skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In other words, other "skills" can partly substitute for looks. One generally moans with their eyes closed.

One thing that bugs me is that it's often said "men are animals" in that they lack self control. Yet many women wear provocative clothing at work to gain favors. Such women want it both ways: the ability to tease and taunt, but a magic lid on those when they don't want advances.

They want to play with fire BUT not ever get burned. Sorry, that's being too choosey. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with friggen fire! It's like wanting to taunt tigers at the zoo all day, but saying they should never try to break their cages. Both sides are at fault. Don't taunt the hungry tigers in our pants and expect 24/7 self control. You already know tigers are dangerous, so don't aggravate them.
I remember that essay too. I think at the time, he was probably correct but now (at least as an outsider, from a distance) it has become as much a game as the corporate world. The idea of being a founder eventually became as much a trope as being a company man, so I'm not so sure its a viable solution anymore.

Then again, I've never been in a startup or a founder so what do I know?
I mean, frivolous lawsuits are nothing new: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/most-ridiculous-lawsuits-of-al...

They usually get tossed out pretty quickly.

"In 2016, an Illinois man sued Starbucks for misrepresenting the amount of liquid contained in its cold drinks. ... The judge agreed with Starbucks' argument that a reasonable consumer who orders an iced drink expects the drink to contain both liquid and ice."
The fact that they call it "Security made in <foo>" is what justifies the generalization. If their security was any good, they'd be explaining how and why (and how they plan to remain incapable of backdooring it), not invoking cognitive biases of innocence-by-association.
i think boycotting a business or having a highly visible public figure (aka celebrities) face social consequences isn't "cancel culture". it comes with the territory, so to speak.

for me, personally, it's when your average joe gets the other end of internet mob justice and they suddenly seek to ruin everything about your life above and beyond what you would normally face.
They use trilateration to know where it came from. Since there are 3 observatories (Hanford, Livingston and Virgo) the waves will arrive at slightly different amplitudes / times / angles ... which allows you to estimate where in the sky it came from.

The waves also have different shapes (frequency, amplitude, shape) which tells us about the nature of the merger.
I don't think GME will end up being justly classified as a pump and dump scheme - for pump and dumps there needs to be both intent and ability and while there is surely both intent and ability in r/WSB I think an investigation will find that no one with the intent actually had the community presence to sway folks - that said, some rando in the community might end up taking the fall and being a scapegoat.
Taleb's strategy doesn't depend on a crash per se, but on unusual volatility in either direction. He accumulates a portfolio of puts or calls that misprice tail risk.

And yes it sometimes takes years to pay off, during which time the fund is paying management fees and options purchase prices. So it bleeds money over time, and then makes it back and more at random intervals.

That's by design. In fact it's a similar model to Venture Capital in that way.
Thanks. Page was hugged to death so I came here to ask as well. :)
A fair portion as well is that Apple takes paid/subscription apps on the store more seriously. Apple believes people should be willing to pay money for things (since Apple sells products) and Google believes people want advertising-supported free content (because that is _their_ business model).
What lesson is that? Seriously I don't know.
Russians to research prehistoric viruses in animals dug from melted permafrost
It's very likely this comment thread space is going to get very ugly. Having declared my bias: (I didn't like him, or his views), the interesting question to me would be was he a product of, or one of the producers of our times?
As Matt Levine always says "Everything is securities fraud."
This unfortunately does nothing to stop disinformation actors with armies of bots and sockpuppet accounts. So the information content on fb has plunged even lower.

If might be a good thing overall though, because it might become clear that anything you see on fb isn't professionally developed news, whereas previously Breitbart/SkyNews/Pete fucking Evans got greater access to eyeballs than serious media like SMH/Guardian/ABC.
It's the Internet Of Things. Microsoft was just trying to be ahead of the curve (post was from 2014). Afterall, there are now IoT dishwashers, refrigerators, coffeemakers, etc. Whose to say there won't be an IoT toaster?
What some people may underestimate is the hands-off approach by the Swiss authorities. In short, in Switzerland you don't land in jail if you don't kill someone or do a bank robbery. If you don't have the data, you don't have it. I prefer to deal with the Swiss authorities than with the German authorities (which take things much more serious).
And Crypto AG was founded by a foreigner who was not even trusted by the Swiss military. Do you really think that in a small town like Baar CIA and BND agents visit and nobody knows who the company belongs to? In serious, you must have watched too many James Bond movies. Yes, what is not ok that nobody stepped in from the military intelligence and kicked them out.
You might like it or not, but his argument here actually stands.
Please don't post the same comment like this in multiple threads and in response to other people's posts. If everyone starts doing that, we'll have a right mess.

