skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Jefferson spent his public life defending the sanctity of private life and actively fighting against expanding the size, capacity and capabilities of the Federal government beyond what he saw as virtuous.

The United States is without a King nor aristocrats who hold seats in a House of Lords by their birth; it is without a House of Lords!

What you advocate is anti-Jeffersonian in both its intent and nature, and therefore you are without just cause citing Jefferson.

So if you wish to break with Jefferson and make your own advocation, do so without citing the dead when you clearly have no business doing so, and put your own thoughts and words behind that arrow.
I contacted support twice in 2 years for Prime subscription I didn’t want. Each time: “Are you sure you didn— Yes I’m sure, I knew intended to avoid it, so it’s clearly not me.” Both times they correctly cancelled it.
From what I understood from his comment, he was worried about how shorting would cause the collapse of the agricultural sector, so agreeing with you that it's a bad and dangerous practice.
> Claiming a different definition of free will does not make you right about free will existing.

You are missing my point. I explicitly said that I used a different term, "making choices", instead of the term "free will", exactly because it allows one to avoid all the pointless arguing about whether free will "exists" or not.

> Defining free will as "making choices", such as building a fire to warm your house because you are cold is not proving free will exists.

Again, you are missing the point. Sure, you can say that "free will" doesn't exist because "particles react to their environment". And my response is, who cares? Sure, people are ultimately made of particles reacting to their environment. That doesn't mean they can't make choices, and it doesn't mean the choices they make don't make a difference, to themselves and to others. It doesn't mean that some people's bad choices don't cause other people to suffer. It is perfectly possible to both understand that, at a microphysical level, everything is "particles reacting to their environment", and that, at a personal level, people make choices and their choices have consequences. And if you focus solely on the former and ignore the latter, the result is worse consequences, not better ones.
The Mystery of Recursion – Understanding How to Implement It in Python
Sure, it's about me. I'm a qualified and capable person when it comes to analysis and discourse. What i'm saying is that after seeing the word used frequently, recently, I've found that nearly everybody is either misusing, or overusing it, for internet points. Hence my point about it being a proxy for people who are not arguing in good faith.
Crossplane vs. Cloud Provider Infrastructure Addons
I'm currently working on a solution that will try to quantify software development health, and what I've learned from analyzing thousands of popular open source projects, is you don't want a single individual to stand out. You want work to be fairly distributed to reduce knowledge risk.

If you look at the busfactor section for the vscode and gitlab repository

https://imgur.com/NfgvvTy (vscode)

https://imgur.com/DK7rvfx (gitlab)

You'll find they both have a large cluster of developers in zone 2. For developers to exist in zone 2, they have to have medium to high impact on the code that they worked on, but not clash with others. If you look at the vuejs-next repository

https://imgur.com/eDAOyPW (vuejs)

You can see it's actually a pretty fragile project, since Evan is responsible for pretty much everything.

Based on what I've observed by studying successful open source projects, you actually want to discourage "very high impact" employees, since they introduce knowledge risk.

Edit: The metrics that I'm showing is limited to the last 90 days for Typescript, Javascript and CSS code.
Honestly it probably just boils down to: Rupert Murdoch hates Google and Facebook.
really?!? what next? tomatoes are fruit?

asshole.
You are right that with OS X you have no particular say over the features. On the other hand, you do not have to deal with poorly supported hardware, and if something goes wrong there are people whose job is to help you. Most users find those things to be advantages, but many will choose open source software because of the various other freedoms they can get. There are also people who choose open source software because they have unusual requirements that proprietary systems either cannot meet or are too difficult/expensive/onerous to deal with.

Losing users is always a bad thing for the open source ecosystem. Lost users means fewer bug reports, fewer patches, fewer donations, and less support from paid developers working for various corporations (easy to forget but there are people whose job is to maintain open source projects like the Linux kernel). Fewer users means less incentive for hardware companies to provide any support, even just minimal technical documentation, needed for open source developers to write drivers (let alone contribute to that).

Forks require a significant commitment of time and effort, and really should be considered a last resort. The time commitment is much greater for prominent projects that receive a lot of activity like Gnome or Linux. Most users, even those with the necessary technical skills, do not have enough spare time to maintain a fork when things break.

Your dismissive attitude is fine for a obscure hobbyist project with a dozen users. It makes no sense for desktop Linux distros that now have many millions of users.
I have a BlackBerry Key2 and am not sure what to replace it with when it goes kaput. Typing on a touchscreen leads to pain in my finger tips.

