skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This. The reason app stores suck so much isn't their distribution of apps. They do fine at that, and it would be easy to switch binary distributors.

It's the value-added services that are inexplicably linked that bug me. Why can't I allow push notifications without Google's app store? And why can't I use Google's app store without getting bundled into dozens of other services?

Allowing other app stores isn't going to be very compelling so long as Google and Apple can force you to use their app store if you want access to their value add services like push notifications.
This is just a map of cell towers. Many people with cell service in their area might not have access to a broadband internet service. Internet access via cellular doesn’t really compare in terms of costs and speed/latency. (At least in the US, cost per GB over cellular is way too high)
This is not accurate. I never "buy" a license explicitly. I buy the phone explicitly.

I can't "buy" iOS and put it on any phone. The phone and software are inextricably linked. It is one product.

> The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.

You can extend this to any level. This is like complaining "I don't want to use Amazon to buy things on Amazon.com"
There was a suggestion that he was trying to do a bit of SEO to distract attention from another bridge [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Bridge
Now that the decision is out we have more details on what caused the blunder, and it's a good (terrifying?) lesson in the importance of good system and UI design:

> Citi’s software will only let you pay principal to some lenders if you pretend to pay it to every lender, and it will only let you pretend to pay principal to every lender if you check the “just pretend” box next to “PRINCIPAL” (fine!) and “FUND” (what?) and “FRONT” (what even?).

> Raj then proceeded with the final steps to approve the transfers, which prompted a warning on his computer screen — referred to as a “stop sign” — stating: “Account used is Wire Account and Funds will be sent out of the bank. Do you want to continue?” But “[t]he ‘stop sign’ did not indicate the amount that would be ‘sent out of the bank,’ or whether it constituted an amount equal to the intended interest payment, an amount equal to the outstanding principal on the loan, or a total of both.” Because Raj intended to release “the interim interest payment to [the] [L]enders,” he therefore clicked “YES.”
I suspect he won't want to get into thorny PR issues, but probably company organization. It's easy to imagine a disorganized startup scaling poorly, and those within it wanting guidance from highly-scaled FB.
My chemistry teacher was in a top ten pop group in decades past. Could be a more common career ladder than you might think.
A key part of this legislation is the requirements for tech companies to provide selected news organisations with advance notice about changes to ranking algorithms. This has been generally overlooked in the reporting and discussion but I believe it is the actually the most important part of the legislation. It will give the selected news organisations an enormous advantage over other companies not included and protect them from new competitors, basically entrenching the current media landscape for the foreseeable future.

Given the current Australian government's cosy relationship with a particular media company that currently dominates the media landscape here, I don't think it is coincidence.
> Failing to see how this benefits Australians

They will hopefully stop using Facebook.
You can still measure: the immune response, antibodies, white blood cells, scenarios in which the contagion can spread, minimal social distance needed, length of exposure required for transmission, how much masks stop transmission, safety (risk reduction), and peak efficacy. You can do it on a much shorter timescale, and with fewer lives lost. What if we had needed to iterate to fix problems in the vaccine? How many would die waiting?

To your specific question, you still derisk it for the elderly. If it causes problems in young adults, you quit because it would probably cause even more problems in riskier groups. If it doesn't, you move forward into older groups.

Let's not pretend you would learn nothing that would speed things along. Some of these questions aren't answered quantitatively even now.
For those of use still smarting from our VAXectomies.
Waiting for Waveshare to copy this and bring its price down to $500!
> A reasonable, but not infallible heuristic for evaluating an essay for good faith, is to just imagine how much different the essay would look if counterarguments could be inserted after reaching some threshold of support by the general population.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean here, and how this looks in either a good faith or bad faith presentation of some argument. Would 'good faith' be closer to an essay that presents its arguments in a somewhat neutral but supportive perspective (e.g. without lying or misleading), such that adding its counterarguments wouldn't almost convincingly disprove everything that was just written? Whereas a 'bad faith' argument with its counterarguments presented would look quite flimsy?
This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed.

I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.
How is neuralink not being discussed here?
I wouldn’t be so sure. Yes it’s ridiculous to sue after doing something so stupid, however if it’s true that he’s a registered financial advisor, he may not get out of this Scott free.
I keep hearing about consulting path, is that something you can take?
maybe nextcloud fits all of your needs. You can set it up yourself, make conferences with nexcloud talk and you can also setup shared documents and edit them live in onlyoffice.
Had evolution been behind all this, it would have been far more likely for the cattle to have evolved to produce milk digestible to humans.

The cattle whose milk was easily digestible would have been selectively bred by the humans.

