skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you were not trying to upvote anything, then go into the web developer tools and select the console. Repeat the process that triggered a prompt. You should see what URL is triggering an authentication request. If that does not make it obvious, close the browser and start it in safe mode. Each browser [1][2] has it's own method of starting in safe mode to avoid loading any addons or custom code.

[1] - https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-is... [Firefox]

[2] - https://superuser.com/questions/254579/how-to-open-google-ch... [Chrome]
For what it's worth, some US train and bus timetables will totally write the arrival time as 00:37 or 12:37A. It's a localization thing.

For example, this Pacific Surfliner timetable [PDF] from Amtrack, where one train goes 11:36P -> 12:10A for one leg

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

Here's a bus timetable [PDF] from Canada that goes 23:45 -> 00:00 -> 00:07:
https://www.gotransit.com/static_files/gotransit/assets/pdf/...
You're just paying the price of rest of the world catching up. Privilege of getting out of World War 2 as the pretty much only major unaffected economy could not be sustained for a century, ya know?
> Given that and the already-existing ability to create collagen/gelatin in a lab that's suitable for vegans, I've always wondered why nobody has managed to get it to market as a food.

Outside of some pastry applications (eg. mirror cake glazing), it's pretty much only used for Jell-O and aspic, neither of which are particularly trendy at the moment.

There's gelatin and collagen in soups as part of making broth, but it's not really something that people see as an ingredient.
>Is this problem actually solvable? As in, does YouTube expose an API for doing the things you're talking about?

https://developers.google.com/youtube/v3

The description from the above link:

With the YouTube Data API, you can add a variety of YouTube features to your application. Use the API to upload videos, manage playlists and subscriptions, update channel settings, and more.

>If not, then there's really not much anyone can do about it.

If their API is unusable, then follow the steps in the documentation, only let a computer do it. Use OAuth to authenticate with the service, access user's content that may be public, private, or unlisted.

On a user operation, say move videos from one account to the other, in the backend: download the videos to temporary files using a third party tool that I will not mention here, then upload them to the new account.

If you want to skimp, mount the user's Google Drive account to store the videos temporarily (as a buffer), and then from their Google Drive to their YouTube account. This way you don't pay for storage and are scalable right off the bat. Then build everything on top of Google App Engine : D Except you'll have a harder time doing the mount operations if you're on GAE, I suppose.

So you only receive requests, mount Google Drives, download videos there, then the videos to the user's account/channel.

Yes, you could eventually use something "in-memory", but if you have a lof of requests, you'll have to account for that RAM, hence using the user's Google Drive account.

Again, I'm thinking of this off the top of my head, but I think it checks out.

The user only has to select the videos from the source, and choose a destination, click OK, done. Go for coffee or something, instead of downloading them and good luck for people with crappy internet to do that. Future versions may enable you to do CRUD on the videos on a usable interface, not like the Studio thing. Display accounts and channels and playlists like folders and move videos around like you'd do on a file explorer, etc.

I may do that once to transfer my videos.

Your bio is "Serial Side Project Maker"... :P
After a cold snap recently I went out to visit an older couple in a trailer who had had their plumbing burst due to freezing.

The trailer was in really rough shape. They were huddling under blankets because heating and insulation were inadequate. And now they had no water.

Two things make me angry about the trailer park situation.

1. people living there who only get poorer from it. They own the portion of the home that decreases in value and rent the part that appreciates. If you're rich, sure. You can afford to own a depreciating asset and forgo the appreciation. But they're poor.

2. By having the lot renter own the trailer, they avoid many of the laws that protect renters with basic livability requirements. And yet those people are still paying rent alongside having to pay maintenance costs for their homes.

In the end at least in my area of the country it's much less expensive to buy a modest home.
Agree, it's not really email "forwarding" if you parse the email then resend it.

Then again what is email forwarding anyway, it's all such a mishmash
I hated writing and editing way back when. What I should have done looking back is use scissors and tape to patch different paragraphs together, rather than writing down the side of the page in the margins to fit in the edited text
If I were into competitive Fortnite I would never leave the default skin and get extra gratification from stunting on "gamers" who don't know better than to pre-judge skills based on cosmetics...
Out of curiosity (I have 2 that are into it) what did they 'get' by you relenting and allowing them to spend Robux? Is it just cosmetics or are there certain games/modes/experiences that are only available if you pay?
Private Equity’s Ownership of Nursing Homes Is Killing Senior Citizens
As a reader, I find clicking through the mentions / pingback links are a good way to find another take on the same subject as the original article
I am no google fanboy, but I WOULD be surprised to find such a thing. The reason I would be surprised is history and alignment.

