skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'm not sure we treat individuals as good/bad or successful/unsuccessful based on purely on outcomes. Criminal law, for example, depends upon intent in many cases.

I mean the tendency to see someone who is for example a burglar and contrast them with a business owner and say that one is bad and the other is good. Which could be true if you removed all context, but usually when you add in context these kinds of absolutes dissolve. But my broader point is that we make value judgements based on the agent, minus the environment, which is IMO erroneous.

> The general biological view of viruses certainly demonstrate the absence of a categorical divide between "life" and "not life" as does the philosophy of the Turing Test. I'd argue that level of organization is less useful than the level of feedback loops in something, particularly if those loops are internal rather than external.

Feedback loops are the exact kind of organisational structure I was referring to, but I didn't know if you were cybernetically-oriented so left it vague. Loops are the mechanism of self-organisation.

> We daily operate with the idea of the Ship of Theseus as non-paradox in any number of ways. The City of Philadelphia retains its identity not because it is composed of the same people, geography, and structures established in its founding but rather because of the role it plays as an organizational concept, the Mississippi River retains its identity despite course changes over the centuries (let alone the constant replenishment of the individual water atoms within it).

I agree - we certainly act this way, but we culturally value reductionistic thinking; system-2-thinking is typically not oriented in this same way, and is more culturally valued. It's not necessarily how we act that I think is bad - it's how we think.

> I'd agree that we do not consistently apply bottom-up organization across the board, but that also necessarily means that we apply no consistent philosophy across the board. That leads to the question of how you're defining "Western modernist canon" given such an absence of a unified system.

It's our cultural institutions of thinking and understanding that are flawed, IMO. We generally act relatively well when we act on instinct, refusing to draw rigid boundaries and treating our environments teleologically. But in terms of the "right way" to solve problems, we go away from this and towards reductionism and mechanistic thinking (essentially ignoring the small or inconvenient relationships in the systems we examine, in classic "spherical chicken in a vacuum" style). We try to fix malignant systems by looking for the bad people who made it that way (the simplest, and usually most incorrect, approach possible), or by fixing proximal symptoms rather than following longer causality chains for root causes (think medicine - problems are addressed locally rather than systemically).
Such a great idea! Congratulations Ned and team.
How is this even remotely on-topic for Hacker News?
> there isn't a currently easily available obvious way to have private secure conversations.

Ricochet[1] works really well. It uses Tor hidden services to communicate. Your Ricochet ID is your onion address. To add a contact, you input their Ricochet ID and a short message, and Ricochet connects to their onion address and sends a contact request. If the contact request is accepted then you'll each show up as a contact on each other's client and can chat whenever you want.

Tor is really perfect for this, you can't get more private or censorship-resistant than Tor.

The UI is currently not great, but that's not a protocol problem.

The biggest problem with Ricochet is that hardly anyone is using it.

Private secure conversations: yes.

Easily available: yes.

Obvious: sadly not, for most people :(.

[1] https://ricochet.im/
Becoming a tech lead: 5 concrete guidelines
Set some direction to your leadership. Having clear guidelines is super helpful when performing as a Tech Lead. Unlike Developer or QA, as Tech Lead the scope you need to cover is way more dynamic. Interested?
> This article is the very definition of a straw man. Absolutely no one subscribes to the position it critiques.

I've seen people argue every point listed there. Not at the same time, but still.

> We have made a lot of progress towards solving this problem. But we have not yet solved fully solved it

Sure. There's a lot of racism to fight. But that doesn't mean we should just ignore people pushing bullshit under antiracism banners.

> and anyone who says that we have, particularly when they say it in such a condescending way, is part of the problem.

Going too far with antiracism is possible and just as harmful. If you go far enough you make young people think all antiracism is a joke. Then they just stop thinking of racism as something bad in general. In some countries this point isn't far in the future.

We can argue where the line is (for me the concept of "cultural appropriation" is already absurd enough), but the fact that there is a line should be pretty obvious.
Although it happens often in natural communication, I find there is more chance for confusion, especially by a non-native reader, when a pronoun (or any proform) appears before its antecedent.

So resolving the pronoun with square brackets can be less confusing, to say nothing of the benefits of brevity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphora
So you admit that you're completely ignorant on the subject, yet claim with certainty that the article can't be true? People like you are part of the problem. These topics can't even be discussed without people jumping to discredit things they know nothing about.
Which makes them interesting when one twin is gay, and the other is not; or when comparing outcomes for monozygotic twins vs fraternal twins.
> very definition of a straw man

Please elaborate and cite. You dismiss the entire article (i.e. the subject of discussion) with the wave of a hand before diving into your own battle against straw men.