I would pay good money for a quality after-market keyboard to snap on to the bottom or side of an iPhone.
You can take out a loan on an existing mortgaged asset after you built some equity into it, especially if the asset increased in price during that period. You don't have to have paid it off. It goes to show how evil the entire setup is. It's basically laying domino blocks, the moment something happens, the entire thing collapses.
It seemed pretty funny back then, too.
I feel so much less alone from reading your shared experience. Thank you.
It wasn't a predictable flamewar. Maybe for you but it wasn't for me nor could you cite any observable evidence for my contribution in this.

The other commenter was trying to flame, now that others seemingly piled on by needlessly flagging. I was generous and didn't engage in anything but a nudge to what I was implying/saying.

Google's behavior might be 'obvious' to some but it's not obvious to everyone, hence why I posted what I did in a public forum where ~2 billion people have access to this website but don't have uniform understanding of all things Google, that Google's behavior was hypocritical. The commenter expected me to say one thing or another and that's where the disconnect is. Not me. If you can cite my error, I'll happily provide 1 BTC for you clearly proving my error. But you can't. I don't come here to blame/flame. I come to contribute what I find valuable to the community. Others didn't find it valuable, that's fine but I tried.

When dealing with trolls. There is nothing wrong with giving them a gentle nudge, which is what I did. I didn't engage past my initial comment and one additional.

Finally, when dealing with people. Don't prejudge, even if you are the judge, when dealing with the community. I've done nothing wrong and the only problem is the narrative in people's head and their expectations to ~'not rehash what others have said' as @blauditore and @saagarjha were implying.

What others may have said in the past doesn't inform my experience, I wasn't there. I'm speaking for myself and there is nothing wrong with what I said. And still isn't.

For @blauditore and @saagarjha, I'd say their comments were trying to flame. Don't project their bad behavior on me.
> Hope it's alright to ask this

Absolutely! We need to be held accountable.

> It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively?

The biggest innovation of our company is not its technology but the business model. We in fact do give it free to all platforms, rightsholders and creators equally. How do we make money? When there is monetization occurring on the platform, we take %. It's literally the same model of VISA, where cards are free (ok, not all of them) but you pay for the transaction.

Some platforms will still try to build their own internal system, similarly to YouTube's Content ID. However as it stands right now, they are not complaint with EUCD and even they do become complaint, they are retaining extreme liability. We, on the other hand, created a setup where we are able to take this liability from the hands of the platforms while providing best service possible.

We also aligned our incentives with the success of everyone involved. If rightsholders over block, we don't get paid. If platforms can't attract creators because the system is too intrusive, we don't get paid. If creators don't benefit from our system, we don't get paid.

We intentionally built this way. We made it free to allow widespread adoption. We can scale much further than CID (currently can process 1,100 hours of content a second, or 66,000 hours a minute; while guaranteeing 5 second response time with full license being issued) but we also spent last two years working with civic societies, copyright scholars and others to help us build balance system with processes that don't favor one side over the other.

We have still long way to go, but I believe we are on a good path.
$180K is like 1-1.5x the median family income in a high CoL area in the US, so that's actually about what in line with what I would expect. You're not poor, sure, but it's not close to the kind of rich the original comment is implying when clubbing him with billionaires. A kid whose family earns $186K/yr isn't exactly on the fast track to becoming the next Jeff Bezos.
> Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all.

Oh, come on now! A big company may lack morals, true, but in order to appease the most vocal, acutely political and obsessively moral part of the general public, including its own employees, it needs to conform to the societal demands on it. How else would you explain the appearance of banners linking to official Covid-related sites under videos about Covid, or pulling down of the videos that question the official Covid-related policies (such as lockdowns), or banners under videos from state-sponsored channels such as RT, or removal of videos that question the outcome of the US presidential election, or, well, most of the articles on the Youtube blog, really [0]. They are firmly placing themselves on specific sides of political, cultural, or ethical divides.

[0] - https://blog.youtube/news-and-events
I nearly put a reference to MMM true believers actually voting Mavrodi into Parliament to give him immunity from prosecution for defrauding them in my original post.
Wonder if any hedge fundies shilling GME on WSB whilst betting big in the opposite direction are bold enough to try that if the SEC comes after them...
Yeah I agree.

I actually created a `type Optional<T> = T | null` for one of my projects because I wanted a good way to describe something that is null vs undefined. This is specially important if you are de/serialising objects. In my case, undefined = user did nothing to it, null = user actually chose not to supply value (and yes, they are different)
Because believing in free will as commonly referred to means it's ok to choose not to do something about bad behavior happening in the world. It's not ok to stand by and let child trafficking happen.
Looking at the lists of early employees and the compensation/wealth of the execs has there ever been a company where the wealth created went in a such disproportionate way to the founder?
Exactly. Funny how similar the two space programs were when it came to their political, uh, troubles.
"Gaslighting" is a very over-the-top way of putting this. You disagree with their value proposition. That doesn't mean they're gaslighting you.
I totally agree. I thought typescript might grow on me as I got to grips with it, but alas a year of using it and it's still slowing me down a lot for how much it's helping.