Google consistently has bad/non existent customer service
It is famously hard to talk to a google employee when you have a problem
Google has a history of primarily hiring devs
Google knows its bread and butter is legitimate results
Google probably has the largest most experienced anti-SEO team on the earth
Google seems to want to stay out of the press
Google maps reviews are a very major competitive moat against other maps
Google is supported by ads, but AFAIK does not actively seek customers
Google does not do delivery
Google's money maker is getting information, maps is a major input
Maps is a secondary business able to be subsidized by search ad revenue

On the counter side

Inflated reviews/advantaged reviews would make ad customers happy
Selling position is potentially extremely profitable

I just don't see it. It's not googles MO. It's yelps MO. That's why I use google maps as my primary tool for finding whats good.

What I wouldn't be surprised by is google systemically limiting negative reviews. In my experience A yelp 3.5 would be a 4 on google maps. A yelp 1 or 2 would be a 3 on google maps. 4 would be 4.5 on google maps. Google maps numbers are definitely inflated, but once you understand the relative scale it's just as good as pre-corrupt Yelp.
That's very well explained.

I think that trips people up, in stories like this, is that the SEC has a pause button but not a reverse button. What's done is done, for the most part.
Who exactly is benefiting? I'd love to have this card in my back pocket for debates. Are there specific politicians we can draw-and-quarter over this? Or was your statement just a generic "all politicians bad" rant with no real citations?
Why not both ? :) Also you don't necessarily need to dismantle all planets during Dyson swarm construction- you can keep a few as a historical curiosity. Sure, it's horribly inefficiency use of mass but still. :)
> Meme stonk buyers: "How could you do this to us?"

Did this step actually happen? From what I understand, it was the SEC, not meme stock buyers, who disagreed with the sale.
> The fact that a bootcamp grad can compete for the same software engineering jobs as a Stanford CS grad is one of the very best parts of the hiring process in our industry. Are you proposing that we start using credentials as gatekeeping?

But we already do use credentials as gatekeeping. There's a lot of talk about bootcamps and whatnot, but how many of these people actually get passed the resume screen when compared to a Stanford CS grad? FAANGs famously recruit from same 20 universities, and then complain about "lowering the bar" if they branch out anywhere else.

We could stop gatekeeping, but it still happens.
Reminds me of "tech debt as a lack of understanding"

https://daverupert.com/2020/11/technical-debt-as-a-lack-of-u...

> If there’s been enough organizational turnover or enough feature creep in a product, then maybe doing a rewrite is the best option so your team has a collective understanding of the code. You can’t expect people to be productive in something that was a culmination of [complicated "here be dragons" code] made by people who no longer work there. At that point your technical debt balloon has popped, you are in possession of a toxic asset.
> still didn't kill anyone

That's not a compelling argument, when the premise is misleading. While you (and others) split hairs over what "kill" means, people actually die from it.

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/radiation-from-fukushima-disaste...

https://world.wng.org/2014/09/locals_suffer_long_term_effect...
This is the crazy thing about email, it's ancient, 39 years old. I bet it'll still be around in 20 years from today.
For long-tail adverse events? It's easy to engineer power distribution systems for the average case, but unless we accept occasional brownouts as a cost of doing business, we need to build robustness into our generation fleet. Let's say we get another Krakatoa-scale eruption that reduces insolation (and thus drops solar & wind output while increasing heating demand). Some amount of firm generation (hydro, gas peaker, nuclear) is insurance against correlated failure in the global climate system.
The worst part is that this doesn't even reduce the cyclomatic complexity of the code. You replaced conditional branches with table lookups, indirect function calls, and exceptions, but you still have the same number of paths through the code—or perhaps more with the extra code for the table lookups. In the end you're just hiding the real complexity from the tools.

Minimizing cyclomatic complexity might actually be a reasonable approach, if the complexity were accurately measured without these blind spots. For example, any indirect calls should be attributed a complexity based on the number of possible targets, and any function that can throw an exception should be counted as having at least two possible return paths (continue normally or branch to handler / re-throw exception) at each location where it's called.
For most people, not really. You don't study how to solve leetcode questions on a whiteboard during a typical DS & algo class. The more serious and advanced the class, the farther it'll be from interview questions really. And even if you prepared well at some point, how long can you be good at it without regular practice? The day job of a software developer rarely requires reaching for clever algorithms.
In almost every part of the US anything except a single family home should be illegal to build.

Land is in extreme abundance and multi-tenant properties are almost always built and owned by corporations.
I don't know how to square this claim with the plethora of businesses with many negative reviews on both Google and Yelp. If it were this easy, you'd think everyone would be doing it. Probably someone would have written a blog post describing how to do so. I can find out how to buy gmail accounts on Google, but I can't find out how to remove business reviews. Maybe the claim is just that most small businesses are very honest?

