skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So it’s like any of the other financial players here. Robinhood, like the hedge funds, will be fine. If anybody is going to suffer, it’s the retail traders, but that’s typical when Wall Street and DC combine.

Also, note that they label it “populist”. That word isn’t chosen lightly. It is used to differentiate the smart people from the dumb masses. Too bad the masses can plainly see the manipulation in Wall Street’s favor.
Taiwan the nation is quite valuable

Taiwan the land, not so much

Move the population to the US, grant them citizenship, let China take the land, which the US cannot defend anyway

This would also be a boon to airlines and cruise companies, providing a full year of nonstop work
It starts with PR. If there was one moment for a company to be brutally honest, it was for Robin Hood yesterday. They didn't get in front of this story, they didn't explain the issue in detail - instead, they blocked the trades, posted a bullshit information-free blogpost, and have their CEO doing rounds on the news smiling and spewing zero-information noise.

This isn't a business model problem, it's customer relationship management problem. They screwed it up big time. Like corporations usually do with their ISO standard PR, but then usually there isn't a critical mass of angry customers looking for blood (some of which are really angry, because they're already operating in the "I'll YOLO what I have on a chance to make Wall Street pay for the pain they inflicted on my parents in 2008" mode).
> I also know a guy who replaced Python with OCaml for quick scripting which is rather bizarre to me but knowing a bit more about OCaml nowadays, that actually can work just fine -- and OCaml is very terse.

> I would prioritize speed of startup and terse code over everything else.

If speed of startup and terse code are all you want... what's the problem with OCaml? It's got static typing too.
I think one interesting way of looking at a company is as a power struggle between

- the owners
- the employees
- the managers
- the clients
- (and sometimes) the government / general public

Companies can benefit all of these parties, but a good system should have forces in place to prevent any of them from getting the upper hand. Some of those forces include competition, unionisation, labour mobility, fiduciary duty to shareholders, and the existence of boards of directors.

The view that a company's sole duty is to provide value to shareholders (i.e. to grow) is blinkered and damaging. I'm tempted to heap blame for that way of thinking on the economics establishment and on anti-comunist sentiment from the 20th century but that's probably naive.
> left holding stock they bought for $100, $200, $300, or $400 a share (WSB was memeing share price was gonna go into the thousands) that is worth <$90

Many people said the same thing about TSLA before it stabilized at higher levels. I bought at under $40 and sold around $80 because I thought fundamentals mattered. Turns out they don't right now.

Everyone talking about what GME is 'actually worth' is spouting bullshit. The fact is, no one knows. Because it's up to the market.
Looks like the unit is based on something called “GENIVI Platform” used widely by Renault and Nissan and supplied by Bosch.

“Kai” is probably 改, roughly translates to “Modified” or “Upgraded”.
Right. These days I can't sit at just the laptop for an extended period without severe back pain anyway, so I just lost the habit of using it betwene that and adopting a more keyboard-centric workflow.

I have been keeping an eye out for options of operating the pinter device from a mech without having to ove from the home row.

There are rotary encoders, sensors you can put on the keyboard itself if you make it small and mobile enough, I think I saw something trackpoint-like at some point as well, but nothing fundamental so far.
I would guess it is derived from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(III)_oxide
Fair enough, but to survive a company needs to aim to grow - existing customers will always leave (die or go out of business). Making products that make their customers lives better, providing a living for its employees, and a service to its community, are by-products of survival and of the process of growing.

A well run 'evil' company that just cares about growing may do more good because of the people it gives a good living to than a poorly run social enterprise.
First you need to offer a definition of "pump and dump".

Otherwise you're just using a term that fits your conclusion.
The last few years of AMD desktop CPUs would like a word.
Smart Replies with ML Kit
I think you might be missing an oxygen atom there.
No reputable scientist deals in 'irrefutable facts' like that, only evidence. If you're going to put quotes on something like that, I think it's reasonable to ask for a reference.

I'm just wondering, can you give examples of the research papers for these PhDs or degrees where you evaluated them and found them insufficiently rigorous. It sounds like this has happened a lot, so are there any resources on this I can read?

Hancock's pop sci summary of other people's work you linked to is entertaining, but are we really surprised that geologists 100 years ago had a limited understanding of the history of the earth? That controversy was 40 years before we even came up with plate tectonics. It's hardly cutting edge stuff.
No, the current mainstream economic system is the cancer and it's killing the host.

Throughout history many civilizations based on endless growth started to collapse when they run out of territories to conquer or simply fuel. (e.g. the roman empire)
I think the purpose of a healthy company is to make widgets. A company that's unsuccessful or on the path to failure will thrash about and, I think, eventually decide their purpose is simply "to make money".

