skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh so you mean you would want rationing too. How is that related to rent control then?
There's an assumption here that, at scale, non-meat options will be cheaper than raising cows. If the vegan option is $1 and the meat option is $2, many consumers will choose vegan. These are big ifs, of course, but it seems possible to me.
Is that why Signal's apk is so hard to find on their site? So they don't get banned for linking their site in the app?
Burps, not farts, are the primary source of methane:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-so...
Thanks for the link, really interesting stuff.
> one hourly wage was enough raise a family on

Having worked at minimum wage as a teen, I can guarantee you could not support a family on it.

> They graduate today with a lifetime of debt

The ones that did not google "starting salaries for major X" and compare that against the expected debt they'd incur, yes.
It’s not just cow farts. Raising and killing a whole cow is an inefficient way to extract calories from plants. Even chicken would be more efficient.
Can they create something similar in-house? Beyond and particularly Impossible appear to be far ahead of the competition in meat substitutes, and presumably they each have close to 20yr left on their patents. It doesn't look so easy to rival the leaders in this space.
"You create an insane level amount of supply for homeownership on this market. An absolutely insane level."

You're completely ignoring the fact that homeownership, even if prices aren't incredibly high, requires a large down payment that many people don't have, which is why they rent. Those people still can't afford to buy and are pushed out, and they're the ones you're supposed to be helping.

"If somehow millions of people do buy houses in Berlin, then you build public housing to undercut the price of housing."

This is where your argument totally loses steam. You can't just handwave and say you'll build public housing... that is an incredibly expensive and politically difficult thing to do. When your theoretical solution to the problem is something that is very much not guaranteed (or even likely), and you pretend it'll just be no problem at all, you're ignoring reality and not presenting a useful solution.
It's been standard operating procedure in several high tech industries like biotech for decades. The FDA doesn't allow anyone to charge for anything related to medicine or medical devices until a premarketing application is approved so many biotech companies (if not most, since anything profitable pre-IPO is generally gobbled up by pharma) IPO with zero revenue and their success or failure is entirely dependent on a few binary decisions made by government agencies which ostensibly depend on the strength of the science.

It depends heavily on industry dynamics; in biotech it's not a problem since "product-market fit" is essentially predetermined and there are very few "customers", which are limited to private/public insurers representing patients and pharma companies looking to grow their stock value. In software there is a lot of capital sloshing around because the vast majority of it goes towards payroll which can be scaled up or down on a whim and many times the return on an investment depends not on dividends from profits but acquisitions by other companies looking to move their own stock price (the public version of an acquihire). There's the additional factor that many tech companies have network effects that form semi-monopolies which can be an order or two of magnitude more profitable than competitive industries.

You won't find the same level of unprofitable IPOs in resource extraction, for example, which is subject to the whims of governments, fluctuating prices, and requires massive up front investments. Most of the excess capital goes towards hedging the aforementioned risks so dividends from profit is how money makes its way back to investors. Unprofitable IPOs only really happens when some company signs a big deal for mineral/resource rights with a government and spins off a separate company to raise money to exploit that deal without diluting the main company. If the government is considered reliable to investors, its perfectly normal to throw money in.
Their stuff is good. Here in the UK every supermarket chain now has their own vegan ranges putting out stuff almost (admittedly not quite) as good, priced very competitively. Even a couple of years ago that simply wasn't case.

Random stray thought I had earlier is how interesting things are going to be when we move further away from emulating existing meat products, and become more comfortable eating plant-based stuff that doesn't necessarily resemble (or have names that are a play on) anything else in nature, in the same way Pepsi is just Pepsi. I'd love to take a peak at what menus are gonna look like in 20 years, assuming this shift is the real deal. Are we gonna have to memorise a slapstick sounding list of dozens of engineered protein sources to get by? (Oomph, tofurky, shroomdog... and of course, quorn! etc)
> less cattle production

This idea would lose the interest of anybody with influence over cattle production right here. It's almost impossible to make people simply want less, but it's more feasible to make them want something different than what they want today.
That is a good point and one I hadn't considered despite being an H-1B holder myself. I agree with your argument that paying for reviews under current immigration laws would be highly problematic for visa holders. It would either mean we would be expected to do it for free when everyone else gets paid, which would be unfair and potentially still not legal. Or we would be unable to review which I think is an important part of establishing oneself within the community.
Spreading out would use up so much land that we would effectively destroy the biosphere in the process.
Done! :)

https://reactcosmos.org
> Georeferencing

> Correlate datasets with a consistent and accurate global reference template.