Instead, you can post something like this as a top-level comment to the monthly Who Wants to Be Hired / Freelancer threads.
Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a sensitive topic with such open curiosity.

Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as they see fit.

- The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, but global response.

- The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a massive turn-around already or you were recorded without consent. Often that doesn't matter.

- It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't led to improve.

- No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, career, and family life) is in tatters.

What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the current norm is, always remember you will be judged according to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. boss, parent, etc).
This is what I thought the tweet would be referencing, but since the author is talking about posts, comments, etc. the alternative is clearly not saying a graph database (which is good for social connections) is optimal.

Realistically, it just seems like a low-effort attempt to dunk on Parler for likes and retweets.
Do you think the existence of a chilling effect is good reason not to do something? Policing literally anything in any way causes a chilling effect. The mere existence of a chilling effect is not an argument against doing something.
How old are you? Have you ever asked yourself "why developers went to the new and empty Apple App Store in 2008 in mature market with Nokia and others"?

The answer is very simple - commissions before Apple's 30% were 50%-70%. That's why Jobs conducted that presentation with slide regarding with 30% fee - it was unprecedent for those times.

Also there is also another question - how did you calculate that 5-15% is reasonable?
You need to have solid arguments to defend your position. But no one provided - even Epic's lawyers such data. Also most of apps in Apple's App Store are free, so Apple is paying for the whole development/maintenance of infrastructure (delta updates etc.)
YouTube TV is adding offline downloads and 4K streaming
Reverse Centaurs and the Failure of AI
> For what?!

I can think of several things:
- more breath space in the UI
- easier recognizability
- less information overload (four character glyphs vs three plain lines)
- consistency with other applications

And it's not like the hamburger menu symbol is particularly obscure.
When people become multimillionaires, they are not easy targets anymore.
Apple makes and controls 46% of all the mobile devices in the US because their methodology for designing, building, distributing and iterating on the product is successful. Consumer satisfaction, retention and growth are bi-products of this success. Apple doesn't play mean tricks to gain market share. They simply build great products, invest more in innovation (CPUs) to continue making great products. The m1 chip shows this. You can't pick apart what Apple does and give it some attribute/feature of an ecosystem model. Right now the market is Apple vs. ecosystem. Consumers have choice to buy from Apple, or buy from an ecosystem. We should focus less on trying to handicap Apple and start figuring out how a leader in the ecosystem can rise above it to compete with Apple head on.
The term can apply to individuals as well.

The origin of the term boycott was a landlord's agent called Charles Boycott, who was socially and economically ostracised in response to the eviction of tenants.
What I'm looking for is what percentage of engagement is attributed to that 4% of the feed content.
I had to select a Provider on the left side before the masts starting showing up.
Surely the general question doesn't matter though, and all the millions of variations are irrelevant, as there is a specific example that you want to consider.
I agree, but to me it is still like holding a cup over your head while it is raining outside and functionally does almost nothing except spread the fake idea that we are actually turning society green. Paper in general is probably one of the least things we should be worried about because it is one of the easiest things to farm and uses minimal input compared to the bulk of material it produces.
Is that because they're legally forbidden from setting up their own website or is it because they're unwilling to spend money on some decent developers and build a homepage worth checking everyday?
Sort of. The lack of women in the field is a problem. However programmers are in demand which means that women have some awareness that they can scream and get away with it. A female in the arts who screamed can be unofficially blacklisted and not get anywhere, where as a female in programming can scream and find a different job.

Also a lot of tech companies (but by no means all!) are aware of the issue. You can be reasonably sure a large tech company has as good anti-sexual harassment program and will generally take actions to prevent it. A female is about as safe in tech as any other job: not perfectly safe, as safe as possible.
Indeed, but I'd link the GitHub code sources below each picture and provide good alt descriptions. JS plugins like Highlight or Prism end up building massive HTML making e.g. google's pagespeed tools complain about DOM sizes.

And, anyway, most people would rather clone the public repo or use GitHub for copy/paste purposes.
Personally, I think it might actually make facebook enjoyable again in Australia. I don't want to go to facebook to see people sharing news. I 0% want to see anything news related on social media.

TBD what qualifies as 'news,' though.
I was specifically thinking of language here: GPT-3 does not "understand language" in any real sense. It is simply able to string together words that are more likely to come together in certain orders, but they are utterly meaningless to the network.