Also "don't use 'any'" - there are a lot of edge cases where this can be very difficult to avoid. Even the TS experts have failed to help me figure out how to remove some "any"s. I'm sure there is a correct way, but it just shouldn't be that difficult.
I did answer some of this already here [0] but in short, yes. We are offering our systems free of charge to all types of platforms including one like peertube. Anyone can implement our SDK and built at the top of it. We operate very similarly to Stripe where the system is free and we live off of the transactions.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26009027
These losses are likely to be strategical. They are essentially buying customers with ad money.
To be fair to the UK government, their vaccine strategy has been spot on: lot's of investment and early. They've messed up basically every else, and still are. But I think they do deserve some credit for that.
AWS launched compute and storage in 2006 and took until 2015 to first be profitable.

Google launched cloud compute in 2013 and arguably didn't take it seriously until the last few years. Growing nearly 50% is a great result, even if they're still a distant 3rd.
Amazon was paying less than $15 minimum pretty recently; they changed after Bernie started yelling at them, although I'm sure they figured it was a win-win anyway.

Before that I think they had an adaption of the pay scale for higher-earning employees where part of compensation was in stock. But if you're making minimum wage you probably don't want to deal with selling shares, waiting for vesting, reporting taxes etc.

> As for the climate, I think they would have been clobbered by environmentalists had they not done this.

For a tech company moves like this are critical for hiring. Amazon's reputation has always been a place to work out of college until your shares vest, and then you quit because management is abusing you. So they probably would like to be thought of as less evil.
All futures contracts contain a “short” position. In its most basic a producer of the commodity agrees to sell in the future at a certain price now. This locks in their profit but is only useful to them if they are trying to hedge the price being worse in the future. They are borrowing a future position to make it tenable to produce now.

Without it most agriculture would be too risky to engage in (without a governmental entity stepping in and doing the same activity as the futures market).
That sounds plausible, but even then, if Robinhood couldn't meet the new deposit requirements, I think the existing trades just wouldn't settle (and obviously they wouldn't be accepting new ones)? I'm not seeing how Robinhood would have gone bankrupt in such a situation.
This. For now we rely on differential testing against a gold-standard implementation (e.g. unoptimized). For the action space we expose, any semantics-breaking change induced by our tool is a compiler bug.
TL;DR

> NYU academic gets some federal funding to make a supply chain security tool

> A supply chain breach occurs

> NYU academic says: If only the federal government had compelled all it's vendors to use my tool, this could have been avoided

It's just a rather substance-less piece of self promotion imo. I do a lot of work in supply chain security too. Perhaps if the federal government had hired me, none of this would have ever happened. Can I have a ProPublica article too? /s
Dark matter halo found around ancient 'cannibal' galaxy
Worse than disincentivizing people from working, it disincentivizes people from risking money on growth (building companies, doing startups, angel investing).

Interest isn’t predatory, it encourages growth and investment in building businesses. Look at the enormous wealth created by capitalism. Economic growth helps the most people the fastest, this model works.

That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be protections on the lower bound and human rights, there should be. It also doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be environmental protections or regulations to effectively coordinate and prevent tragedy of the commons style failures. We should also prevent wealth being able to leverage political power (which isn’t easy).
Biden, Taiwanese independence, and China: How long can the U.S. stall?
This is consistent with some of my experiences in a university setting. We had an applicant one year who complained (in a semi-formal grievance sense) that, when asked, the department didn't have sufficient numbers of formal administrative committees and roles assigned, programs, and so forth, to address diversity issues. What happened was they asked faculty questions along the lines of "what are you doing to address diversity issues in the department" and when the faculty couldn't point to formal administrative diversity positions and programs, concluded that we must not be doing anything. This led to a sort of penitential panic. The irony is that the most scathing complaints were leveled at the one faculty member in the department who probably did more to address diversity issues professionally in their career than anyone else, as it was a sort of research focus of theirs. The complaints weren't about inappropriate comments, it was about this faculty trying to address the question by way of reference to all the informal (but real) activities and practices going on.

It was one in a long string of "jumping the shark" moments for me, as it became clear that, even in a department full of people who were deeply and genuinely concerned about diversity issues, it didn't really matter what was actually done. What mattered were the formal legalistic trappings of it.