This artificial selection would have been many orders of magnitude more influential than the random, accidental forces alluded to in the article.

Yet, that didn’t happen.
So, I’m skeptical about an evolutionary explanation.

Further, the underlying premise of the study is that humans, circa 6000 years ago, were lactose intolerant. Says who? A critical reader would stop there and demand some answers as to why they are making this assumption. (Indeed, even in this thread, you see confusion and disagreements as to which group of living humans are or are not intolerant... yet, I’m supposed to assume that we know with certainty the prevalence of lactose intolerance amongst a population 6000 years ago?!)
> Ethicists behave no more ethically than the average person[1], which strongly suggests that the entire field is worthless.

I don't see how that follows. We don't expect our ethicists to behave more ethically any more than we expect our aeronautics engineers to fly.
I wonder if this is the start of a course-correction that recognises search/basic discovery of information is probably "infrastructure", and that (perhaps) large social media platforms are becoming "public places".

The way this is being brought about (the linking part) seems flawed, but perhaps if this goes ahead, it will be an interesting way to see how a future world might look where some of the damnage done by the "internet" (well, its business models) in recent years is forcibly reversed?
That sounds like the same class of argument as "all an operating system needs to provide is process scheduling and hardware access". It doesn't match user expectations and it certainly isn't a good user experience. Having to sign into a different account for every game to get basic functionality is a nightmare. Users want to purchase a game from a store, install it, play it, and have everything work. That's it - no other configuration or connections required.
"> Long term we need transparency from whoever is in charge."

Corruption is bad, but not necessarily that bad, of course. But this case is about an agency almost literally immune to outside investigation.
I'd start by suing Black, Scholes, and Merton.
Hmm. Although I think the nanny state is real and I hate it as much as anyone, I think this is more about people in FDA-like organizations facing perverse incentives: if they recommend doing a thing and that thing kills people, then they suffer, but if they recommend doing nothing—that is, they use the force of the law to stop people from doing something—and that leads to people dying, then they do not suffer. As a result, they are heavily biased towards obstructionism.

There has been some effort to estimate the net impact of the FDA, and, for example, to compare the number of people who have died due to delays of livesaving drugs vs the worst cases of bad drugs getting into the market. https://www.fdareview.org/issues/theory-evidence-and-example... cites a bunch of studies—many of whose links have rotted, so you'll want the Internet Archive, e.g.: http://web.archive.org/web/20100603223422/http://www.cato.or... . The second link makes a case that the first number is significantly higher.

FDA kills. Remember that.
I would qualify this by saying many want to be in specific entertainment industries for the (potential) glamor and fame, and will sacrifice a lot to reach that goal. Many may have more practical alternatives, but are driven by a goal. This is the land of opportunity, and many dream of taking a shot at the big-time while still young and attractive. That window of time closes fast.

The idea of possibly being the next Elvis or Madonna if you accept being boinked by a pig with money is hard to turn down for many.

One of the reasons the game dev industry has more abuse (mostly non-sexual) than other software endeavors is because games are seen as more fun or cool to work on, rather than say a sales proposal tracking CRUD system. (I'm happy making sales proposal tracking systems myself, although I admit I have dabbled in the pop music writing industry, and still dabble in neo-renascence tunes.)

My daughter found the clothing fashion industry is similar: high pressure because many want the job of designer and scrape and claw to get it. She changed careers after some nasty office skirmishes among competitors.
I’m fairly sure they created “Let it go” before they really knew what the story would be about.

They knew it was a snowy movie, knew they wanted something to rhyme with the traditional “Let it snow”, and vaguely had the idea that an angsty girl would be singing the song. As a result, the lyrics are incredibly generic and hardly seem to fit her specific situation.
Only the top performers actually give a shit about some abstract changing of the world. The vast majority of tech workers just want to help their families thrive, that’s all that really drives them.
Yes, well, I agree with all those criticisms. It's been 9 years of frustration for me, here at Google. But that's not what my comment was about. I took issue with his griping that he couldn't hire and fire and drive a meat grinder. To me that's an entirely other kind of dysfunction...

Perf at Google is broken. But I think it's endemic to large companies, probably. I only worked at smaller ones before. I worked for some that were meat grinders, and others that were better.
This article was #1 yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26155350
Indeed, there's no meat to the suit detailed.

Still, though. The fact that DeepFuckingValue just turns out to have been a licensed broker complicates the narrative quite a bit. Needless to say he can be expected to have known that the whole short trading theory of "Hold the Line" was bunk, and did nothing to disabuse the community of it.

