skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good question. I don't ever read kernel code as a starting point, only if some profiling or tracing tool points me towards an interesting function or codepath. And interesting usually is something that takes most CPU in perf output or some function call with an unusually high latency in ftrace, bcc/bpftrace script output. Or just a stack trace in a core- or crashdump.

As far as mindset goes - I try to apply the developer mindset to system performance. In other words, I don't use much of what I call the "old school sysadmin mindset", from a time where better tooling was not available. I don't use systemwide utilization or various get/hit ratios for doing "metric voodoo" of Unix wizards.

The developer mindset dictates that everything you run is an application. JVM is an application. Kernel is an application. Postgres, Oracle are applications. All applications execute one or more threads that run on CPU or do not run on CPU. There are only two categories of reasons why a thread does not run on CPU (is sleeping): The OS put the thread to sleep (involuntary blocking) or the thread voluntarily wanted to go to go to sleep (for example, it realized it can't get some application level lock).

And you drill down from there. Your OS/system is just a bunch of threads running on CPU, sleeping and sometimes communicating with each other. You can directly measure all of these things easily nowadays with profilers, no need for metric voodoo.

I have written my own tools to complement things like perf, ftrace and BPF stuff - as a consultant I regularly see 10+ year old Linux versions, etc - and I find sampling thread states from /proc file system is a really good (and flexible) starting point for system performance analysis and even some drilldown - all this without having to install new software or upgrading to latest kernels. Some of the tools I showed in my article too:

https://tanelpoder.com/psnapper & https://0x.tools

In the end of my post I mentioned that I'll do a webinar "hacking session" next Thursday, I'll show more how I work there :-)
Well, no, the arguments are still important whether or not we can reach a definitive conclusion, because they inform what "keep watching" means. If there is a stronger consensus that it's an outgassing comet, then money/time/resources will be invested in looking for evidence of that. Likewise, of the consensus is that it's a probe, those same resources will be invested differently.

This is actually Avi's argument for considering the probe hypothesis. He's not trying to prove it was a probe, he's making a case for investing resources into experiments that could detect probes and industrialized alien civilizations, as opposed to detecting new classes of comets.
> Health systems employ clinical pharmacists to answer the other 1/2 with evidence because it’s insanely high ROI for them to do so (5M/ pharmacist/ year/ hospital).

I didn't know this.

In that case, software is probably way more scalable than hiring more and more pharmacists.
I actually don't even know what you're referring to, but I'm quite confident that it's untrue that "all" founder-owners did it, or that it's anywhere near as nefarious as you're positing.
OP isn't asking us to defer to experts - he's arguing there are laypersons not doing enough research before forming an entire theory of how an industry works.
Volatility makes the HFT's money. Hundreds of millions of shares are flying around the past few days. Thats not from a bunch of people buying and holding. They make money on fractions of a percent swings. They can make a lot of money on 50% swings.

The other thing is, the price WILL go down eventually. Even if not today. A fund with billions of dollars can afford to sit on a short of GME at $400 for a long time. Longer than the upward pressure will last. The narrative was that the short squeeze will happen today, and prices will skyrocket. You only had to be in it for a little while. Now the narrative is changing, and it will maybe be next week, or even farther out. Sure the meme is to hold forever, but anyone holding any amount that will maybe make a difference are going to see that life changing number and sell eventually.
Is this the vault you are referring to: https://www.gdcvault.com/ ?
Considering how much digital spying happens, it is not paranoia to be concerned about it. If you caught your neighbor peeking in your windows 5 times a day, putting up a fence isn't being paranoid.
> Are you suggesting that pump and dumps legal because "free speech"?

Where's the pump and dump?, This is a short squeeze due to Melvin Capitals 140% short and people buying due to initially Cohen joining. Same as for VW a long time ago. Now it's just because people want to buy... Hell I did so as well at recent prices as I think with a nice stock offering GME can get to a 500 fair market value easily. Que in some partnership with Tesla for 'TeslaStop' gaming while charging and they'll be good.

> What is the relevant legislation preventing someone from shorting "too much"?

Look it up under market manipulation. A oversized hedge fund overselling a stock will certainly be able to set the price where they want and then profit.
On the other hand it's quite sad that we as humanity have already developed two vaccines with 95% (or even higher) effectiveness but are not able (or rather: are too greedy) to share this knowledge to vaccine every human on earth as fast as possible.