Clearly we should invest in the former companies but even the latter, in some cases, stumble on something worthwhile and become successful.
I disagree with Geyer on this.

Burn-in may not be necessary but often is for the type of inference that most people are familiar with.

But these days, who cares? I can fit a highly parameter used model on my 6 year old MacBook Pro with Stan just fine. If I want some extra juice I can rent an EC2 or Droplet.
> An interesting question may be, how did we get here?

I think a very important factor in getting us where we are has been the Friedman Doctrine[0].

Its essence can be basically described using Friedman's words: "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits".

- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
So, first off, a disclaimer: I'm a partisan of classical TDD.

With that out of the way, I would recommend using a test double in exactly one kind of situation: When it's genuinely awkward to use the real thing. Concrete examples include talking to a third-party API, testing for error conditions that are difficult or impossible to reliably organically produce, and when the real dependency hasn't actually been implemented yet.

As for the different kinds of test doubles, Fowler has a concise overview at https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestDouble.html that is just about the clearest explanation I've seen of the different kinds and what they're used for.
How would PyO3 help you avoid type hints and mypy?
Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, a partly Christian theocratic state in 19C China
Think about it, you're staring at a mob of people willing to buy the stock at absurd prices... Why would you announce that you've closed your shorts instead of keeping quiet and profiting of the mob?

The answer is they didn't close it, they were trying to get the mob to back off.

And no, it technically wouldn't be fraud, they were very careful with their words...
That's a crazy coincidence. Glad somebody else remembers. Cheers!
There is a growing body of thought that capitalism and, more specifically, continued growth, is unsustainable. A lot of the literature focuses around the environment [1], but we should also think about businesses that perform a useful community service or product to their community - must they always grow? If not, must their competitor?

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1558/jocr.v5i2.197
I suspect that orgs perform arbitrary UI redesigns for the same reasons supermarkets occasionally reorganise their product layout. It stops customers getting too efficient at extracting only the value they think they want.
The market rallied because it accurately predicted there would be a strong economic recovery in 2021/2022.
Anti user design?

Pro business design?
Writing everything down and keeping my head empty of worries / things to do. Thus letting me use my head to only solve problems at hand and enjoying life. Also known as GTD methodology.
Yes, unless we force them to explore and research new options of upgradable RAM (or other parts) for such form factors (thin or small laptops / tablets), they will never do so. (Perhaps something like SD card reader slots for RAM?).
Rich people go to parties you're not invited to. They close ranks, we should too.
Many health systems sell “anonymized” health data that fits the HIPAA description and is completely legal.

So if your doctor is part of a larger health system or uses an EMR system odds are that all your data is bundled up and sold. It’s not identifiable easily, but is still sold and used.
"...the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens..." (1)

(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...
This is a good point and probably lost on people who aren’t board game enthusiasts. In video games a “game developer” is a broad characterization that could apply to anyone on the development team. “Game designer” is a specific role on that team.

In board games developer and designer are distinct roles. If you have a familiarity with modern, you may know the names of the designers of certain games, but the developers of those games are essential for turning the raw specification of the game into the box of tokens and cards you buy at Target. A lot of hobbyist games don’t get that development work and while they might have unique ideas, they are essentially prototype.
I once worked at a company where I didn't understand why they took certain decisions. In the end, it all became very clear. My mindset from "these guys have no idea" shifted towards "wow, they are smart, I didn't get this part".

Basically, they were acquiring customers faster than anyone could follow. Our development goal was "fast and opportunistic". As you can expect, the product was full of bugs, and customer support had their hands full. It was a shitty product with a lot of customers.

I didn't see how this would ever turn into a success story. We were digging a grave. But I didn't realize 1 thing: we were not selling a product, we were selling the company.

In the end, a huge Canadian competitor wanted a foothold in the European market, and so they bought us (and our customers). They were going to introduce their own product to the customers, and so our product was thrown in the wastebasket.

In the end, it all ended as planned, and the founders walked away with a lot of money. Basically they built a customer base in EU, and sold that one to another company. Big eye opener for me.

Looking back, it is also very interesting to see how they positioned their company within that market, to be acquired.
We can but we don't. Our biological drive, coupled with our lack of volition to reason about it, is to reproduce. Most people don't care if pumping out a unit is the worst thing contribution to the planet's environment, they'll do it just because.
The System Design Course
> The purpose of every living being is to spread and grow. Bacteria, virus, animal, human even universe and unfortunately cancer.

The purpose is to spread their genes and not to spread and grow themselves.
Comparison of Docker K8s network architecture
I never thought about the regional bias of HN. But it sounds reasonable. And being from the EU, I probably wouldn't notice.
Do you really think a 2D physic engine is comparable to a 3D physic engine in terms of complexity?