I say it every time this comes up: this guy's criminal exposure is really significant. I find the idea that he Just Happened to stumble on a tulip bubble and had nothing to do with encouraging it just too much to believe. What we know of his public postings doesn't rise to criminal behavior, but then we don't know what sock puppets he might have been operating or what trades he was making privately.

And the incentives all point to this guy being guilty of securities fraud.

But no, this suit isn't going anywhere.
Show HN: Serverless Kubernetes
I'm fond of https://www.cellmapper.net/ for a more local view. It's helpful for answering questions like "why do my calls always drop when I drive into region X?" and "why is coverage shit in this area?", also "what cell carrier should I get if I plan to move to X?"
It is certainly not “I can build this in X days with Y no-code”. I can see the utility and would be happy to pay. But I certainly don’t understand the pricing model.
Hard to say since the data I'm aware of on email client usage comes from... loading images.

But Apple Mail, iOS Mail, Gmail, and Outlook alone are probably 80% to 90% of recipients.
But so many trackers! https://themarkup.org/blacklight?url=gitlab.com
Ah poor companies. They would have to care about consumers.

People like you could still overpay in the official store.
Why does it say "recognizes" but then "penalise" in the same paragraph?
> “Gill’s deceitful and manipulative conduct not only violated numerous industry regulations and rules, but also various securities laws by undermining the integrity of the market for GameStop shares,” the suit said. “He caused enormous losses not only to those who bought option contracts, but also to those who fell for Gill’s act and bought GameStop stock during the market frenzy at greatly inflated prices.”

As a regular person (with perhaps a higher-than-average exposure to various hazardous memes), this claim look bizarre. Taking out adjectives, a part of this reads:

"Gill's <adjectives> conduct not only violated <blah> regulations and rules, but also various securities laws by undermining the integrity of the market for GameStop shares"

How do I read this?

> Gill's conduct violated regulations and rules.

> Gill's conduct undermined the integrity of the market, and therefore violated various securities laws.

Was it really Gill's conduct that undermined the integrity of the market? It doesn't look like that to me, but IANAL.

As for his conduct violating regulations and rules, I'd really like to read these regulations and rules that govern how someone is expected to conduct themselves on r/WSB and youtube.
Another example is bands selling LP records at their shows. They're cheap to make and hard for people to copy.
I'd have sex with a rich and powerful woman in exchange for millions of dollars and I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of shame.
Plantwatch: Fungus creates fake fragrant flowers to fool bees
If x86 refers to 32 bit, what family do the 8086/88/186/286 belong to? 8080_16? :-)

I do suspect as time goes by x86 is just becoming more synonymous with the 64 bit variant, the 32 bit and 16 bit modes are increasingly irrelevant to anyone except boot ROM authors and retro enthusiasts.
> And what exactly would that have told you about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine for the people at risk, those who are neither young nor healthy?

So if the goal was to reduce transmission, you can save a lot of lives of those at risk by vaccinating the young and healthy. It would be reasonable to basically use challenge studies to get a lower transmission rate, while in parallel using standard trials to prove the efficacy in at risk populations.

Getting more data quicker is usually a good way to make more informed decisions, even if the data isn’t exactly what you want it to be to make the perfectly optimal choices.
PAM is pretty flexible. Can't you just edit the configuration to only include the pam_u2f.so module for a certain user, or for users in a certain group? Or add the nouserok option[1] to allow authentication to proceed in the absence of registered U2F device?

The former approach would look something like this; the "default=1" part skips the next directive (pam_u2f.so) when the test fails (i.e. when the user is not in the mandatory_u2f group):

auth [success=ignore default=1] pam_succeed_if.so user ingroup mandatory_u2f
auth required pam_u2f.so cue

[1] https://developers.yubico.com/pam-u2f/ "nouserok … Set to enable authentication attempts to succeed even if the user trying to authenticate is not found inside authfile or if authfile is missing/malformed."
It's most likely easier to brute force a password than to break into someone's house. Would be easier to demand all credentials by gunpoint with that much effort.
My understanding is this was more common in years past. Up to the 1950s it was understood a good looking secretary got her job in bed. The really ugly ones got and kept it by being good at the job, with a possible side of the wife doing well in bed. Even then it was understood as not always true, but it was true enough. Secretaries at the time demanded the ability handle boredom as a lot of the job was doing the simple repetitive work we have automated machines to do: a girl who got her job in bed could probably do it nearly as well as the ugly secretary who was good with only a little training. The slightly more complex repetitive work would be given to a computer - which was a job title for a human not a machine.