Instead the US and Europe are putting trade restrictions in place to keep the vaccines for themselves. India and China are more than capable to produce the vaccines in insane quantities but IP law doesn't let them.
The reason this is unpopular is because of how obviously incorrect it is. The history of medicine is almost an allegory for why evolved evidence based systems like this to regulate what companies and doctors can do. Time and again, doctors and pharmaceutical companies have done unsafe, harmful and fraudulent things to patients who trusted them. The only reason we have medicine that works now is because we rigorously enforce the use of statistical proof that interventions work through bodies like the FDA.
That's simply not practically possible. It's just going too fast. We would either have to build a really stupendously big rocket, or develop propulsion that is dramatically more efficient than anything ever done before.
> Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?

That is for thr courts to decide. He can sue. But Twitter should not ban Reuters from their platform.
name was chosen after `uranium trioxide`, pythonium trioxied - pyo3
Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a common cold?
Like this?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/
> it’s a narrative propped up intentionally by wsb insiders for their own gain.

Yes, in particularly the passionate pleas to buy in more and HODL, stick it to the man, stick it to the evil shorts. While enabling the early longs to cash out profitably.

Bit like Bitcoin, really.
NO RAGERTS
RTFA

"But these investors told The Verge they didn’t have options in GameStop or AMC and hadn’t purchased the stocks on margin. They had purchased the shares outright, they said, and were planning to hold onto them."
Stock Wars: The Rise of $GME
> link to papers

No, I can't. Can you link to papers that show flossing is effective? Probably not, but the mechanism is so obvious that essentially all dentists will tell you to floss.
Further, mask-wearing was already a well-established practice in medical settings to prevent the spread of respiratory disease from practitioners to patients.

> believe that they can continue their normal day to day life so long as they put [a] mask on. This is untrue

Combined with some coordination on travel restrictions and quarantines, it seems Taiwan has been able to keep that normal day-to-day life for the majority of Taiwanese.

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/01/08/taiwan-covid-19-p...
I'd imagine that the advertiser could only show needle ads next to content about sewing / knitting and be very effective at reaching the desired audience without resorting to collecting PII about that audience.

Any reason this wouldn't work?
You say "narcissists", I say I'm tired of seeing people shutting down anyone who uses their brain to try and comprehend the facts - and god forbid they know some math and are capable of formal reasoning.

This approach is just teaching people to repeat memes after pundits and not use their brain - instead of teaching them to work on better reasoning skills, and applying these skills to the problems they face, while accounting for their lack of expertise.

Discussions should be about arguments, not people's authority. If you see someone being wrong and you know better because you've studied the field for longer, point out the flaws in their arguments, offer corrections, but embrace that they're at least trying for understanding, instead of condemning them.
Not an expert myself, but I've been interested in the field for a while.

The clearinghouse ultimately moves the security and money to their right place, and allows brokerages to let each side move on faith that everything will be right once the dust settles. On settlement risk, a key point is that there usually isn't a huge amount of risk. This is why DTCC is nearly imperceptible for retail players. In this case, the volume and short situation is so extreme that clearinghouses are getting antsy that there may not be enough of the securities available to actually make good in the end, so they're twisting arms at brokerages and requiring they have 100% of it on-hand so that there's no surprises when they go to officially give the buyer their security and the seller their money. This is obviously very expensive, which is why brokerages started limiting buying of volatile securities, have had to take out money to get 100% hedge on these trades, and why RH is allowing trading of volatile securities but only in volumes of 5.

Market makers buy stock for delta hedging because if they don't, they could get caught out and either deliver at a loss or not be able to deliver at all. Figuring out how much you need is a trick of the trade; if you or I knew what their strategy was, their position could be in danger.
Doesn't apply in the circumstances of this event since it happened in London, England.
> Dont get me wrong about short sellers too. The act of short selling is technically good. There are some good firms that pay for investigations into large public companies to expose complex crimes, then short sell to recoup and profit. Melvin isnt one of them.

Why can't they recoup their costs through put options?

In my view, short selling is a legalized form of fraud. A share of stock is "borrowed", but not with the actual owner's knowledge or permission. Then it is "sold", but unlike with a normal sale, the actual owner still thinks they own that share, as does the buyer. They can't both be correct. In a normal sale of some thing, when the buyer takes ownership, the former owner must relinquish ownership. And they'll both, henceforth, behave accordingly.

In a short sale scenario, both "owners" think they own the same share of stock. The "demand" they collectively create for two shares of the stock is sated by one share. So the price drops. When you have the ability (i.e. the money) to do it on a large scale, you drive the price of the stock down. That's the scam. It's not hard to understand.

IMO, the only reason short selling is legal is because it makes very rich and very powerful people even more rich and more powerful.
Stop this Game (some GME-inspired thoughts about US markets)
Linux Networking deep dive – eBPF, XDP, DPDK, VPP – What does it all that mean?
And the Pony community has helped me out at every turn of confusion and getting my head twisted into the Pony model. Big kudos to them...
Because there is the first amendment...and there is securities fraud. You are saying: anything that anyone says at any time has no legal consequence because of the first amendment...no.