Language is a mechanism that we use to express a thought (sometimes externally, but most of the time internally in our own minds). A major part of language is an understanding of the world you are "talking" about. And yet, GPT-3 has no idea about the world, it just knows that the words "the sky is blue" are more likely to appear in a corpus than "the sky is yellow". Even more deeply, it has no notion of what an object is, and how it might differ from an agent, what movement is etc - any of the things that make up our shared human model of the world, that we talk about.

Until we can codify such a model (or automatically learn it), we won't be able to say that we have a model that "understands language". The GPT people are not even trying to look in this direction: they are throwing more text and more neurons at the problem and claiming it will work. They'll probably end up with a model that can essentially do the equivalent of instantly finding the best Shakespeare quote for any situation you throw at it, but still won't be able to reason about that situation in any way, or keep a story straight.

This is already visible in GPT-3: its output (even though most of what you tend to see is carefully hand-picked out of a soup of more meaningless output) meanders around without any point to make: it simply does not have a point to make, and it cannot have a point, by the very nature of its construction.

Essentially, language is words + context, and GPT-X only has access to the words, with none of the context. And furthermore, no one is even working on thinking to add the context yet.
Your experiment with a sample size of 1 proves, with an uncertainty of 100%, that the database never corrupts.

Experiments with a larger sample size show a different result.
I wouldn't term it as "no risk", anything you do in the stock market carries risk, it's just a different risk. And it's not even a capped risk, if the stock goes up to infinity most of the gains will be captured by the person that bought your call, and you'll be only left with the shares.

>Aren't you just capping potential returns

Yes

>in exchange for immediate premium ?

That's not the main goal though, the main hope is to have them expire worthless so you can pocket the premium(or just going down in price over the option time period so you can flip it before expiry). So the best case is the stock going just under the strike price at the time of expiry. It wouldn't really matter that much if the premium wasn't paid out immediately but was paid at expiry to you by your broker.
Apple does provide services but.yoj cannot opt out. It is by definition rent seeking.
I think that we should just use the word "phone" from now on, we don't need to say "cell" or "cell phone", this is the just the phone. Even though it has a lot more jobs as a smartphone, messaging and communication generally is still the main job.
One Clock: a modern alarm clock that never plays the same melody twice
I haven't read the bill, but this looks like a huge win.

FB has abused our brain chemistry with addictive content. Their platform makes discussions more impulsive, passionate and careless not unlike any other addictive substance. People crave "the goods" ie browsing their bite sized feeds, and neglect the responsibility of actually learning about the news. Not unlike how if you're addicted to sugar/unhealthy foods you don't want your veggies.

This affects not only customers but news organizations. News orgs are forced to twist the truth to make their content more addictive in order to survive.

FB's double think comes out in this article. They attribute people's interest in the news to their platform. When in reality they almost certainly would have reached the news independently, and FB is an addictive and unnecessary additive to people's life.

I draw two conclusions from this:

1. FB is scared. The Australian government has found a weak point that causes FB to take a major hit to the breadth of their platform.

2. FB can no longer weaponize headlines. People will still discuss news in their own words or using fake sources, instead of impulse sharing actual news headlines. Headline quality will improve, meanwhile FB will remain a challenging place to discuss. People will now have the time to recognize headline quality and may even read the news without having the impulsive and addictive sharing option.

This is a hit to FB's reality bending brand. FB offers addictive and impulsive options for communicating, but they want us to think FB is an essential part of communicating. By not being allowed to share on FB, the addictive option is removed, and we can better experience the reality of how great the healthier options are.

Maybe we can live without sugar/FB. Maybe life will be better that way.
I live in NW Denver and on my one very short block I have had 3 familes move in from California all buying homes via FaceTime for ~$20K over asking. Certainly not hard data but I bet many others in Colorado are having similar experiences.
Neat! This solves a problem for me with generating slides that include code snippets. I'm sure it helps with social media images and whatnot as well. It'd be great if you could also get a HTML snippet to embed into a site that would be a11y friendly!
The first time I realized Atom and RSS were actually different standards was when I went to write a feed. "Oh. Well that's interesting..."
I wonder how much wfh and distributed teams change this dynamic. I totally get what you're saying with the whole experience of staying in the office after dark, ordering pizza, and just working through a problem, whatever it takes.

I think with people holed up in their homes doing the same thing, the experience is diminished somewhat.
Selling calls on a meme stock in the middle of a short squeeze looks quite stupid to me. Especially naked calls, you're just asking to getting your face ripped off, and that's exactly what happened, and this guy is trying to shift the consequences of his dumb moves to a scapegoat.