For instance:

> publicly tortured and killed by authorities

In 2016, 266 black people were killed by police in the U.S. [1] In 2020, that value is estimated to be 233 [2]. That is out of 46 million black people in the U.S., or approximately 0.0006%. No data available on "public torture". While I would agree that any death at the hands of police is unfortunate (though NOT unavoidable), I think most reasonable people would agree that 0.0006% is hardly representative of a widespread or systemic issue that typifies the policing of black people.

> there is no problem

Another straw man. McWhorter states explicitly:

> [This article] is not an argument against protest

> I am calling for [black people] to be treated with true dignity

> I am not arguing against the basic premises of Black Lives Matter

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/...

[2] https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
GitHub Action mining attack through Pull Request
FWIW the author wrote a post attempting to defend his position as not a straw man

https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-the-elect-a-mere-col...
When reddit switched to their new 'featureful and rich' ui they provided a way to access the old user interface which is much more utilitarian and flat.

I expect most experienced reddit users still use the old ui toggle. I expect new reddit users don't know it exists but would probably prefer it once they got over the 'change is bad hump'.

The fact that years later the old ui toggle is still present is a testament to how much the new richer ui failed for their power users.
Who Created the Marvel Universe?
Fair warning: the creator of that video has a dog in this fight. To be fair, he's not exactly trying to come across as impartial. But this might not be the best source for someone trying to learn about this issue.
Which Kubernetes are you using?
This ignores the cost of missed opportunity: investing any amount of time and money on something else is almost certainly going to generate higher RoI than trying to make fast, responsive eink displays work.

It's almost never about whether a company can do something, but about whether they leave money on the table by not doing something else.
Indeed the strawman is so huge it is tempting to translate the purported 10-tenet list into what reasonable people may actually believe.

> 1. When black people say you have insulted them, apologize with profound sincerity and guilt. But don’t put black people in a position where you expect them to forgive you.

Yeah, indeed if anyone feels insulted it's quite a natural first reaction to apologize. On the other hand, unless you're having a bad day, try to have a thick skin yourself.

> 2. “Black culture” is code for “pathological, primitive ghetto people.” But don’t expect black people to assimilate to “white” social norms.

This one... wtf? And no, I don't expect anyone to pretend they're white.

> 3. Silence about racism is violence. But elevate the voices of the oppressed over your own.

So is the author arguing that silence about racism is a good thing then? And we generally want expert voices elevated on specific topics. I do think many black people know quite a bit about experiencing racism.

> 4. You must strive eternally to understand the experiences of black people. But you can never understand what it is to be black, and if you think you do you’re a racist.

Replace black by science and racist by stupid. Not so illogical then, is it?

> 5. Show interest in multiculturalism. But do not culturally appropriate.

Oh come on. All people ask is things like: don't do blackface, it's dumb. Like dressing up as an SS. Fully legal, as it should be, but really dumb.

> 6. [...] But seek to have black friends. If you don’t have any, you’re a racist.

(facepalm) I'll stop here.
Does a level playing field include distribution to an audience? If not, then I don’t see how the definition would include big tech shutting down an account. If it does include distribution, then it’s so broad a definition as to not be useful (“the tv networks are censoring me because they won’t let me go on and spew hate speech”)
Love to know more about the HW and SW stacks that service HN.
Did you mean MB rather than GB?

Kind of wondering what kind of image would be 30GB... :)
Thank you for posting this. I've been meaning to get back into programming for fun recently but have been struggling to find something I wanted to work on.
>This is directly antithetical to the very foundations of the American experiment. Religion has no place in the classroom, in the halls of ivy, in our codes of ethics, or in deciding how we express ourselves, and almost all of us spontaneously understand that and see any misunderstanding of the premise as backward. Yet since about 2015, a peculiar contingent has been slowly headlocking us into making an exception, supposing that this new religion is so incontestably good, so gorgeously surpassing millennia of brilliant philosophers’ attempts to identify the ultimate morality, that we can only bow down in humble acquiescence.

Anyone else see this article as incredibly two-faced? He's lowkey slipping in the assumption that we all want to be broadly excluding people from intuitions based on their beliefs and then complains about... people wanting to exclude him?
Amazon is pretty notorious about being stingy on perks, and this area is no exception. They're the worst out of all the FAMANG companies.
Go back to Africa if you're not happy
Yes seriously. If the data show something else then maybe your reaction isn't actually justified.
That article is specifically about people who harass the maintainers and bemoan Wayland over problems which it does not actually have, but feel free to cherry pick quotes to support whatever narrative you want.
> The issue is not "undefined" and "error" but accidental partiality.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

>`head` absolutely doesn't know something the compiler doesn't, because there is no guarantee the user is using it correctly!