These types of formal programs can really backfire as well. I can recall another instance where the college had a sort of endowed faculty line aimed solely at minority hires. The irony was that this had the effect of attracting the most psychopathic elements in the programs, who publicly advocated hiring faculty under this mechanism in a sort of "pump and dump" scheme. That is, the line was in a certain area of research, which certain faculty had made it clear for years they believed was unworthy of hiring in. However, they were happy to advocate hiring using these diversity funds as a way of bringing money into the department, solely as a financial input, with the implication that it didn't really matter what happened to the faculty being hired. So in this sadly ironic way, this line, which was meant to bring in minority hires, ended up hurting minorities, by luring them into positions where they were almost certainly never going to get tenure, just by virtue of the politics of the research area in that program.

To be clear, I'm not actually advocating against diversity programs or officers per se, as I've seen these offices intervene in situations where it was desperately needed. It's almost like the current approaches I've seen have had the effect of creating as many problems as they solved, canceling everything out. It probably mirrors some of what goes on, where the same people aggressively advocating for addressing prejudice with regard to one characteristic can be some of the most bigoted prejudiced people with regard to another characteristic. Or people will change their tunes on diversity issues to suit their financial benefit.
Seems like a massive oversight given most PCB files are just a bunch of glorified vector images.
I'm not 100% sure but one of the biggest differences I felt at the time when Blackberry devices were popular was that the whole ecosystem was pitched and geared towards CTOs and CIOs making purchasing decisions versus the end users actually wanting the devices. An extension of this was the Blackberry software developer kit; it was truly the worst development platform I've worked on in decades. If just really felt like as a user of the platform and a developer RIM didn't really care about anything to make my life easier, they instead focused on checkmarks for the executives or government compliance.
No the opposite. I believe that modern agriculture would collapse without short positions.

I concede this is largely an act of faith on my part.
My understanding is that most hedge funds get the bulk of capital from institutional investors, e.g. pension funds.
I just want to point out that the stories seem to be about predominantly left-wing causes. I don't expect anyone in the right-wing free-speech faction to even know about them, since 1. it was silenced, 2. it was probably talked about only in more obscure left-wing circles, that right-wingers are not a part of.

It's unreasonable to assume that a right-winger would know about it, just like it is unreasonable to assume that a left-winger is going to know about all the silencing that goes on against the right-wing. It's the media blackouts we're talking about here. That's the entire point.
Nightly news said he's going to focus his next efforts on philanthropy, the Washington Post, and space travel. Maybe we'll see a little more from Blue Origin soon.
> The transition from "programmer" to "architect"

Transition? If only it was at least that.

I've worked with architects whose job was the result of taking courses in software architectry at college and then they took a job as one. Apparently there are organizations looking for these people.
"Apple, the pioneer of innovation" -- this article isn't very neutral.

To the author: I would rather just see the actual popup instead of inflammatory language.
Google censorship is more equal than other possibilities. They themselves have committed a lot lately compare to say owner did it. Purely based on perception, without any proof, I say your last statement is unlikely.
I use SELECTION and PRIMARY all the time
(1) I think that is a "hard" landing ;) I say it it the mark.

(2) The Question: I ain't no rocket scientist, but even if the engine failure had turned on, did the engines all just turn on quite late?

Just trying here some crazy college physics so not sure if this checks out but, here goes. Again, just for fun. If it takes X: (summation of thrust) to fly that high over x seconds, then it would take the X + some at the very last 4 seconds I saw engines turn on for soft landing.

Are we capable of having enough thrust in the last 4 seconds? Maybe try earlier so there can be more lead way in case of failure?

===

Freefall: 11:06 (all estimates)
12:45 (still free fall, engines off and preparing for vertical)
12:48 (engine on, flipping for vertical)
12:50 (vertical) (4 seconds left to apply thrust)
12:54 (crash landing)

I have about 104 seconds of free fall, and 4 seconds left when engine turned on.

Is 4 seconds enough? Just intuition and genuinely wondering ...

Just for fun - does my physics checkout (at freefall)?

vf = 0 + (1/2) * at^2
vf = 9.8m/s^2 (108s^2) = 57153.6 m/s = 127848.9621 mi/hr (yea, ignoring at moment drag/terminal, physics ;)

===

vf = (1/2) (F/m)t^2, F=ma
(vf2m) / t^2 = F (Thrust required)

Again, just for fun. Don't kill me. Physics, it been a long time. If it's right, Elon, are you hiring?

EDIT: SpaceX, Tesla to the -moon- mars!
It is unfortunately well known that moderators (human and machine) can't reliably distinguish between X and discussion/criticism about X. So it's quite common for academic discussion of topics like fascism, conspiracy theories, terrorism, trolling, etc. to be mistakenly censored. Either YouTube/Facebook/Twitter need to invest 1000x more on better moderation or academics should host their content on university sites.
A Netflix employee accidentally killed Nintendo's live-action Zelda series