skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If they wrote that he was being vindictive and spiteful, then I don’t think it quite qualifies as armchair psychology on GP’s part
This belief, that US manufacturing is doing better than ever and job losses are due to automation is false and based on statistics that overvalue microprocessors. Here’s a great paper on that with an excerpt from the introduction.

http://www.upjohn.org/MEG/papers/Measuring%20Mfg_Houseman_Ba...

First, it is generally unknown that the robust growth in real GDP in the manufacturing sector is largely driven by one industry: computers and electronic products. For most of manufacturing, real output growth has been relatively weak or negative.5 When the computer and electronic products industry is excluded, real GDP growth in manufacturing falls by two- thirds between 1997 and 2007, the decade leading up to the Great Recession. In 2011, without computer-related industries, real GDP in the manufacturing sector was actually lower than in 2000. The computer and electronic products industry similarly drives real manufacturing output growth in most U.S. states. Real manufacturing GDP growth between 1997 and 2007 falls by more than half in a majority of states and by at least 25 percent in all but 10 states.
Furthermore, the extraordinary growth in real value added and accompanying productivity growth in the computer and electronic products industry results largely from prices for two sets of products: computers and semiconductors that, when adjusted for quality improvements, are falling rapidly. These quality improvements, in turn, largely reflect better design and increases in the density of electronic circuitry. While changes in manufacturing processes are necessary to produce these improved designs, the production processes in computer and semiconductors have been automated for many decades. Thus, the high growth in real value added and productivity in the computer and semiconductor product segments, and by extension the manufacturing sector, reflects, to a large degree, product improvements from research and development rather than automation of the production process. Unlike productivity resulting from automation, which involves the substitution of capital for labor, productivity arising from improvements to product design and production processes does not, in and of itself, cause job losses.

Ironically, the extraordinary growth in real value added and productivity in the computer and semiconductor industries does not signal the competitiveness of the United States as a manufacturing location for these products. Drawing on new market research data, we provide evidence of the shift in the location of computer and semiconductor manufacturing to Asia. Few personal computers and servers are assembled in the United States today, and consequently the United States runs a large trade deficit for these products. The United States retains a significant presence in semiconductor wafer fabrication, but over the last decade manufacturing capacity has expanded much more rapidly in Asia, and, as a result, U.S. market share has declined rapidly. Although many of the computers and semiconductors produced overseas are still designed in the United States, the shift in the location of production has important implications for the number and types of U.S. jobs.
Perhaps you should use your experience to shift focus from writing/managing code to something completely different that leverages that experience: product management, marketing, sales and user engagement, or even something like CEO or COO.

If you don’t want to be an employee then you need to build a team.
Delete cookies?
> But this can't be a healthy way for a society to operate: to have the rich get richer and transfer their money to the poor so they don't get poorer.

I mean, it's literally the point of a welfare state to do this, because it's a whole lot more unhealthy to just let the poor get poorer or try to fix incomes

Manufacturing jobs shifting overseas has virtually nothing to do with monetary policy and everything to do with the fact that Asia has got much better at manufacturing and has relatively cheap labour. Similar manufacturing shifts happened in other Western nations whose currencies are not reserve currencies
(Sure, in theory the US could have countered trade imbalances by aggressively devaluing their currency to make buying things from overseas expensive, but less drastic approaches to promoting manufacturing exist...)
The problem with this analysis and others like it is it makes atemporal distributional claims as if they were temporal. And conflates unrelated measures.

Eg., consider the claim that "college graduate salaries have stagnated" -- this is true, but in 1990 c., 10% were graduates; today that's c. 55%.

So what's happening is this artificial grouping "college graduate" has massively expanded, whilst maintaining its average. That's a remarkable increase in wealth for the 40% "left out" three decades ago.

Consider the claim about "productivity". The reason production has increases at a greater pace than wages is automation. No one is "missing out" on the benefits from automation; they correspond to massive increases in disposable income and time, as we benefit from those tools/products.

> there absolutely is a vast and growing disparity between the lifestyles of the <50% and those of the >10%

This is true only due to the extraordinary efficacy of capitalism. As in all of these cases it's the exceptional increases in abundance which have lead to this apparent "disparity in lifestyle". And if you chose different percentiles it would be false.

The bottom 10% have seen their disposable income double in a time when the top 50% have seen it treble. Thus an apparent "gap".

This is the duplicitous information missing from all these atemporal comparisons.

Let's be clear. The top 1% in 1950 lived more differently than the rest of society in 1950; more so than the top 1% do of society today. Today the top 1% live much more like the top 10% who live much more like the top 50%, and so on.