But the user can use `head` when they know that the list they are handling is non-empty (but then they can also opt for `Data.List.NonEmpty`). I never said the partial function itself carried any knowledge - only that it was a necessary escape hatch for cases where the programmer has the knowledge to use it correctly.

>We're not trying to be perfect, we're just trying to be no worse than Rust, which shouldn't be a high bar at all.

I'm not opposed to that - and I don't see why you would think that I am. I'm just arguing that, in response to the question made by the other commenter, we can't "do without" partial functions entirely. That doesn't mean I believe they belong everywhere, and certainly not in most APIs.
That would be cool.
> T2 platforms are a nightmare to bootstrap and maintain.

Yep. And devoting more resources to this, IMO, does not have the payoff of devoting more resources to making the language better or improving Rust on T1 platforms.

I think C, for example, was held back by support for esoteric platforms, such that the language doesn’t even say that a byte is 8 bits, or what the encoding for a string is. It gives great flexibility, but it has huge costs.
> Google could make Stadia better for casuals, but that means doing something less prestigious, no Google engineer will go for that, and they obviously don't understand the business model.

There are also many prestigious and lucrative engineering goals at Google that are totally untouchably intractable because money is involved. The Google Play store offers countless examples where graph algorithms and ML could identify the worst behavior for human review. If an established app is deluged by negative reviews, take a look at what’s happening. It’s either become a Trojan horse or a victim of 3rd world scamware competition. The average review for an app does not go from 4.5 stars to 1.5 stars overnight without cause!

Attempting to address this glaring deficiency leads to the following problem: the other engineers who rallied to solve it, in the past, are no longer with Google. Do you like your job? Find a technical problem with no downside, in that case!!!!!!
It's just being treated as an outlier. You have to remove outliers to keep from skewing the stats. Is it really an outlier in it's cause though? If you were just looking at raw numbers the outlier would have to be excluded. If you are talking about an actual risk assessment I think most people would leave it in.
From a clinical psychological perspective, one of the things you often see in a therapeutic setting is that people fall prey to behavioral patterns they don't fully understand. Often, they don't understand them because they're deliberately ignoring them.

I've found people who build an identity around hyper-rationality (e.g. logical positivists) to be -- on average -- some of the most emotionally-driven people. For example, they will have scathing, visceral, passion-fueled outbursts against religion (often despite knowing very little about it, save for the New Atheist talking points). When you try to point out that they're getting impassioned, they deny it. I think this denial is earnest; they might notice their heart-rate increasing, but they will tell you that there is a rational reason for it to be doing so, and that it is therefore not clouding their judgement nor stunting their curiosity for the subject of discussion.

In exactly the same way, I suspect the people running from "American Protestantism" hardly know what it is and hardly pay attention to it, hence your observation.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
I know many people in your situation who never went because they were waiting for that partner to share it with.

I know quite a few who went on their own and had a great time.

I met one (that I know of) who never came back (but when I met him, he was having a great time)

Go.
> Somehow this makes me think of a story about the Bush-era euphemism for torture: "extended interrogation techniques."

Is this the Mandela effect at work, or do I recall them being "Enhanced interrogation techniques"?
Transactions take energy. Holding it would prevent more.
> some of the shadowsocks team signed the statement

And hilariously enough also demonstrated that they don’t know how to use PGP.
Definitely not the same as Yelp.

On Yelp you can buy placement in search results (or on other restaurants' listings in the "Nearby" or "Similar" sections) but they won't remove negative listings for pay. It's certainly possible that individual sales reps will offer that service if they are desperate to hit sales or bonus goals, but Yelp won't actually do it, since the review review team is separate from the sales team.

Source: Personally interviewed nearly a hundred local businesses on behalf of the local Chamber of Commerce.
When I consider that sentence, except with all the technical terms replaced with ones with which I am well acquainted, it would still be quite a severe mouthful, begging to be rewritten for clarity.

And that is the point.
Yes, but otherwise the enlightened audience here might prejudicially dismiss McWhorter as a "MAGA hack".
So to solve that we need DRM user data, do platforms can control it beyond their properties? Cool.
My first thought was "yes", "no" and "ish" since the last one is a similar length to the first two.

My second thought was that that was probably just going to move the confusion to non-native english speakers.

Given a math background, ~~ for 'ish' is also tempting ... but while writing this out I've circled back around to "I can't think of anything better than partial".
Theory of Justice?
Ahh...they're sold out...back to monoprice :-P

Thanks!
Huh! Great question. There are quite a few of them right there.
If you read the actual case it turns out that the judge did not allow one of the two damages claims, so it was not just a case of whatever the plaintiff wanted they received.
Seconded. When my brother was learning front-end developement those were the kind of things that caused most problems in the beginning but were the most glossed over in the tutorials.