Yes Factorio is complex. No it's not more complex than a Witcher/Skyrim/Cyberpunk/whatever big budget game you can think of.

When i say complex, I talk about code, architecture, gameplay mechanics. Not play time...
They’re allowed to do that too
All companies must grow until they become a cult, a religion, or a government.
This seems like an odd assertion to make, since fakes and mocks have largely non-overlapping purposes. Fakes provide some simulacrum of real behavior, while mocks just verify that appropriate messages were sent to the thing they're standing in for.

I do see fakes as having overlapping purpose with stubs, though. But, like the title of the article says, mocks aren't stubs.
Do you know it's against the site guidelines here to just accuse people of not reading the article rather than actually presenting an argument?

It doesn't matter how attractive a platform is if you simply aren't going to get onto it. Clubhouse can make me interested, but can't actually get me onboarded.
The Irony in the GameStop Story
right here:

>[reviews i dont like] probably shouldn't have the same weight as [reviews i do like].
What an ignorant comment! Life is not only business struggle. Growing a company as a founder means you need to sacrifice some part of your personal life for the company, either stress, free time or money. There are people happy with their lives that don't want more stress or to lose more free time... and for what? a bit bigger bank account? i'm sure the founder is doing just fine financially already
I'm not sure which careers you think have been bailed out. Politicians talk about saving certain professions (e.g. coal miners), but those bailouts end up being for the company.

Do you have a different example?
ok, malignant. Are the Amazon lawyers going to argue that Amazon is not actually inimical to human existence and an invention of the devil so malignancy cannot be proven?
Robinhood restricts crypto trading ‘due to extraordinary market conditions’
What is “Firgun” and why should you embrace it?
The reason I say it is unavoidable is not laws of nature, it is the ease with which it can be done with current technology, and the advantages that our current technology brings to societies which do not reject it.

Indeed we could, as you say, construct societies without that capacity — Amish, etc. already do so — but such a society is outcompeted by every society which embraces tech, and any society with tech at the level of the Stasi (i.e. both old and the wrong side of the Iron Curtain) can surveil whoever it wants whenever it wants.

Now? Now it doesn’t matter if you decentralised all the infrastructure, the tech is too cheap to avoid total surveillance.

Now, laser mics are school projects, and the hardware cost for pointing one at each and every window in London 24/7 is significantly lower than the annual cost of the Metropolitan Police Service in the same city.

Now, your WiFi can be converted into a wall-penetrating radar, do pose detection, heart rate and breathing detection.

Now, my wristwatch knows when I walk past the charging station to turn on its screen and remind me of its existence. I don’t even know how it knows when I’m walking past.

Now, I have an IR camera that can see through some opaque-to-visible-light materials for no good reason and at pocket-money prices.

“Centralised” has its problems, but getting rid of centralisation isn’t enough.
It's a model. But does it mean you can do something useful out of it? I doubt it. It may seem you can, but it won't generalise well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
I mean the truth was that it was a liquidity event. Now they have liquidity, people will trade, etc. It will come out that it was that. They prob won't lose the retailers.

I personally pulled out though when I heard the news, just in case. Freaking Bitcoin shot up after I pulled though... smh.
Those do sound like reasonable design decisions, but in practice the systems which are eventually actually implemented are basically never as well-designed as that.
You're talking about the user perpective, while GP is talking about the programmer perspective.
There you go, silent downvotes for providing information...
This is a nice suggestion. Thanks for that. Added in our to-do list.
Oh, it definitely is. Going through public material or videos provided as evidence, even using facial recognition, after a crime is IMHO ok. Preemptively recording everything, and using facial recognition right from the bat, is very different. The latter shouldn't be acceptable in a free and democratic society.
There are beautiful ruins all throughout Turkey, completely out in the open. You can walk through a park and find yourself stepping over ancient mosaics and columns, the kinds you'd find behind velvet ropes and glass partitions in Italy or Greece.
This article sure could do with some pictures!
Beautiful Crypto Ticker with Dark Theme and Full Screen
Then your management aren't very good.

The reason is that every business, or system gets worse if you don't improve it. Call it entropy in physics.

If you don't try and improve, pay attention to the market, adapt, move, change, or at least maintain or build a moat, competition will inevitably want to have what you've got. It's why capitalism works. If you get old, and don't satisfy your customers, someone else will.

Now, if you plan on keeping your job for 1-2 years, then you don't really care. Fine, that's your point of view. But management and shareholders certainly would like the business to be around for as long as possible. And for that you always need to develop and change.

And this is not about some crazy capitalist mentality that destroys the planet. Nature is the same. Inevitably the tribe leading lion will get challenged and taken down. It's just what happens. Unless you at least try and work against it.
If we design it like an electricity meter, it would work perfectly in my opinion!
The idea that the board approving the sale of shares at this massively overinflated price "bails out the shorts" ignores what duty boards and companies have to shareholders.

