVME and dual 2x100 Mellanox ConnectX6-DX NICs. With hardware kTLS offload, we're able to serve about 350Gb/s of real customer traffic. This goes down to about 240Gb/s when using software kTLS, due to memory bandwidth limits.

This is all FreeBSD, and is the evolution of the work described in my talk at the last EuroBSDCon in 2019: https://papers.freebsd.org/2019/eurobsdcon/gallatin-numa_opt...
But OpenBSD was never involved with OpenSSL (until they forked it).
> And the same isn't true of the people in WSB gobbling up GME?

If people like the stock and buy it what can you do about it?, prevent them from buying same as robinhood?

These individual investors are not putting in market moving ammounts.

This is different from a hedge fund dumping a stock, driving price down then bankrupting a company.
I’d love to have something like this over my board gaming table and not only play location ambiance through it but play clips in the spatial location of my players based on what they here.
Founder was doing fine. We worked on Dell laptops from thrift store with Ubuntu. And we were paid from government’s welfare program few months too. So I suggest to look very well at employers numbers from the past 5-10 years.
Great game. For me, it scratches all the right factorio itches and adds some Sci-Fi and Space(TM).
The author is a graduate student in CS.
I suspect the title was abbreviated to fit HN length requirements, but it cut out perhaps the most important part. This data is for a single shot. There is an ongoing trial for boosting with a second shot down the line, but having a single shot that's known to be effective at eliminating the disease and extremely effective at reducing severe cases and hospitalizations is a game changer. We can vaccinate lower risk populations with this vaccine and do it twice as fast. Once everyone is vaccinated, we can invite people to come back for a second shot as a booster. From the phase 1/2 trial data I saw, I'd expect a second shot to boost the efficacy to numbers approaching the mRNA vaccines.

Edit: It also only needs to be refrigerated so it eliminates a lot of coordination related to frozen transportation, scheduled appointments, etc. will be eliminated.
Isn't that a standard practice for brokerages -- loan out the shares that your clients are holding? I remember Ally Invest sent me some notice that I'd be receiving a cut of the profits when they loan out my shares.
Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1] responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3].

This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]), but hey, there's hope that that's the direction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/
Last I heard, the DTCC have raised collateral requirements on GME from 1-3% to 100%. Seriously. That's the real reason clearing houses stopped accepting new orders on GME from brokers.
> A comment somewhere mentioned that Melvin had shorted 14%.

How did they lose 3 billion at 65$ with just 14%?

I call bullshit on that :)
How dare you call me, specifically, a narcissist with this comment!

(But to be serious, I think it’s easy to accidentally take forum comments personally because the physical act of reading HN comments, social media DMs, and text messages are all basically the same. So maybe it’s easy for our emotions to get mixed up.)
My favorite example:

“Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials“

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/
Germany is approving Astrazeneca with some sort of limitation.
> Time and time again, experts have been shown to have consensus opinions which are wildly off from reality. You can almost set your watch to how often an outsider will analyse a situation from first principles and make money off the 'experts', especially in the stock market.

> Progress almost always comes from non-consensus outsiders. This whole website is supposed to be a testament to that!

Even granting that these statements are accurate (which plenty of sibling comments are willing to dispute) I don't think these statements suggest that "Stay in your lane" is bad advice.

Why? It's a question of distributions. For any given task/field there are a lot more laypeople than experts. Consider the following simple model where we quantify some arbitrary ability score. If lay people's scores are normally distributed with a low mean and expert's scores are normally distributed with a high mean we can still see the best lay person beating all the experts simply because there are so many more of them.

"You don't know more than the 'experts'" is good advice for almost everyone even if there are counterexamples.

There's a separate problem I think you're trying to point at where in some fields credentials don't correlate as well with expertise as one would hope. But even if credentials are an imperfect proxy for expertise, they are probably better than just trusting your gut in the absence of any expertise of your own.

> Pretty much the only field which hasn't been embarrassed by an outsider of late is physics, [...]