There's really nothing redeeming about this lawsuit. Shame that Keith has become the focus of this show when really he did nothing wrong, it's just that he became the face of the squeeze and dumb people want to ascribe responsibility to him.

I guess it's a cautionary tale about coming out publicly, you become the target of very petty people. I hope the SEC does its job and goes after all the naked short selling and investigates all the failures to deliver that preceded the squeeze. But I'm cynical.
> the dots will connect eventually ...

To paraphrase Keynes, eventually we're all dead.
Looks like measuring the same thing twice.
Publishers, Curation and Algorithms
If anything, US big tech is and has been siphoning money from the Australia news media for a decade.
No you do have risk, it's just defined. The risk is equal to the collateral, which "covers" you in the event you're "called." This means the price of the underlying has reached the strike price of the option contract, and the counterparty has exercised (as they almost certainly would). Then you are obligated to provide 100 shares of the underlying * the number of calls sold to the counterparty. If that occurs, you lose money - the amount of money you can lose is your risk. In the case of selling covered calls it's capped to the value of your collateral, but it's still risk.
Who's gonna pay for supporting that "choice" and new attack vectors like when we had tons of Fortnite malware after launching Epic Game Store outside Google Play Store?
If you are just smearing it around then I think you have both a diet and a method problem.
CodeRibbon: A tool for efficiently navigating code
"Metabolism privilege?"
The ideological message in 1984 is anything but clear when you compare it to what the message would look like had George Orwell merely written a nonfiction treatise, without resorting to any literary devices.

If you know nothing of Orwell or the historical importance of 1984 and you read the book, it certainly wouldn't be clear that Orwell was trying to make a point, let alone what that point is. Some people would guess it does, others would say "It's just a story." Orwell intentionally obfuscated his point in choosing the mode of delivery (fiction). Indeed, this intentional obfuscation/ambiguity by fiction writers is what keeps literature professors employed.

The difference is that you can read a work like 1984 and at least know it is fiction, and that the message, if any, is hidden. Whereas you cannot look at a photo and easily tell if it's documenting what you think it is, no matter how much the photographer tries. At best you can see the shapes, and to a much lesser extent, things like colors/contrast. What the photographer was trying to convey is much more open to interpretation than 1984 is.
If FB thought that would happen they wouldn't have done.

And have you seen the types of 'information' people share on Facebook when they are not sharing links to news? I think users will stay in Facebook but share lower quality stuff.
At least one HN story in the last month was an eInk type product, either them or a competitor, able to position the tiny cells into more than one pair of modes, the current ones is up or down this one had some colour space like rgb as well. So it wasn't 1/3 the pixel density for a colour pixel.
I sympathize with the people in the article! My solution to improving my financial well-being during the pandemic has been to swallow my pride and move into one of my parents' investment properties in East Bay. As a bonus, I'm learning to be more handy by taking on moderate home maintenance tasks!

Considering that most young people in tech have parents significantly wealthier than them, it's amazing to me that more people don't pursue this route and insist on throwing money away on rent.

I know it's not as cool as the bohemian atmosphere of living with startup teammates in a shared house, but living rent-free in your family's spare home is the responsible and quick way to save tons of money!
Has this guy ever been fined?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ckpMQ4tgE
Do you apply the same standard to people?

Tell me, how did your brain come up with what you wrote? How do I validate that it isn't racist, sexist, or slanted towards encouraging violence and harm?
Do you have any research why 30% is high and 20% is OK?
Mexico (e.g., Guadalajara), the Caribbean (particularly adjacent to Puerto Rico), and northern Colombia and Venezuela seem to have pockets of CDMA as well.
I mean... Judy Garland was... ugh. Here's a pretty tame snippet:
"But it was her draconian weight-watch that made Judy the most abused child in the history of American cinema. Judy was put on diet pills from the age of 12. She was not slowed to eat anything that children enjoy. In the bio-pic on Judy we see how she was not allowed to have cake even on her own birthday. Mayer personally kept reminding Judy of how fat she was when in fact Judy was a skinny under-fed near-anorexic child who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola. Pleasures that she was sternly and often abusively denied. If she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate dismissal from the MGM roster."
I'm not sure how this was done, or how cell towers really work (or where they exist) but many of them appear to be in lakes, rivers and so on. What's wrong here, my understanding or the map?
Those ads you see in FB and next to google results generate money for them, not for the websites whose content you're looking at. Basically the portal collects money from helping the advertiser match closely to people who will buy, but the content platforms don't have that info on the user and can't influence their decision making process as much.