In any case, the scenario you're describing is decidedly not pay-for-play on Google's part, and thus doesn't really impinge on my response to OP.
This won't sound very PC, but despite all the bullshit about equality, men need to be better than women.
Women demand that men are better than women.
If we are going to end up with a situation where women have higher income potentials than men, nobody will be happy.
Women will feel like they cannot find anyone suitable and men will feel like they are inadequate.
I would guess it would be easier to load up the bogey container with rocks, and since the authorities are in it, get a copy of the seal affixed to the bogey container (the article even mentions fake seals).

The article also mentions shipment. Does it mean the containers were already on the ships, or just on its way on the back of a truck? It would be "easy" for the truck full of copper in a sealed container to leave a place, and a different truck to show up at the port with a container with a label that says "Copper for Mercuria, destination Qinqdao" and a "good" seal. Or if it's all at the port, just pay off the crane operator to load up your bogey onto the ship, and load up the real stuff onto your truck.
The reason I am hesitant to believe that is because of the fact that the review _never_ showed up, not even briefly.

However, you could still be right.
Property and housing has always been an investment. However, I do agree that the terrible yield on risk free assets have significantly inflated housing prices.

I also agree that interest rates need to rise, but there unfortunately doesn't seem to be any political or monetary will for that to happen.
I’d be interested in this
There are multiple possible explanations as to why they won't compete. One of them is incapability through biological inferiority, which I highly doubt is the case. Another is systematic bias. Another is really as simple as not wanting to. Again, please read what is actually written, not what you want to answer to.

Frankly, this "discrimination towards women" may as well be turned around with one simple trick. Which of the two sexes is more likely to have their worth as partner be judged based on their ambition and achievements? Last time I checked, women are a lot more judgmental of their partner's ambition, earning capabilities, career, and similar traits than men are, frequently to the point of wanting a guy who is relatively "better" than themselves. You think that has no influence on competitiveness? When your worth as a romantic partner gets tied heavily to all those things, which can be found in a field emphasizing competitiveness, surely you can imagine men respond by being more competitive.

Now imagine your worth isn't as tied to this, you have all these men with a very clear incentive to compete keep trying to one-up another. It isn't a secret people give up easier when the challenge is too difficult compared to the reward, and assuming above, women clearly have less of a reward at the end of this.

Convenient excuses? Probably. Frankly, the entire "oppression" narrative is awfully convenient when put under the right angle. So instead of knee-jerking towards all this, let's stop this "trope" as well and address the problem for the multifaceted issue it truly is.

Edit: as replying to the below is no longer an option and apparently my "competition" claim is "unsubstantiated", it seems I have to point out the obvious. Women still largely go for men outearning them rather than equals, let alone lower.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12372)
Additionally, money helps men more than women when it comes to cushioning traits of lower value (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10905...)
Though I guess one peer-reviewed study tracking diaries says more than entire countries filled with anecdotal data of women more willing to work part time even when not caring for kids.
Or a lack of other viable options. I would agree with your comment on the whole though. Typically doesn't end well.
Interesting point. The US would be an outlier then?
I recently bought my first home in Iowa. I was only a couple years into my career and wanted to start with something small which would allow me to build up equity so I could eventually trade up for something I'd want to keep long term.

At first, I considered a few mobile homes, but I soon learned to ignore them. The houses themselves were cheap, but the association fees were outrageous. I ended up getting a town home instead, which was valued much higher but the monthly payments ended up being comparable thanks to the much lower association fees. I have more property rights, more of that money goes into equity, I get a much bigger and nicer home, and I don't have to worry as much about tornadoes, derechos, and other nasty Iowan weather so much.

With the prevalence of town homes and cheap housing here, I don't know how trailer parks keep their residents.
Fair question IMO.

Of course trailer parks are (hopefully) always among the most affordable housing options.

However, living in one should be a choice of the individual, and the fact that there is a notable population in these places tells me that these are not exactly free choices à la "I shall live frugally" but rather a systemic problem.

So: "acceptable that trailer parks are more than a mere curiosity of vanishing proportion in the story of housing in the US in 2021."
I like that Graham quote, and you make good points. I guess when I say "investing," I mean more like - Purchasing an equity entitles you to a share of that business' income and potentially assets, but if you buy the equity on the stock market, you're not actually investing in capacity, the way you would be if you bought an IPO or even just a piece of equipment you could use to make something.

And I think people have always given the stock market more credit than it's due as being "the economy," when really the stock market is a set of signals about the economy. The economy is the people and machines and the buildings that do stuff and make things, and the economy remains regardless of what's happening in the stock market.

