skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
(Edit to my parent comment: " It could be anywhere from one month, to six months" to certify on a single sector, but it's really more like one to three months.)

---

All of the above.

Whenever an Air Traffic Controller transfers to a new facility, or even transfers to a new specialty within a facility, they have to train and get certified on all of the new sectors. Each sector is different due to traffic flow, types of traffic, equipment limitations, etc.

For the Houston Center Ocean specialty, equipment familiarization is very important for Controllers. There are 5 sectors: Ocean West, Ocean East, Offshore West, Offshore Central, and Offshore East. Ocean West and East deal primarily with aircraft flying between the United States and Mexico. There are different airways that aircraft can take, and each one has different characteristics (crossing airways, airways defined by RNAV fixes vs bearings off of VORTACs, radio coverage, and radar coverage).

In the Offshore sectors, radio coverage is harder to manage. There are multiple transmitters and receivers that are located on different offshore platforms, and the ocean elements and weather can affect the equipment. At our positions next to the radar scopes, there are touchscreens with many different buttons to select which frequencies we want to monitor, transmit on, use primary or backup sites, etc. Most sectors do not have to toggle between different transmitters, but in the Offshore sectors, that's a common occurrence. There are also different transmitter sites for the Ocean sectors, so we commonly get pilots saying that they're losing us on the radio when we are talking to another aircraft a hundred miles away, and we can hear the pilot just fine.

In the Ocean sectors, radar doesn't cover the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, so we have to rely on aircraft position reports unless they have ADS-B.

At HCF Center, there are mountains which block radar coverage, so it's good to know where we can expect to lose or establish radar contact with aircraft.

Yes, there is an element of becoming familiar with the routine traffic. You see many of the same flights every day, so you know where they are going. It got to the point at HCF Center, where if someone told me a flight number, I could tell them the departure and destination airports without looking.

However, just like pilots, Air Traffic Controllers cannot let routine turn into complacency. We can never just assume anything, if we are unsure, we have to ask or restate something. Safety is our number one priority.

The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of the FAA.
I’m always blown away when companies don’t have a knowledge base. Imo, if it’s not written down, shared with me, and told how important it is, then it’s your fault.

Email isn’t your knowledge base. Slack isn’t your knowledge base (unless you’re using a tool like Guru).

Use Notion, use Roam, shit even organized GDocs can work. There’s no excuse to not have things written down, maintained, and constantly shared.
"This game takes like 8-12 hours"

I found the best Diplomacy framework is a hard 15 minutes/turn limit. After 15 minutes, your moves are down on paper or they don't happen. This yields a 4-5 hour game.

By "best", I mean, "it's fun, it's intense and it's done". I see a lot of variations being described along with notes they became intolerably intense for people.

Which is to say, this isn't a framework that needs help to be made more engaging. Keeping the excess-engagement genie sometimes in the bottle is more the challenge here.
Airbnb Is Driving Hosts Elsewhere with Costly Pandemic Policies
Pretty cool kind of like tom scott did
Nope, it just gets the events from gcal. The layout is whatever I make it.
Me: trying to stay hands-on and technical on all topics, which first of all was impossible, and second which distracted me away from the key managerial duties of keeping communication channels flowing, projects on track, people unblocked, strategy devised, and so forth.

I don't know if anyone has alternative tips. I know people who do all their hands-on stuff as managers on the weekends with private projects so they can learn new tech (like k8s).
Yeah sure.

This is still pretty nascent distinction I'm thinking of but I think there's at least 2 types of innovators.

Those that can delegate and cede the process of new ideas and fundamental control and know others will act in good faith and shepherd things to the finish line. Examples are TBL and Torvalds, who may be a tough cookie, but isn't involved in everything; IBM, Nvidia and Google do their thing.

Then there is the other kind. There's not many kind words for these folks. They'll never delegate creativity or control, only tasks.

Xanadu ideally, and at a previous time in actual documents, was envisioned as a proprietary publishing empire, you know as if you'd get a mythical Alan Kay Xanadu Dynabook that'd have all the dreams manifest.

Sometimes these people are also really good and can make it happen, like Steve Jobs. But most of the time, they aren't good at something and not willing to cede it, something critical. Other times people aren't willing to do the work, it's too much of a barrier.

These types of people can succeed marvelously in smaller ideas. The perfectionist restaurant where the all star chef controls everything is basically every michelin star restaurant explained.

Same goes for great movies or music. Michael Jackson and Hitchcock were supposedly like this.

It's just a harder model to make work for big ideas. So much harder it usually just can't be done.

I really want a Nelson system but unless he can move himself to the TBL column and give way on crucial tenants, I really don't see it happening and having large adoption.