This seems an idiosyncratic take on the current state of science to me. I've seen plenty of examples of a field being embarrassed by insiders (e.g. the replication crisis of psychology) or seen great results from experts who were not particularly recognized by the system as set up (see Yitang Zhang's work on the twin prime conjecture). What I don't think I've seen is a field's dogma being overthrown by a complete outsider. For the sake of my own calibration, I'd welcome any examples of this.
EU inadvertently published redacted parts of the AstraZeneca contract
Especially in "order flow" schemes, brokers accepting trades but either not executing them or executing them at different prices is a commonplace. It's great that your experience at ETrade has not included this, but if you ever decide to actually trade a "crazy" stock the outcome might be different.
BTW - I do think it would be more helpful if you report on the numbers between vaccines to use your primary metric as "100% Effective at Preventing Death", then use 68% or whatever as your secondary metric. This better reflects the differences between the vaccines so far. All are amazing at protecting against what people care about most.
The existence of outsiders disproving consensus opinion with a more-correct contrarian one does not mean every outsider with a contrarian opinion is right.
The comment isn't without substance but yeah, could have had better delivery
Yeah, I don't get why the Astrazeneca vaccine approval in the US is being delayed till (reportedly) March. Is it because Pfizer and Moderna are US companies charging a lot more money vs. Oxford/Astrazeneca being UK and not making any money on their vaccine?
I think the whole deal here is that people buying $GME wanted to jack the price up exactly to force the shorts into a margin call, and therefore liquidation.

Alternatively, I think a lot of people believed a chunk of put options were expiring soon which would cause a lot of contracts to be executed (I.e. forced stock buying).
What a hit piece. Interesting read but wow this really feels like one guy is annoyed with another guy and decided to write about him in this thinly veiled article.
What's New in PHP 8.1
For sure. This is a terrible way to "stick it to the man" and i've encouraged everyone i've talked to about this to stay far away. Unfortunately emotions have really taken hold. Greed is a hard one to talk people down from but doable. Anger and outrage pretty much impossible.
If you are in America, you can apply (now that the closing date has been extended) via your state's healthcare clearing house. You can start with www.healthcare.gov and go from there. You can also buy short term insurance from an association or group you are a member i.e ieee.org and others.

If you are outside the US, you can buy it directly from insurance companies.
You did not say if you are leaving a job with insurance - if that is the case, you can use healthcare.gov when you leave.

I am not sure how the laws are now, but you can structure your company so healthcare is a benefit for everyone. You will probably need a small salary to make it all work out. Definitely a question for your accountant.

Good luck on your company!
I have said this before, and I'll keep saying it: A corporation controlling an open source project is antithetical to the purpose of Open Source, which is a project designed for the collaboration of a community of users. Licensing issues are just a tiny part of the problem. Open Source is a license type and philosophy, but that license type exists solely so that users can get fixes for their bugs/problems incorporated into upstream.

Corporate Open Source doesn't give a shit about a user's problems. The corporation only exists to further its own interests, and it uses Open Source as a tool to do so. Its sole motivation is profit, and so it is unwilling to accept the changes that users want to make if they're not directly benefiting the corporation.

Community-driven Open Source is about the users. Sometimes the project leads are a little too dictatorial and micromanage the project, preventing user fixes for stupid reasons. But most of the time, if you have a useful thing to contribute or change, they will accept it, even if it doesn't benefit them personally.

I think the current trend with Corporate Open Source was natural given the selfish nature of corporations. It's only going to get worse from here. In 10 years, most Corporate "Open Source" projects will go one of two ways. In one, they're donated to Corporate-aligned "Foundations" and all the development is done by the corporation, but "management" is done by some generic board [of people in corporations]. In the other, it's just a thin API layer over a proprietary system, like kernel drivers.

I think the only real Open Source left will be the old school variety. The projects led by a random chick in her garage who just needs a tool that solves her problems. Nobody's going to pay her for it, and she's fine with that, because she just needs this damn code. And that will be how Open Source survives: the hobbyist who donates their work to the world, just because it's a good thing to do.

The only salvation I can see in all of this is a new form of Open Source that enables corporations to safely donate their work. Note that I said donate. They can't have any expectations of holding onto IP or copyright. But perhaps they can find some way to use it as a tax write-off? So the project is run by a chick in her garage, but she takes patches from corporations, or maybe even a small yearly "donation" just to keep managing the project. In this way you could actually have a thriving community, even if that community is made up of corporations.
I've had this situation a few times. Most recently transforming large (1-50 GB) CSV files in to a format that can be digested by a proprietary bulk DB loader.

Because our problem was just about reformatting we ended up reading the CSVs in binary mode and using struct to extract the relevant values from the date time fields. But if we needed to do actual date logic something like this would perhaps be useful (but there other fast date time libraries out there, I've been a fan of pendulum for some tasks).