Gamestop selling shares at this price would, all else equal, be the best thing for gme to do for the company's future prospects.

That being said, I don't know who was long by accident going into this (eg an investor who saw gme as a value or deep value investment) who didn't already sell because this is the accidental win of a lifetime.
The NYSE provided short interest data is only released twice a month. The last time being on Jan 27.

https://www.nyse.com/market-data/reference/nyse-group-short-...
In chrome "Settings" -> search for "Always clear cookies when windows are closed" and "Add" "medium.com"
or, you know, not allow shorting of borrowed loans which you can report as you owning them.
> UX is now "user exploitation."

Pretty well said.
"We have a finite environment—the planet. Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist." David Attenborough
New Concurrency APIs in C++ 17
It's been speculated in the press, and likely why the European Commission is looking into potentially restricting vaccine exports to non-EU countries (https://apnews.com/article/europe-coronavirus-pandemic-coron...).

They aren't directly accusing them, but you have to read between the lines a bit.
I use a mocking library mainly to produce stubs. I found verifying mocks too brittle in many cases. Generally I want to test outcomes (state), not behavior. I had many changes breaking tests although functionality was fine.

The example outlined in the article isn't exactly a unit test: The change in state of one object changes the state of another object. If these are coupled that tightly I'd rather try to mock (stub) the dependencies of both objects and let them interact (test both at the same time), then verifying their final state.
2019*
How does a pump and dump work if you realized your losses before you even bought the stock and never end up selling? In my opinion the value of GME is $0 and that doesn't stop me from wanting to buy more but never selling ever because of the entertainment value.
credit unions?
In general, researchers don't try to understand second-order effects of their pet theories, because the consequences of the theories are not relevant to the theories being true or false - it's an "is-vs-ought" distinction.

This is an article that observes and describes aspects of how X influences Y. The question whether Y and its implications are good or bad is orthogonal to that; any discussion about whether Y should be hastened or slowed down would be simply offtopic. Discussion about which other factors would hasten or slow down this effect would be relevant though.

I'd go even beyond and argue that researchers should explicitly and intentionally avoid considering such "second-order effects". Let's assume that this research is true (perhaps it's not, I have no strong opinion on that) and, as you state, acknowledging that "this research says we're not going to lose anything on the quality side anyway" will cause some unwelcome consequences. In that case, what should we do about it? Should we avoid saying the truth because we don't like it? Should we lie and say "oh, we are going to lose on the quality side" because we don't like the second-order social effects of acknowledging the truth? I'd argue that allowing the social consequences (how things ought to be) to affect your view of reality (how tings are) is anathema to the concept of science, we should instead strive for objectivity even if (and especially if) we don't like what the looking glass is showing us.
That doesn't make sense and isn't how the stock market works

Stock prices dropping effect companies only indirectly, in that it may make it harder to secure loans or raise capital through issuing shares
Voting shorted shares is interesting, and I'm curious: Alice borrowed Bob's shares (through the broker, Bob doesn't really know), and Alice sold them to Charlie. I assume Bob doesn't get a vote, even though he thinks he owns a share?
> This has the veneer of a crowd sticking it to someone they felt exploited by, but in the end, they're just being exploited by someone else.

You are 100% right and that's what's going on.

However, the pump-and-dump kinda took a life of its own becuase GME is a perfect storm:

* it's a highly shorted stock, so the chance of a short squeeze is high

* there's a (misguided) wall street vs retail narrative going on

* GME is a name everyone knowns, especially the reddit crowd, so people are more willing to buy in

People are being duped into raging against the machine right until they lose their life savings, while u/deepfuckingvalue and friends are laughing all the way to the bank.

And when it will all collapse, everyone will point fingers at the rigged market, instead of realising they shouldn't have thought twice before jumping in this senseless buying.
> If you don't try and improve, pay attention to the market, adapt, move, change, or at least maintain or build a moat, competition will inevitably want to have what you've got. It's why capitalism works. If you get old, and don't satisfy your customers, someone else will.

only in a competitive market. There are markets which don't behave freely, and some would call those market failures. Health insurance, and healthcare, for one, is like that.
There were problems early on when they were posting GIFs instead of videos. It was nice because they noted the bandwidth savings by converting over to WebM instead.
That's a good point, and I think it points out the fundamental misunderstanding in the comment I was replying to: conflation of atheism with radical atheism, particularly New Atheism.
It is also being worked upon by only 17 people as opposed to the 500+ dev teams for AAA games.
Robinhood restricts crypto trading as Dogecoin soars 300 percent
Go Beyond the Privacy Policy
I don't believe in stonks either :)