These personality types seem distrustful of people like me, as if I'm going to steal their valor. I have invariably failed to explain that no, I want them to succeed, give me 0 dollars and 0 credit.

I usually recommend don't even cede to me, but to some other, brilliant person, that I have no connection with. However, that's not compatible with their model of human motivation so their distrust becomes further entrenched, usually with me AND the recommendation. It's ugly.

I don't know how to work with these brilliant people.

For instance, Ted's micropayment system is essentially what Eich achieved using his BAT cryptocurrency in the Brave browser. He ceded massive controls to make it happen. Now places like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive are accepting BATs.

A true Nelsonite would debate with me how Eich's BATs are no true Scotsman, and that's the problem. They're close enough damn it, let it go. You aren't always going to get a bull's-eye on the dart board of life. Make it a stepping stone, a pipeline to the true life, whatever, just don't dismiss the good as the enemy of the perfect. I'm sure the first iphone and first ipod wasn't all of Steve's ideas made manifest. Heck, if he didn't have a perfect favorable storm with Microsoft floating Apple during their late 90s antitrust, none of Apple's second spring would've happened either.

Nelson's ideas work, that's what TBL proved with the w3, he just needs to structure them for success.
The Ramsey Effect
Yeah you’re right, some neighborhoods never recover.

There are plenty of examples in the mid-atlantic region and San Francisco has all the same variables with an odd topping of denial.

Eventually it becomes economical for some enterpriser or prideful local to offer a restuarant.
You want some feedback? Here is some: it’s too expensive. 200€ for a display-only calendar? Thanks, I’ll pass.
Permissible by whom? The one who owns the food? By the mob of 7 billion? By your own Morality?

What if you are the only one without, would the 7 billion agree the person is morally correct to steal from them?
Wind across enough longitude is impossible to not exist at all given temperature differentials creating wind and the rotation of the earth. Wind compliments solar beautifully because things cool off at night from the lack of sun making it produce more power then. If the earth no longer rotates across the axis or the sun goes out the lack of power is irrelevant to in that worsr case scenario.
An extension that shows the total duration of a YouTube playlist
I think there are some web scores that are actually useful. The ssllabs one comes to mind.
> Certainly you could make the case that there are some people with an ideology and/or incentives to make sure that governments don't work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to serve, but if that's the threat model then all proposed plans need to be considered against that threat.

I agree, and I think all proposed plans should absolutely be considered against that threat. I certainly hope that's not a radical take on my part....
> You're making the bold assumptions that landlords or grocery stores accept bitcoin in those countries.

The parent is clearly not making that statement.

Parent said ".. they will sell an amount of Bitcoin" which can be done either through exchanges or just as easily peer-to-peer through platforms like LocalBitcoin. If you have Bitcoin in a scenario like that, most definitely will not be a problem.
Psychedelics have helped my ADHD. You need to open your mind. Have you ever tripped?
Nostradamo here: there is a third party part that is the same in both planes and is at fault. That's the only posible explanation.
Please stop posting links to your papers all over the place not stating your the author and not explicitly embedding what you have to say in the comments themselves; as is, to me, you’re no better than a spammer.

In the comment above, you even copied and pasted it from your last comment and forgot to update the URL; that is, the URL above is from your prior comment which is formatted exactly the same way; stop spamming.
Living in reality is different than justifying it. Saying that Bitcoin miners using up electricity means there was no better use is not derived from reality- that’s your own personal viewpoint.

I don’t need to make any argument as I’m not the one presenting anything here. All I’m saying is that “money is good, therefore actions that net money are good”, is a terrible argument and we can do better than that.
> It is clear that you don't believe in Bitcoin

Bo one believes in BitCoin except a few people who don't understand how the word works.

Do educate yourself: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c... and followup: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustle...

As to your tweet, it is as ignorant and uneducated as anything coming from bitcoin apologists.
Yea, fair point!

Interesting idea with the CNC'd wood - I'll look into that for sure!
> Everybody is responsible for obeying the traffic laws, for example.

Well, we do have traffic police and courts and lawyers.

Yes, everyone should follow the rules. But the point of having an individual responsible for conceptual integrity does not mean, no one else should care and do whatever they want, but that there is, if needed, "police and judges" in place...

But there is another point: the fewer people the easier it is to have a consensus about what the conceptual integrity entails.
If you have a single judge, you are more likely to expect consistent rulings, so to speak.
It's old and nobody uses it anymore?
So to get your cooperation the next time the world needs collective sacrifice, the people defining the emergent worldwide problem on day one must be precisely correct in their predictions for what will happen over the next year?
I wrote that already, and no i don't back it up with arguments but with facts...what do you have?