Misleading stuff is being posted on wsb. And some people are likely not being honest about what they are doing (i.e. telling people to buy when they are selling). This is how pump and dumps work. If you buy a stock worth $5 for $300...your only option is to sell to someone who knows nothing. That is what it is happening now.

The stuff about hedge funds only came later, it is funny that people are citing this now (as ever, financial markets and ex-post rationalisations...human reasoning is amazing). All this stuff about revolutions against bankers, and the wealthy, and politicans leaping onto it...lol. The funniest thing about this is that people who have the least knowledge believe they need protection the least...and when this blows up, they will still say it is rigged. Oh well. Plus ca change.
There's a kind of catch-22 here, in that the interpretation of the Second Amendment guarantees that the government really doesn't have a monopoly on force -- in practice if not in theory. There is no place on earth where the police can stop an armed burglar in time. Their gun allows them to apply deadly force instantly and (at short range) almost perfectly.

That use of force isn't legitimate, but it makes it difficult for the government to enforce its legitimacy. It's hard to track down the person who committed the crime. If the gun was merely a threat and not an actual homicide, it won't be given the highest priority. Since anybody could have a gun, merely having one is no indicator of criminality. But it does mean that any police encounter has the potential to turn deadly, so they have to treat every member of the public with a distance that easily turns to hostility.

Which is to say, in the US, the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Its monopoly on legitimate force still holds but is more limited.
As a paying customer, you can negotiate whatever terms you want. They will want the ability to discontinue your service and you will conversely want that ability as well. However you can negotiate the exact terms as well as any notice periods, etc.

You have no consideration relationship with Facebook. You haven't entered into a contract. You are just filling out forms on a website.
Whenever I read about a topic that I don't know much about, part of me is always wondering if the writer is throwing all these exotic words and greek letters in there because they are really an essential to understanding the topic, or because they just want to over-complicate it to sound smart and blow their own horn.

On one hand we have Occam's Razor: "the simplest solution is almost always the best." On the other we have "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." How does one know which to apply?
That’s what I get when I’m feeling decent.
Today no. It's clearly possible but it's probably a 50 year objective between technology development and mission operations.
This sounds a lot like someone learning Rust. Both languages solve similar problems with very different solutions that come with complexity overhead.
Yes they have data for results of 1 shot of 2 shot vaccines.

Moderna has 80% in single shot I believe but it degrades over time so there is a second shot.

The 66% that does not degrade and can be kept in room temperature is not bad at all. Most vaccines are not 90%. Most flu vaccine don't cover all different types but they still protect people as they get some sort of immunity to major types A,B etc.
> Sure, if you choose a bad starting point, your initial samples might not be representative of the overall distribution, but if a handful of non-representative points can massively impact your result, then I'm not sure how stable your result was to begin with (how do you know there isn't some other set of low-probability high-impact points that your sampler just missed through luck?).

You're right, and most comments I've seen over the years on the post conveniently miss that he addresses that:

> This unbiasedness argument is rubbish. If you start at x and I start at x then your MCMC run is no better than mine. If you used burn-in and I didn't, then you are entitled to woof about approximate unbiasedness and I am not. But that woof does not make your estimator any better.

My interpretation has always been this, and I think it's correct: You need a good starting point. There's no reason to think burn-in gives you a good starting point. Instead, use something that's actually intended to give a good starting point, like the mode.
I generally find protests trite and idiotic, however if Yellen sides with hedge funds on this, and / or bails them out I'm going to find the nearest "peaceful" protest in NYC and bring as many people as I know.
> If you come from an OO or procedural background, there will be a sharp learning curve.

Isn't Pony object oriented?
Well, you clearly don't understand how any of this works if you seriously think that having more than 100% of the float sold short is somehow indicative of market manipulation.

It's pretty simple really: If you want to sell short a stock, you need to borrow it first. You can only borrow it from someone who owns the stock. But each short sale also creates a new corresponding long position that can again be lent out for more short selling.

Example: Let there be a stock with a float of 100 shares that you own. You are a long-term investor L1 who loans out these stocks (for a fee) to a short seller S1. S1 borrows the stock, and sells it to another long-term investor L2. There is now a short interest of 100 shares, or 100% of the float. But L2 can again lend out those shares to another short seller S2 who sells the shares to yet another investors L3. Now you have a short interest of 200 shares, or 200% of the stocks float. But absolutely nothing illegal like naked short selling has happened, because the sum of all short and long positions still equals the float of +100. That's simply who this works.