As a frequent user of Maxar imagery in OSM editors all I can tell is "xD". Maxar has easily the worst georeference accuracy of all global satellite imagery providers who share imagery with OpenStreetMap to trace from. It's common to have errors in the range of 15 meters. On the other side of the spectrum is Bing, which has improved significantly in the last decade.
"solarwinds123" comes to mind.
you can still use it to get a 2BR or 3BR when you only need a studio.
Samsung's MicroLED TVs start at 110“ and go down to 76”
Unfortunately the documentary Cowspiracy is operating with massively exaggerated numbers (it claims meat is responsible for more than 50% of ghg emissions, it's explained on the wikipedia article of the film).

Real numbers from credible sources are that greenhouse gas emissions from the meat and dairy industry are around 15%. Which is large enough to take this problem seriously, but it's still far away from those claims.

I think this is harming the case. The problem is big enough to be passionate about fake meat. No need for exaggeration.
Basically we are talking about the world's reserve currency becoming a denationalized currency. To be "mainstream" the denationalized currency will need to be defended by the militaries of the Euro-zone, US, India, China, and Russia (likely one after the other in this order).

Only the US is incentivized to have USD be the world's reserve currency. Meanwhile, 7 BB people around the world prefer a denationalized reserve currency, countries will prefer to interact with each other with a less trackable currency (e.g. Iran and the current sanctions), and based on the usage of tax loopholes by every multi-national company (e.g. FB, Apple, Google) every business will prefer transacting in less trackable currency (especially with crypto-coin tumblers). This demand for a denationalized reserve currency will be supplied by some crypto-coin (maybe BTC, maybe something else). FWIW, I don't think having a "less trackable currency" is a "good thing", I'm just saying there are large organizations that benefit from it financially and therefore it will exist.

Frankly once the S&P companies purchase enough BTC (e.g. TSLA, Square, etc), a BTC 51% attack will need to be defended against by the US military to ensure national stability. If BTC (or any crypto-coin) can hit "too big to fail" in the US, the rest of the world's militaries will all build a defense strategy around BTC mining. As as consequence, cheaper energy will also be an investment into national security.

There are still more problems with BTC specifically, like "slow transactions" but as may here have said, we can either use a geographically sharded blockchain (e.g. BTC-California, BTC-USD, BTC-CAD, BTC-RUP), where each shard allows fast transactions, and slow reconciliation, or we will just leverage credit for fast transactions like we do today, with slow reconciliation between banks like we have today. I don't see "centralization" as a problem, because having bank accounts and credit are very useful as an individual (as individuals will likely only transact with credit cards like we do today).

Will BTC become "too big to fail" in the US? Unclear. Another crypto might get there first. However, there is no scenario where the world's reserve currency continues to be tied to a single nation.
There will certainly be people who are indifferent and eat whatever, and be lead/manipulated via the propaganda that "vegan is healthier" - which arguably isn't true - but eating high-quality, fatty, red meat is healthy; it's the other junk people also eat with red meat that causes problems.
This. I can just prototype something so gosh darn quickly in jQuery and I'm so used to it by this point that between that and advancements in CSS it's incredibly awesome.

Why replace what's not broken?
Talking about different layer 2 scaling strategies implicitly ignores much simpler layer 1 scaling, e.g. Avalanche.
I'd rather have a HP Touchpad with an updated version of webOS.

The UI was and still is better than Android or iOS.
I’ve come to realize, that prejudice is amplified online. Prejudice is, at its root, poorly examined opinions based on insufficient evidence.

Prejudice gets amplified because it often seems insightful, and online, barraged by information all day, people click, read these blurbs and one liners, then pass them on.

Prejudice is also emotionally satisfying because typically people believe what is already inline with their beliefs. So taking the time to research and understand topics is not as pleasurable as passing along prejudice.

It’s all around us online, from simple celebrity gossip, to political analysis, on and on.

We’ve somehow as a society got to get our heads around the fact that this form of communication online is brand new to the human experience, and we have to understand it’s impacting us in new ways.

I fear all the ways Prejudice is pushing us apart, and away from fact, understanding, and compassion.
For me it was safari. A real web browser. That was the game changer.
> What fundamentally prevents us from creating a digital analog of gold?

You can infinitely copy information. It's in the article.
It's easier to parrot a tired critique than it is to contribute a useful thought.

What's concerning is its the top comment on this HN thread.
Impossible is definitely better tasting, but I'm happy to see Taco Bell is included in this deal (though not in the headline here on HN). I haven't been there since they got rid of potatoes, so having a vegan option would make my taco consumption during lunch break skyrocket.
More likely, someone did figure it out and convinced the legislature and public because they know they will react with emotion instead of math

In my experience, people don't have experience outside of their local bubble, so you can easily recycle policies from another city or slightly tweak them

Thats what they really mean by land of opportunity
> …and faster response times across the globe, right?