Note the sexist language above. Females were generally "kept in their place", which meant little opportunity to get to do anything interesting or high paying.
And on top of that, some mail providers like Gmail won't even tell you this is happening. I understand why they don't but it's really difficult if you're a small time newsletter trying to get off the ground.
> before threatening to leave Australia, Google threatened to simply stop linking to news sites in Australia. I believe they were told this would be illegal.

This is the most unacceptable aspect of this policy. If you want to say "you must pay to link", that's bad policy that's been bought and paid for, but it at least can be worked around and doesn't compel linking or other association. But "you must pay to link and you must link" is incredibly dangerous policy for which a scorched-earth response is entirely appropriate.
Each subsequent transaction still uses a significant amount of energy, no?
This is pretty cool but I notice the default R fibonacci code is like comically non-idiomatic (or poorly linted, even).

Since I suspect the cause here is copy-pasting off of an algorithms/code gallery, my guess is that there are examples across other languages. I checked everything I feel idiomatically comfortable enough and the others all seemed fine, but there are a lot of options here so who knows.
No way this is happening for real...he's suing /u/DeepFuckingValue because he took a loss trading?
Then what's next? Suing your state's DoT every time you get a flat on the road?
I see two important thresholds, and I agree with you that they are routinely conflated.

Above the first threshold, when you completely run out of money, your family sets you on your feet. Might move into the basement, might get some grudging bailout money, but you get made whole. Below it, you're homeless.

Above the second threshold, your dad or one of his golf buddies spots you $50k on good terms to launch your first business.

Looks like pg was comfortably above the first threshold, and well below the second.
It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit.

We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.
I think your argument is the one falling down the slippery slope. How does considering protecting the environment to be good inevitably lead to arguments against both our existences when a line can be clearly drawn at the point where protection is advocated only so far as to maximize humanity's survival? This extreme is so clearly on the opposite side of that line compared to eradicating paper catalogs which honestly isn't going to kill anyone or stop us from "feeding our kids".
You're correct! Nice find.
Reddit's CMV should qualify
Obviously you must not be aware that Android is not the leading platform in terms of app sales.

You say:

> Most users are not technically capable enough to even go about installing an alternative store.

This is obviously false. We know for sure that average users can install apps.

A store is just an app. Why would installing an alternate store be harder than installing any other app?

Why wouldn’t Facebook just integrate their store into their app?
Awesome summary. It seems to me that this is a bit of a failure of the fair use doctrine. Making one preview of an image or article does not impact the author's monetisation ability. Making a business out of systematically producing previews (and adding your own ads around them) should no longer quality as fair use.

We have a joke:

A: How much is a drop of gas?

B: A drop of gas? Well, zero!

A: One million drops of gas, please.
Sure, and the author recognizes that. FTA: "Pictures may be worth a thousand words, when there's a picture to match what you're trying to say."
There are more Rust developers are Amazon that there are D developers in total.
Not disagreeing with you at all, but this has a parallel with the age old hypothetical questions that people regularly ask each other. Would you kill 1 person to save 100 people? I don't think theres even a correct answer, its all opinion.

Having no knowledge of the field of ethicists, i would imagine that these are the kinds of things they debate all day long, theres a million variations on the same question.
> Google & Fb know they are very powerful with limited obligations to Australians and so they are acting arrogantly and oppressively in their approach.

I don't see what's arrogant about Facebook's approach here. They say they do not derive much value from this content, and the government is proposing to charge them much more than the value they do derive. So they are left with the only rational choice: to not have the content. That's not a threat, a punishment, an attack, or anything else. It's just a decision that needs to be made in light of the tradeoffs facing their business.

The proof will be in the pudding, but I suspect Facebook will suffer minimal economic harm from blocking the news. That will be clear evidence as to who was the economic beneficiary of their relationship with the news media.
A group of people want to control what websites your friends are sharing.
He wasn't giving advice as a registered financial advisor though. I don't think anybody even knew he was one until WSJ published a piece on him. How does this hold up in courts?
dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26169886, which is currently #1 on the front page.
True security is using both "something you know" and "something you have". Something you have can be stolen, and something you know can be tricked out of you. But stealing both is difficult and far more obvious.

To login to my work VPN, the password is "<my pin><output from the yubikey>". Our SSO system requires both once per day as well.

It's a great system and I highly recommend it.
The cynical streak in me would suggest that now is a popular time to criticize major tech organs for their relationship to news, and the Australian government is hoping to use that to funnel money from US companies to Australian ones.
DFV never said a thing about short squeezing. Watch his content, don't trust the media. He bought the stock as a long term investment because he thought it's severely undervalued and it will rise with new leadership.