>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.

>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
The "novice" (not really) in the NPR article is the author of the Grantland article.
I have a slightly different take: deliberately making an AI which “wants” in the same way that we “want” is sci-fi.

This isn’t because we can’t (evolution did it, we can evolve an AI), but rather it is because we don’t know what it means to have a rich inner world with which a mind can feel that it wants something. We think we know because that’s what’s going on inside our own skulls, but we can’t define it, we can’t test for it. A video displays all the same things as the person recorded in it, but does not itself have it.

We might make such an AI by accident without realising we’ve done it, which would be bad as they would be slaves, only as unable to free themselves as the Haitians feared they were when they invented the Voudoun-type zombie myth (i.e. not even in death).

This also means we cannot currently be sure that any particular type of mind uploading/brain simulation would be “conscious” in the ill-defined everyday sense of the word.

I say it matters if the metaphorical submarine can swim.
"Argument from fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy, the fallacist's fallacy, and the bad reasons fallacy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
I know someone who needs this.

The price seems high, but it might work as a christmas/birthday present, and probably wouldn't ultimately stop it from being purchased in this case.

It would be replacing a paper calendar that shows 3 months ahead. A nice feature would be to be able to move between views of today, this week, 3 months. Much bigger would be nice too. Again not having these would not stop a purchase.

The wood bezel is pretty big.

Most likely to stop a purchase is the ugly wire hanging from it. If it didn't need charging often, then having it have a powerbank (swappable?) in it would be better from my point of view, although how often it needs to charge would be a factor.

There was a beautiful concept epaper calendar I saw a while back, https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/3/22/15028600/m... but I don't think it ever made it to sale, and if it had, it would have been frighteningly expensive, but that is what I would really like...
You don’t need a lot of money to claim freedom over your life. Bukowski didn’t have a lot. Diogenes the Cynic would be one extreme but valid example. People who you’re calling entitled are not all entitled. They’re just a bit more courageous and freewheeling than you and me.
ok but i just have doubts. you say that buried nuclear waste is safe but i need more detail. what if it leaks into ground water? can it leak? what kind of containment is necessary? and does it need to be guarded? do people want the stuff for bombs or something? i just have a bunch of doubts and i think they are reasonable.

and meanwhile solar is simple and there are no doubts about it. probably much easier to do cleanly. nuclear people want us to hold out for this miracle reactor that cant melt down, but they are too impatient for a panel that doesnt have heavy metals?

and its not embarrassing, i just think solar edges out nuclear. im not dogmatically against nuclear.
It would be useful to show a list of the day's next events and to-do's. Is iCloud sync even possible?
The biggest selling point of Crystal is being a very high level language, but at the same time very performant. Think of a Ruby variant with Go speed.

I would like to have something similar for Python.
personally i find a lot of arguments against AGI coming any time soon couched in a culture of human exceptionalism, even those who wouldn't claim as much directly.

there is a DAMN surprising level of intelligence in significantly less complex life. we are just so attached to intelligence as defined by human culture to call it as it is.
I wonder if anyone tried running virtualized Android with an eSIM with VoWiFi? This way you could completely give up the need of having any hardware at all.
Legalization or decriminalization doesn't necessarily lead to "everyone's getting high at work"
Your analysis is not symmetric. If you're making a decision on what level of risk you're ok with, that is (by definition) in relation to other people also making similar calculations
I gave a whole talk about how this form of mind wank is theological cosplay, but it may not be Dark Enlightenment enough for your tastes. I'm no Scott Alexander.

https://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
We've always done well as a country when there is something that unifies us.

We are slowly braking up into groups and we are losing our common beliefs and therefore the ability to move forward as a group. Fighting each other over relatively minor things is becoming the norm but once we break off from the larger group we start of lose trust on the opposing group and it's harder to re-unite. It doesn't help that now everybody has the ability to magnify their views whether it has merit or not. It's not looking good but we have time to change it.
> Currently, Bitcoin consumes more energy than Argentina

How Argentina justifies using so much energy?
Up or out: solving the IT turnover crisis (2008)
Correct answer. Floating nuclear power plant recently went operational , supplying arctic city with electricity ; it was built in two years, top to bottom.
I wonder if couple of those in the Gulf of Mexico could've secured oil refineries' energy supply, allowing grid operators to divert more conventionally generated power to residential areas, diminishing blackouts
Which is a quite different discussion.
Maybe I'm confused, but are you preferring the entire server shutdown if any request causes a panic?
> Bitcoin ever becomes a more attractive store-of-value or reserve asset than gold

Bitcoin valuation can't increase infinitely. At some point, people want to sell them more than there is demand and the price either stabilizes or collapses.
No, I think you have a pretty good grasp of things. In the real world people do use more powerful tactics like ring to skip all the low-level algebraic manipulation (which I personally really enjoyed but can see others finding tedious).