Unfortunately not. There is no benefit to leaving your critical files on anyone else’s infrastructure: https://csswizardry.com/2019/05/self-host-your-static-assets...
LN fundamentally changes nothing. Its still uses bitcoin Tx it just combines many Tx and does the on-chain settlement at a later point thus reducing the number of on-chain Tx increases speed and reduces fees. But if we reduce Tx on the chain we dont solve scalability we just bump into the limits a little later. LN on a global scale would still need orders or magnitude more on-chain Tx then possible.

And if LN would actually reduce on chain Tx to a level where we would no longer need to worry about on-chain limits then we rendered bitcoin useless because we literally reduced the need for Tx to basically zero. Whos gonna pay for mining if block rewards vanish and LN makes on-chain Tx vanish as well?

Bitcoins "goal" is that on-chain Tx should always be near the max so the fee per Tx is the lowest possible and reward are the highest While LNs "goal" would be to reduce the on-chain Tx to near zero because every on-chain Tx is extremely expensive.

It probably meets somewhere in the middle. which means its still gets worse and worse the more Tx are made even if they are made over LN. Thats the definition of "not scaling well".

LN and bitcoin are supposed to by a symbiosis but LN is the parasite that works best when it almost kills is own host.
You can see it though the actions of large miners. They are not supporting LN. They could pour millions in the development and advertisement of LN but they dont want it, it reduces their profit.

Its just very very deeply flawed overly complex system that only exist because some people would not accept that the layer 1 has deep flaws. Is rather obvious that building on top is not the right way forward. An since changing layer 1 is not possible in any meaningful way the only way forward is to abandon it. Which wont happen as long as people make money with it.

>what exactly would stop it from working?

The absolute end state is that hashrate drops or stops increasing due to the fact that it isn't profitable anymore which leads to double spend and essentially destroys any trust in the system and renders it useless.

No one know at which point hashing will no longer be profitable for a long enough time to cause this cascading effect. But once it started the price crashes > pushes more miners out of businesses > further reducing hash rate > panic > price drop more > repeat

All while mining hardware becomes cheap because demand goes to zero and supply increases, which makes a double spending attack cheaper.
Then once a double spend has been observed its game over. There inst even a theoretical plan how to move on at that point. In simple words it would move the requirement for block conformations to infinite so there is no point in doing any Tx anymore. Everyone just has to wait which further reduces any rewards for miners.
I’m just a single data point... But I’m not vegan, but I eat fake meats multiple times a week. In fact I haven’t eaten any real meat in 3 weeks.
In hopes of boosting the Impossible Whopper, it's the first thing I've eaten from BK that I've enjoyed in over a decade. No hyperbole, it just tastes good whereas to my taste, the rest of BK food tastes pretty dismal.
I think the idea is trying to replicate ownership of a physical item. When you own a book or a painting, you don't own the underlying copyright in that item and you don't control reproduction and distribution of the item or the creation of derivative works (i.e., if I buy a paperback copy of Confederacy of Dunces, I can't contract with a movie studio to make a movie based on the book -- I just own a copy of the book and that's it).

But who honestly wants to own a digital copy (without underlying rights) of something that can't be consumed like a movie or book? We're supposed to now pay for an image I can view freely? Where's the benefit in owning the NFT of an asset? Perhaps if a device manufacturer comes out with a device to display ultra-high resolution art images in an attractive frame and you can only obtain a compatible copy of the ultra high-res image if you buy the corresponding NFT, this could be an attractive offering if executed properly but I'm not aware of any devices that create such value for NFTs.

NFTs are somewhat interesting but I strongly suspect there is market manipulation (most likely by players with investments in NFT-adjacent entities) going on with some of these NFT sales.
is it safe to say reinvesting is counted as a loss for tax purposes then? How does the tax angle come into play, taxes are only on profit income not revenues?
condition && action
condition || action

(or the equivalent for languages where the logical operators are written differently) are not bash-exclusive idioms; I've seen them in a number of expression-oriented languages (less frequently on statement-oriented languages where the particular action is a function rather than a statement, but the fact that it isn't usable consistently in those.
languages tends to make it less idiomatic there.)
I've also lived in rent controlled cities (like SF), and my experience runs counter to yours. Your experience is an anecdote, not data.

I get the impression you didn't actually read the article. It points out very clearly that when apartments go vacant in Berlin, they're being sold, not re-rented. If that's what happens when a renter leaves, then there's no stock for new renters to move into.

And just throwing in public housing as though it's a magical solution is wildly unrealistic, especially when you're dealing with large numbers of people.

I'm sure you live somewhere nice, but it's not reflective of the world.
What you are looking for are subsidies. In the EU you can get subsidies for not touching a plot of arable land at all.
The current banking system is better right now, because it's at least usable and scalable. Of course the current banking system is centralized and expensive, which is a problem, but if a substantial portion of Bitcoin's userbase is arguing for that transaction speeds and costs are irrelevant because Bitcoin will be centralized too, then I'm not giving them credit for that.