I personally think that learning the nuts and bolts of how things work is where one should start. What compiles what, where is what stored, what process executes what, how does that thing know where that other thing is located etc.
I began my comment by pointing out how your comment was disrespectful, and was blunt it making that point, but I digress.

My main point is that you misapplied those otherwise true principles from YC SUS because you haven't had enough practice with them. Quantconnect and Streak have totally different customers and value proposition - they aren't comparable to Quantbase, and so your entire analysis is incorrect at the start from faulty assumptions (in part perhaps because I need to further clarify the value prop - a marginal improvement).

A 10x improvement is a great rule of thumb because the costs of switching and trust is high - which means that magnitude improvement is relative to the alternatives, and is in the direction of an actual value proposition. People don't use Quantconnect because they have a great How It Works explanation, they use it for the community and trading API. Likewise, missing a How It Works section on my site - while a great suggestion and one I'll eventually add - is likely just a marginal improvement (because it isn't a core value prop) and certainly would be a waste of time for validation (unless my site was too confusing to understand in the first place for most people so my value prop isn't being communicated). Because Quantconnect and Quantbase aren’t alternatives, and How It Works sections aren’t in the direction of a value proposition for either, mentioning the need for a 10x magnitude improvement from a non competitor suggesting a non value prop is just non sensical.

Again, I appreciate your feedback, you just came across as disrespectful by jumping to conclusions on incorrect applications of principles and that's what I took issue with. YC SUS is an awesome resource, but make sure you understand their teachings (by testing them yourself and building your own startups), otherwise you may misapply them.
Seems like an os or driver issue.
Or 3: The law works differently than you expect.

Asking for a victim to find the "root cause" of a problem is too much to ask. If X wronged Y causes a wrong to happen to Z... the legal system is largely designed for "Z sues Y" then "Y sues X".

Asking for Z to sue X directly is asking for too much. There's no way for Z to even know that X exists.
> I also personally don't think that Rust only having T1 support for Windows, Mac, and Linux on x86 and Arm is a problem, everything else is practically non-existant when compared to these platforms.

This sentiment of "Just use what is most popular!" is pretty common, and it always makes me sad especially on a site like this. Not supporting operating systems outside of the absolute mainstream also sends the signal of a lack of interest in developing new things.

I'd argue that valuing portability and making it as easy as possible in general comes with more benefits than just "supporting those unpopular platforms I don't care about", typically the users of those platform will come forward and do work if only you welcome them. Not focusing on niche systems in particular I can understand, but what speaks against making the porting easier for the willing?
I remember their employees in their politics chat being angry conspiracy theorists and being entirely unreasonable similar to q conspirators. There's no problem with disagreement in politics but there's a line of general reasoning skills that bleeds into their actions. I don't trust those people having access to someone's server/data, especially if they are quote "liberal" or "progressive"
Have you heard of Tony Timpa? He was murdered by the Dallas police in the same fashion as George Floyd. Great body cam footage capturing them laughing at him as he begged for his life and screamed that he couldn't breathe. No consequences for the police officers involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Police_Department#Killi...

How about Daniel Shaver? Gunned down in cold blood. Again, incredible body cam footage of him being made to crawl on the ground, sobbing and terrified, before being shot. His murderer, Officer Philip Brailsford, was acquitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

This affects all races. Unfortunately it isn't political useful to frame it that way. Almost no one has heard of these two men because they were white. Does that seem problematic to you?
The "or in deciding how we express ourselves" is what gets me in that passage. The social contract we had was described by Voltaire in Letters on England #6 ("as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace", https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2445/2445-h/2445-h.htm). My religion should affect how I express myself; my religion should not affect how you express yourself (or vice versa).
Maintaining T2 platforms doesn't need to be a lot of work unless you make it so. Rust made that choice by being extraordinarily complicated, which I don't feel compelled to forgive it for.

There are a lot of platforms which aren't as stupid as "bytes aren't 8 bits" and are still useful to support. Rust supports TWO architectures with anything other than broken promises.
I'd say we only do something like that in programming if there's a benefit to using other values for `it` in other contexts, and if we'd like to refer to a template `"It is not worth doing" by name.

If you're just going to use it once, or if all usages have `[it=foobar]`, I don't think you'd do it.

I could imagine doing something like what you mention if I had moved code from another context, and I wanted to have a commit that shows plainly that it was moved verbatim. But then I'd make subsequent commit where I do the necessary substitution.
From the article:

"I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case. But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me."

Is this a common practice? I recently reached out to an online attorney service (part of my insurance) about a minor issue and I got basically the same type of response.