Much of the apparent difference is created from two effects, (1) the media and social media show the lifestyles of the very rich as if they were very common; and (2) people feel "the local rate of change of growth".

The vast majority of this alleged "problem with inequality" is just that local rates of change of growth have been unstable since the financial crisis in 2008. Despite gains for everyone since then, people do not "remember the macroeconomy of 2008" and compare it today.

Rather, all they see is the day-to-day negative news created by accelerating and decelerating growth. Even when growth is positive, if it is decelerating, people think the sky is falling.

Nothing about the contemporary economy is much different, in distributional terms, than it was in 2006. Where then was this hysteria?
How can a layperson believe anything these respected publications publish? It seems everything is twisted or manipulated - super annoying. It is time the media took a serious look at themselves.
For that matter, deep South and Cajun accents can be tough for a Northerner. I worked in New Orleans for a few years. A friend of mine from undergrad was also working there. He was from Jacksonville in northern Florida, so less deep South language-wise than other places. I remember telling him once I sometimes really had trouble understanding people. His response was that he did too.
In your opinion is what Elon said in the tweet by definition a threat?
Source for the above: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...
Why exactly is it a problem if people are CHOOSING to do something on their own accord? Other than the political gestapo having to swallow their pride, I don't see freedom of career choice as a negative.
So you think the data is only relevant to the hypothesis you decided it's relevant for before you collect it?

"Have you seen the fire sir?"
"I have only seen smoke"
"But have you seen the fire?"
"It's irrelevant because I was only looking for smoke!".

I mean I know they teach it in naive introductory experiment design in some soft science departments but c'mon it's neither smart nor correct. If you need a separate experiments for everything because otherwise you will run into "one of the 100 hypothesis is bound to be correct" problem then your priors are too weak, you're relying on getting lucky anyway and just end up discarding useful datapoints.

If it's 5 out of 100 hypothesis fitting your data or 5 hypothesis out of 100 experiments passing "statistical significance" check doesn't matter at the end of the day. Both lead to shaky conclusions.
The data being relevant depends on the experiment design (how it's collected). It doesn't depend on what you thought it's relevant for beforehand.
My suggestion, especially to those who strongly advocate such surveillance, is that those who support or implement it should be under an even greater measure of surveillance. A live feed of their activities 24/7 is necessary due to their participation and effecting in a tentative, unprecedented surveillance state where the watched would be extremely foolish not to keep an unblinking eye on the watchers, who bear the brunt of responsibility. It should not stop there either; any form of personal information not legally protected should be made readily and easily available. That which is protected, should be lobbied to be public.
What did you do to get rid of your accent?
I wondered why they didn't report results for black versus white. Interestingly, they didn't run that:

"After long and thoughtful consideration, we discarded the idea of assigning
African-American names to our fictitious entrepreneurs. First, there has been a concern about the
ability to disentangle race and socioeconomic perception by using distinctly African-American names
(Fryer and Levitt (2004)). Second, and most importantly, African-American entrepreneurs are woefully
underrepresented in high-impact entrepreneurship (less than 1%, see Gompers and Wang (2017)). This poses a substantial challenge for our setup, because even names that are disproportionately likely to be African-American in the general population (such as “Martin Jackson”) may not be perceived as African-American by investors in this context."

It's an interesting point, are there any unambiguously African-American names? I wouldn't have guessed Martin Jackson was African-American, but I'm English.
Register Allocation by Puzzle Solving (2016) [pdf]
I remember being berated for uncontrollably smiling as a fear response. In one sense, it was a good lesson - smiling at people who are angry with you can make them angrier. But it was also a lesson in abject helplessness: interacting with people who have power over you will result in arbitrary, potentially unbounded pain and your best efforts to “play the game” will fail. Internalizing that lesson has done me very little good!
Can you recommend some sources that will help a layperson understand this a bit more?
You'd be surprised how often the people who are supposed to be good at ads aren't. Organizational inefficiency explains a lot of it: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...
I used to debug parsing process for VHDL grammar (which is ambiguous on lexem level) with parsing combinators and Haskell REPL.

Whenever my "compiler" found a syntax error in test suite, I was able to load part of source around error and investigate where my parser's error or omission is by running parser of smaller and smaller part of grammar on smaller and smaller parts of input.

It was 12 years ago.

And yes, it is fun. ;)
They only did Asian versus white.
Indeed, reading further into the article they seem to be trying to answer, “At what stage in the funding pipeline do VCs become biased against women?”.