And frankly, it's not at all true that no other coins have come around that are better. Monero is vastly better at privacy than Bitcoin in pretty much every way. There are already coins on the market that are using proof of stake today. In pretty much every area, the state of cryptocurrency has evolved over Bitcoin -- but, importantly, none of those coins have become better systems for speculative investing. And I would argue that's the "better enough" that most Bitcoin advocates care about.

I also don't see any reason to assume that once Bitcoin goes more mainstream that a community that is currently hostile to change because it might affect their wallets is suddenly going to be less hostile to change. Bitcoin could be evolving today. People could be switching to better coins today. But they're not. It's not going to be easier to make those improvements in the future.

Bitcoin is the technology. The idea that we need wide adoption of a technology that is ill suited for the problem it is trying to solve, just so that we can drop that technology and choose something that's actually usable on its own without first reimplementing the entire concept of banks -- it just doesn't make sense as a long-term strategy.
Who pays for the articles and who writes them? Is this like Consumer Reports?
The popular crusade against meat is one of the more misguided. Meat provides far more nutritional value than any plant and the environmental impacts have been greatly exaggerated. See below:

Regarding carbon:
"removal of livestock in the US would only lead to a net GHG reduction of 2.6% in national emissions. Similarly, removing all dairy would lead to a reduction of just 0.7%. At the same time, both transitions would create domestic deficiencies in critically limiting nutrients [White & Hall 2017; Liebe et al. 2020], which is not unexpected given that Animal Sourced Foods are valuable sources of essential nutrition [see elsewhere].

and methane:
"As argued above, this is not wishful thinking as there is still ample potential for mitigation of biogenic methane in global food systems. Moreover, the global cattle population has not been increasing during the last decade, making its contribution to global warming debatable [Shahbandeh 2020]. It is, however, true that methane has nonetheless been suddenly increasing since 2007. Yet, this can be ascribed to a multitude of potential reasons, incl. geological and fossil fuel emissions, wetlands, rice farming, and landfills [Gramling 2016; Nisbet et al. 2016; Alvarez et al. 2018; Rasmussen 2018; Etiope & Schwietzke 2019; Malik 2021], or a decrease in hydroxyl radical levels, the main sink for atmospheric methane [Turner et al. 2017]

https://aleph-2020.blogspot.com/2019/06/greenhouse-gas-emiss...
but beware of ASI :)
Your use of the word "still" is a little misleading. IE _was_ the default email rendering engine until 2007 when Microsoft made the inexplicable decision to move to Word 2007 instead.
Because if you're dumping binaries, or attaching to running processes, you'll be looking at assembly code.
I agree the resulting binaries will be different but I disagree that these are then different packages. The package is whatever the distributor distributed it as. They distributed it as source, which you took and compiled to your local binary version. With "The individual packages need to be verified", and each resulting different binary being uniquely a different package, this means the package/repo maintainer of a source package would need to verify it for every single platform which compiles C and every potential compiler and every potential set of flags for the compiler as each set of platform/compiler/flags could result in a different binary and thus different behavior.
1-2-3 would allow you to plot a function on your graphs. Something that I haven't seen since. The solution now is to build a range and values, but that just adds one extra column of data to massage versus having a reference line covering the domain and range of that particular graph.
I think both solutions work hand in hand. We replace the lower quality meath with vegan alternatives. This allows meat producers to focus on higher value, grass fed products. So we still eat steak but frozen processed meat patties are replaced with plan alternatives.
One thing that doesn't help jquery's case is that it and its plugin ecosystem isn't modular, making it impossible to trim the code size below the minified size via dead code elimination or even es6 partial imports. It would be nice to see more fluent DOM apis like jquery, but having 1st class support for es6 modules so you can import only the functionality you need in your final bundle
iPhone Sticking with Lightning Port over USB-C for 'Foreseeable Future'
Well, "range" was not the correct term. What I meant is that you can't treat the source as sparse. You can't skip portions of it. So you can't make an array that only covers every other element of this enumeration:

type Colors is (Red, Green, Blue, Black, Gray, White);

It has to be a consecutive group of them, taken in order, as the specification of even this enumeration has an ordering to it as far as Ada is concerned. So I can make an array using all of Colors as the index, or some subset but it has to be, say, Red..Blue and not Red|Blue skipping over Green.
I'd still blame the individual developer for poor naming. Naming a variable something like int_list is terrible in that it's both very specific and semantically meaningless. Either choose a semantic name like grades or part_numbers, or take a hint from ML convention and use semantically void names like "xs".
One thing that allows for this is the oft neglected "method of discovery".

The usual "scientific process" concerns itself with how to keep an experiment correct/truthful - but how do we decide what experiments to conduct in the first place? Scientific funding can be biased towards the successes of the past, and so future funding can be guided by political agendas.