But now we have a bunch of ignorant amateurs spreading conspiracy theories while pumping up a largely worthless company to a ridiculous valuation. And that is market manipulation, because there is no fundamental reason why this stock should be this expensive. What's more, transacting in a security for the sole purpose of raising or depressing its price in an attempt to induce others to buy or sell that security is a violation of 15 U.S. Code § 78i. As hundreds or even thousands of posts on reddit and other sites will confirm, that is exactly what these people are doing. They are publicly admitting to the crime.

Regulators cannot let this stand, because otherwise you are encouraging more of this kind of market manipulation and abuse. An example needs to be made out of those who are responsible.
An Alfvenic reconnecting plasmoid thruster
I have never seen anyone on HN questioning another person's humanity. That's pretty messed up if it has happened.

I understand why you wouldn't want to provide any additional details, but it's also hard to take your claims at face value given my own experience. Perhaps you could share examples which do not compromise your own identity?
I'm really struggling to understand these numbers.

In some other articles I'm seeing that it offers 100% protection against hospitalisation and death.

"The J&J vaccine was 85 per cent effective at preventing severe Covid-19. Twenty-eight days after the jab, it offered “complete protection” from hospitalisation and death." [1]

Wouldn't having "severe" infection require hospitilisation?

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/d05c7c57-da11-42a1-aa33-b66052c90...
But there's really an entire class of people who have no clue what they're talking about weighing in on things that they clearly do not understand.

It's one thing to study this in your own time and make meaningful contributions. It's another to assume that simply because you have an opinion, it's somehow valid.
Let's say the average bet is 1-5k into this the average Robinhood user invests around 5k), it only takes 200k-1M buying in to move $1B into the stock. When you start with a $200M market cap on a heavily shorted stock, you easily end up where we are today
Oh.

Classic Internet then, if it can't be perfect why bother at all. Let's just complain and look at all those stupid people sharing things on Facebook?

Alternatively we can set up our own servers that won't be monetized by Facebook or Google but since they can potentially be broken into, why bother?

Or do you mean we should keep our data on hard drives in a safe and plug them into an airgapped computer whenever we want to look at photos or listen to music?

This is a bit harsh but this is an important topic and at the moment I cannot come up with a better explanation.
No. Way too little throughput (unless we slow down trading considerably, which is a good idea in itself, IMHO).
Shorting a stock and having that information be public seems like a big risk, since it opens you up to people trying to make money by short squeezing you.

Why isn't short trading done secretly?
You would have to identify the star that Oumua is going to for that theory to work. Seems like it should be pretty easy to know if it's going to the nearest star (or coming from one), and it's not originated from or going to Alpha Centauri.

The next question is whether or not there is some other logical path that defines logical gravity assists to visit as many stars as possible - nothing like that has been put forward either.

Afaik, it's coming from so far away that we have no idea what star it previously visited.
Comment belongs to another topic in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25958864
> Or, in the market, bet on it, and you'll see who wins out.

This is a fine way to settle debates about the health/viability of a publicly traded company, but it doesn't help much when the point of contention is a question of law.
>They clearly violated their customers' trust, so their customers should leave them.

They did? That might be the case according to the Popular Narrative (that the Hedge Funds phoned them and said "shut it down"), but reality is that they couldn't front the deposits for the customer's trades, due to the insane volatility. In that case it's less violating their customers' trust and more having a product that couldn't handle extreme circumstances well. They are a discount brokerage after all, some compromises had to be made.
> Or you could simply point out when someone is wrong, and explain why, assuming you are an expert. Then we all learn.

That’s pretty rare in online discussion, especially the kind with voting. The most popular argument wins, not the most correct one.
Three Ways to Develop, #2 – Pair Programming
I'd have some questions if my low risk or medium risk investment firm was making large shorts. Shorts are very risky for a whole bunch of reasons - which is also why they can be high value. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure every high risk fund can find at least one pensioner invested in them, but if your firm is well known for shorting then you can't pretend to be anything but high risk/high reward.
100 Hours of Computer Science Videos
The point is that it's not fine. The institutional investors who have historically said it was fine were wrong. If the average retail investor comes away thinking scummy tactics are cool now that you and I can use them, it'll be a disaster for the cause of real financial reform.
> Carolyn Wysinger, an activist and high school teacher, posted that “White men are so fragile and the mere presence of a Black person challenges every single thing in them”. It was a reasonable response to Neeson’s remarks and the long history of white men murdering random Black men.

Uh, no it wasn't. You could try to pull the privilege + prejudice argument to claim it's not strictly “racist”, but it's still completely unreasonable racial stereotyping even if you accept that argument.
Neuromuscular Junction Between Spinal Motor Neurons and Skeletal Muscles
Lightning fast, embeddable personal bots