It’s interesting that they don’t entertain the possibility that the gap might be caused by something other than bias (at least so far... I’m only 6 pages in). For example:

> Combating bias requires understanding how and where it manifests. Combating bias requires understanding how and where it manifests. In light of the substantial gender imbalance in real-world investments, our results suggest a larger-than-expected bias against female entrepreneurs in other settings.

They seem to be trying to combat bias without having even established that bias is the cause. Indeed, they take the statistically significant discrimination in favor of women in the initial stage as evidence that there must be even more bias against women in later stages.

Given that they haven’t cited any research that would explain why it must be bias and not some other factor, I wonder why the paper is written with this assumption? Perhaps the authors felt it would be poorly received if it so much as kept an open mind about other possible causes? Or maybe this is just common knowledge in the field?
Life expectancy is down in the US pre-covid, driven in part by the opioid epidemic and in part by poor health/obesity,both of which are associated with poverty. Involuntary servitude is alive and well in US prisons which incidentally don't have a ton of high income people.

So I don't think it's fair to say that life is necessarily getting better in the US for low income people.
Because it’s somewhat artificial given Hollywood’s propaganda that glamorizes triviality, laziness and starlet glamour, etc.
Canada’s CF-105 Arrow Interceptor Is the Cold War Legend That Refuses to Die
> abolishment of oppression (slavery, debtor's prisons, serfdom, involuntary servitude, military conscription in many countries)

On quite a few of these, I think you might be shocked to discover how much of the apparent gain is definitional rather than material.
I also think that the average reader of such an article can make the inference themselves.
Fidelity has a good HSA plan for individuals. $0 for almost everything (some investments have commissions).

(No connection other than as a client.)
We have prior evidence for both lab escapes and gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses (in Wuhan, no less).

Assigning weights to these circumstances can be done arbitrarily, to the point where the lab escape hypothesis becomes the most plausible one:

https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COV...
The Units library does exactly what you describe.
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/units.htm
Octave has strings and they are checked at runtime:

octave> strtrim(" hello world ")
ans = hello world
octave> strtrim([1,2,3,4])
error: strtrim: S argument must be a string or cellstring
error: called from
strtrim at line 79 column 5
It was implied in the parent context that the fact coal is "naturally" radioactive somehow matters to the fact that it is.

Asbestos is naturally occurring and incredibly dangerous. "natural" has nothing to do with risk to human life.
The book "A River Runs Through It", which is three short stories, one of which is also called "A River Runs Through It" is very good too. I read it once over 10 years ago and I still think about it from time to time.
Nobody prevents Indian women to apply for H1B jobs in US.

> Its counter-productive to institute gender and diversity requirements at (tech) companies, where the core problem is at the fundamental immigration level.

I don't see anything counterproductive in blind recruitment. It's a normal practice, along with randomizing resume review in a few big companies in places like India, or China exactly because the issue of nepotism, bigotry, casteism, classism, and people slipping their university fraternity members into the company is so severe there.
Um... I was hoping the report was for a layperson... maybe I need to recalibrate a bit...! The https://wid.world website is quite a good start. And there's Piketty's book, it's a slog but is aimed at the intelligent general reader. I haven't read his new one.
> Nobody ever dismissed it

There was at least one paper calling it "natural selection", and some folks who read it agreed that it ruled out laboratory accidents:

"The high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

https://twitter.com/ehundman/status/1246597925288816640

https://www.newsweek.com/claim-that-coronavirus-came-lab-chi...
They absolutely did. See this NYT article. Ben Thompson of Stratechery discussed it in an excellent article linked below. Key excerpt from the NYT piece. Doesn’t get more official than that:

> Hoaxes, lies and collective delusions aren’t new, but the extent to which millions of Americans have embraced them may be. Thirty percent of Republicans have a favorable view of QAnon, according to a recent YouGov poll. According to other polls, more than 70 percent of Republicans believe Mr. Trump legitimately won the election, and 40 percent of Americans — including plenty of Democrats — believe the baseless theory that COVID-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/technology/biden-reality-...

https://stratechery.com/2021/mistakes-memes-and-foreign-grou...
And vice versa. What has enriched English is much of Scandinavian origin[1][2].

An recent example in Sweden involved a politician protesting about anglicanisation of the Swedish language. He wanted to replace some widely used English term with a Swedish equivalent. Tracing the origin easily revealed it was instead the English who are using a Scandinavian expression. Which Swedes are now finding convenient.

[1] English is a Scandinavian language (https://partner.sciencenorway.no/forskningno-history-languag...)

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Old...
>Run-on sentence are discouraged.