If a bunch of silliness happens around a certain stock, or if the stock market becomes wildly detached from reality, it doesn't have anything to do with peoples' ability to produce value.
> I feel like US is really behind on

...everything that matters
I know people are downvoting you, but you are correct. The only ones who can really apply power to China are state level actors. Nothing will come of boycotting Chinese products. If you want to buy "Made in the _________" then do it because you want to help the western (other?) economies rather than China, not because it will do anything to convince the Chinese government not to genocide a culture.
Open Source Webhook Receiver
The neighborhood? Yeah, probably. In a trailer? No, they aren't very well built.

I actually live in a relatively low-income area now. I just like the general "realness" of working class people and don't much care if people look down at me when I tell them where I live.
> If people want to "invest," they'll figure out more pro-social ways to do it than the stock market,

Will they? Is there any such thing as a pro-social 401K or Roth IRA? If money is going from your paycheque into your retirement fund, bypassing you entirely, it adds significant friction to moving it out into something with more direct impact.
Any numbers on China’s coal plants?
The US introduced the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act back in 1998, and the response for most websites was to put in an age gate requiring a birthday where you're at least 13 or 14.

I wonder why at the time congress scoped this bill to just children, rather than thinking about online privacy for all consumers.
Seconding - I should call Ting and see.
Back in the day I remember stories about candidates who would get an offer from Amazon and then Google/MS would just automatically counter-offer without interviewing as it was assumed that if they passed the Amazon interview then it was good enough for Google/MS.

Or maybe that was just an urban legend...
Because all reviews are tied to an active Google account which is pseudo-tied to an IRL identity.

I don't really care about the second point because it doesn't scale, people will do it anyway, and you can cozy right up to the line of literally paying for a good review in a million different "above board" ways.
It's not "people doing something". To make power plants you need factories running. Produce steel, specialized metals, concrete, refine silica sand, produce electronics... You need mines for the base materials, and factories producing mining equipment. You need some rare earth metals, potentially. You need chemical plants too. And of course power and water input for the manufacturing sector.

All of which is nontrivial amount of investment nobody does where there is unemployment, because it's cheaper to do it in China as the base and subcomponents are already there... (there's also unemployment)

Trap of deindustrialization runs deep.
Does anybody know an approach for downsampling time series when you need to compare two downsampled series? Let's say:

1) You measure millions of (time, count) events, covering 24hrs.

2) You downsample this somehow to save space.

3) You start measuring (time, count) events again, covering 7 hours. You expect the data to match up with the previous measurements, and you'd like to plot differences.

Is there a way to trim the downsampled 24hr set so that it matches the downsampled 7hr set?

Motivation: https://github.com/a-b-street/abstreet/issues/85
Hey, thanks for the feedback! We don't claim 100% SLA, as you said, it's impossible. I already replied to this a few times in this thread.

I think the same can be said on every other API company, including Stripe, Sendgrid, Twilio and etc. If this is a concern for you, you need to take care of that, if it's not a concern for you, then Diahook is not any different.

Anyhow, we take of other things other than just deliverability. We sign the webhooks for you to prevent SSRF, we implemented a retry logic, we have monitoring on all of these, and all of the other things I mentioned elsewhere.

I mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, I don't see how this can be a library. It's a standalone service that needs to be run and monitored, needs to scale with your usage, and you need to make sure it doesn't hang, the queue doesn't get too long, and etc. I actually say it in the post, webhooks aren't as simple as they seem.
I have a theory about that. I think it's weather.

California has such a mild climate, that you can build a house out of ticky-tacky, skip the insulation, and people won't care because they have a lemon tree growing in their yard.

Nowadays code won't allow you to skip insulation (or solar), but with earthquakes and high land prices you still aren't getting stone or brick homes.
It's about trust. If someone is trying to find out what I'm doing, I'm going to hide what I am doing because they are acting suspicious. The more asymmetric the power balance, the less trust can exist.

A less biological, more modern concern, is that a potentially super-intelligent actor (e.g. an ML team dedicated to finding human weakness and exploiting it, like marketing depts do) could find out things about me that even I didn't know and use it against me.

In the modern world complete paranoia and distrust in is the only strategy with guaranteed sucess which respects our drive to survive. Mass-manipulation of elections is a symptom of the disease.
But then: who pays for the infrstructure? For the people who does the administration of those standards?

It's not that the realtor takes no money for the apartment because you do the administration for standards.

Just take a closer look at the business model of the IETF. The IETF receives about $6 Million this year doing the administration from the ISOC. The ISOC members define what "standards" are becoming standards, or should I say "dictates".