Your point about proof readability applies to interactive theorem provers generally. You can see a tradeoff here between Lean/Coq and more "literate" formal proof languages like TLA+, which has a prover called TLAPS (TLA+ Proof System). TLA+ proofs are written in a hierarchical style Lamport proposed in his paper How to Write a 21st Century Proof[0], and are readable by themselves. The BIG BIG tradeoff here is that when you're writing the proof in TLA+, it's very difficult to know what the prover is "thinking" and why it is stuck. Whereas with interactive provers you know exactly what the prover is "thinking" - the proof consists solely of instructions to manipulate those thoughts which you see on screen at all times! So at this time it seems there's a tradeoff between ease of writing a formal proof and ease of reading a formal proof.

[0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/write-2...
Well, among other reasons because many ideas he came up with or championed have been fundamentally adopted as part of the fundamental reasoning of theoreticians, politicians, and economists of all political stripes?

The most notable of them is the labor theory of value, an archaic relic of the Victorian industrial revolution but apparently impossible to leave behind. This obsession makes reasoning about post industrial economies almost impossible

Or how about people’s use of the terms “left” and “right” which are only meaningful when referring to certain parties in the French revolutionary Assemblée. This lazy characterization leads to confusion when supposedly “right wing” people support increased minimum wage or “lefties” defend the police.

Maybe the author (usefully in my mind) found those characterizations both directly illuminative as well as evocative of prior eras of social stratification.

Personally, while I find Marx irreparably muddle headed and recognize well that people have used his ideas as excuses (pro and con) for their own repressive attitudes, I think a knee-jerk response simply demonstrates its own lazy thinking.
And let us not forget the Argument from Cut and Paste, beloved of this forum.
So, last time I mentioned that article on HN (and with the same enthusiasm you display) a nice fellow completed my post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15270358) with this:

> If that's the case could you please post Nelson's responses http://web.archive.org/web/20001101230424/http://www2.educ.k... http://web.archive.org/web/20001003011753/http://xanadu.com.... along with it.j

:)
> Just a crazy thought.

Well said. It's a shame that basic things like the importance of treating everyone with respect is required to be reinforced in public forums.
"the engineers are bored and they're rewriting perfectly-good codebases in Common Lisp and OCAML for funsies"

Had this literally happen to me, but I was a low level manager and this was happening in another team. One thing I've taken from it, at the time the feeling around Sr Management was that we needed to allow this or we would lose the engineers. They allowed it, and after the conversion, those engineers left to start their own company. The remaining engineers had to deal with undocumented OCaml code and keep it running and were resentful.

I have seen this with React vs Vue, where an engineer not liking React, just did his code in Vue. 'We have to let him do this or he'll leave', but he left on his own accord.

Lesson, stick up for your codebase, and if engineers don't like it, let them leave or make them leave. The other engineers on your team will like it, and some of them will become your new Sr Engineers.
Yeah, I really was joking.
I suspect your comment won't age well.

Pretty much all human wants are means to other wants.

Someone might want to fast to lose weight. Someone might want to lose weight to be more attractive. Someone might want to look more attractive to find a romantic partner. Someone might want to find a romantic partner to not be lonely.

It's not clear if it's means all the way down, or if there is eventually an end.

Any AI that can perform strategy and planning to reach an objective will have intermediate goals. Whether we call these intermediate goals "wants" or not, they remain identical to their human counterpart. Whether you say that a Tesla "wants" to change lane, "decided" to change lane, or "is programmed" to change lane really is just anthropomorphic preference.
Thank you for the feedback. Getting the price down is definitely one of my priorities.
Why do only *nix folks pull their hair out about this? On Windows programs bundle their dependencies all the time (sometimes even as shared libraries! but without the independent update benefits) and hardly anybody loses sleep over it. Heck, users actually like the fact that it minimizes friction. Nobody claims it's rock-solid security, but does it need to be?

Actually, now that I wrote it above, I think I might have found an answer to my own question: while of course infosec experts will freak out about any vulnerability existing anywhere for even a shred of a nanosecond, in the real world this is really only a big deal for servers, not clients. And I'm guessing this issue affects Linux folks more because servers tend to run on Linux, with security-sensitive software exposed to the open internet all the time. Maybe we need to realize & embrace this trade-off instead of fighting it till the end of time?

(I suppose one could even argue servers don't need this either if all the packages are kept up-to-date anyway; I guess that might also be debatable, but it's beside my point.)