Sort of. This is a somewhat modern thing. There is various punctuation--parentheses, em dashes, and semicolons in particular--that let you construct fairly long and complex sentences. But the modern style, certainly for basic communication, is to mostly break things up with periods. (To the point where it's sometimes OK if the segments are sentence fragments.)
Thanks!! :)
Honestly the main reason I went with a PWA rather than something like a Flutter app was because I don't want to be held hostage by the app stores and have to pay them 30% just for making apps for their users!
I am going to transfer this to the individual:

Working with the default hypothesis of "everybody is out there to destroy me" is not only a sign of paranoia, but in most cases also wrong (because in reality not everything is about you and accidents happen).

So starting with the default hypothesis of malice has the serious downside that you will constantly feel threatened even if looking back there was no rational reason to feel threatened. This is not only incredibly exhausting, it also will lead to a "crying wolf"-type of problem, if the perceived threat rarely turns out to be one. And when something really dangerous is going to happen, you might not be able to react in a rational way (because all your previous reactions were irrational ones).

What I think is important to rationally tackle that question is also to factor in confidence. I will always assume innocence (just because it makes me a happier person), but that doesn't mean my confidence in the other person being innocent is always big. If there are signs that other person is acting in malice, my confidence that they are innocent will shrink. Once that confidence crosses a certain threshold I will assume malice. This can also happen within a split second, so I don't see how this would not be the rational way to do this. If you go get bread at the bakery, you wouldn't assume the baker wants to poison you per default right? So you would assume their innocence unless there are clear indicators they are a baker that poisons their customers. The other way around, if a man jumps out of a bush in a dark alley and comes at you with a knife, you wouldn't assume they are innocent, because there are really strong indicators they are not.

So what is irrational is to have incredible high confidence in either innocence or malice when in fact you are in a situation with lack of evidence to either direction. And this is the case in this situation.
Some people want to sell their solution, so obviously they are looking for a problem.

There is a lot of opportunity in the diversity industry, even though things like diversity training do not seem to have any effect, not even shielding companies from lawsuits.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-we-work/201203/d...
We need a follow up book, 2084. Maybe the vid screens are permanently strapped to your face and actively monitor you and act as an intermediary between you and your environment in order to prevent any anti party information from getting in.
It's a credible theory I think, but it doesn't help that various conspiracy nuts have been fabricating fake evidence for it, exaggerating or misrepresenting facts and clouding it with a fog of crazy. I have no idea if the lab escape hypothesis is true, there's a reasonable chance that's what happened, but it's also true that the crackpot brigade is out on this one in force and that really isn't helping.
> If the results contradict your hypothesis, it doesn't mean the opposite of your hypothesis is true, simply that your hypothrsis was false, and that's ok.

I don’t think the parent was arguing that the paper should claim the opposite is true, but perhaps recognizing that the findings support the opposite hypothesis, concretely that men and non-Asians are discriminated against in early stage investment pitches. Of course, a perfectly valid response might be, “that is unconventional in these kinds of papers” (I don’t know).
These type of studies were performed after years and years of efforts to push for a more diversified work force. I’d be interested if their is a way to do a comparison with years prior and see if and when a shift started happening.
I have the same issue! When anyone asks me about something I haven't done (or should have done and did), I feel like they won't believe me anyway and go into a over-defensive/explanatory mode, basically acting like a culprit.
Consumer Reports made these a major factor in rating driver-assist systems, undermining Tesla’s Autopilot rating because it doesn’t actively look at the driver.
Sure, if you set the averaging horizon to much longer than 40 years the problems of the last 40 years wash out, but that doesn't mean they are small.

People can tell when they have things worse off than their parents. The social contract will erode in ways that people don't expect. In particular, the tidy arrangement where your retirement is in investments, so if you hurt the capital gains of the wealthy you hurt yourself, falls apart if most people are too poor for retirement savings. Suddenly, in a democracy, our retirement accounts (and the poorly hidden accounts of the actual wealthy) become up for grabs. That situation is developing quickly enough that we may well see the breaking point in our lifetime.
There are aluminum batteries you know. There are practical reasons they're not in wide use, but they have incredible energy density, one of the highest of any battery.
Did you mean BitClout, on your last paragraph?
Understanding Linux File Timestamps: mtime, ctime, and atime
Entrepreneur Raised $100M to Transform How Your Business Delivers Revenue
I don't see why my personal opinion matters, but even if it does I don't have enough context to understand his tweet. He said:

"Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare."

What does he mean by "giving up stock options"?
Sure, that's not optimal way of heating with electricity. That's just a way of utilizing heat from computing.