skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> is likely to cause viewers who think "Yikes, I sure wish I could afford to drop everything go swimming every day" to respond with resentment

Really? I doubt given the choice that many people would choose to dedicate a year to daily cold water swimming and filmmaking.

And we have no idea about the financial arrangements. Maybe he pitched the idea and got an advance. And we don’t know if he was consulting on the side.

Resentment probably says more about the viewer than the filmmaker. At that point you might just as well resent capitalism.

> The "goal" is to craft a more resonant/engaging story

The privilege exists wether it’s acknowledged or not. I don’t need all my characters to be fully self-aware or without flaws to find them engaging. But we know very little of his life story. All we see is a small glimpse into the fact that he’s burnt out.

> I think you need to assess why you have assumed I have some sort of agenda

I didn’t assume you had an agenda. Why did you assume that? I meant “what’s the goal” as in “what’s the point”, like “why is that important to you”.
> We already went through this with Microsoft in the past but suddenly it's different?

What happened was that the DOJ did everything they could to get Microsoft broken up. They got pretty much the entire country on their side, and during the trials they extracted some hilarious quotes from Microsoft and Bill Gates, like arguing about the definition of the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email. Details emerged about their "Embrace-Extend-Extinguish" policy and their plans to try and bulldoze the free software movement.

Popular perception of Bill Gates and Microsoft at that time sunk to an all-time low [0], picturing Gates as a greedy global capitalist, and Microsoft as a cartoonishly evil company. There was no small fix, the only option left was to to shatter Microsoft into multiple pieces, the way Bell Labs had gone. That's what the final ruling said.

Then George W. Bush comes in, clears out basically the entirety of the DOJ, guts them to a fifth of their size, and tells them "never do that again". The case then went to appeal, where it was reduced from a mandatory break-up to a small fine.

The DOJ never went after big tech again. Bill Gates resigned as CEO, and decided to go into philanthropy to clear their image, like many capitalists do.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE
Many institutions are exposed.

Most university loans are federally backed. All home loans are understood to be federally backed since '08 and most low income home loans are officially federally insured as well.

US Treasury bonds which make up a significant portion of pensions and corporate debt are essentially federally insured as well since it is know that the Fed will simply print the dollars needed to cover those debts.

So far higher education, home ownership, pensions, and corporate debt; and those are just the financial exposure. There is not a single financial instrument that doesn't in some way depend on these financial bases working properly other than crypto and perhaps some commodities.
Let's say you're throwing a piece of paper into the trash can from a short distance. Suppose you can successfully throw the paper in the trash 100% of the time. You move your hand. Your hand moves the paper. Gravity pulls the paper down. It collides with the trashcan. It's just a bunch of physical objects exerting forces upon one another.

Now, suppose you keep throwing, but somebody has opened a window, so now there's an occasionally gust of wind, which moves the paper in unexpected ways while the paper is in the air. Now you no longer hit 100% of your throws. Sometimes the paper lands in the trashcan, sometimes you miss. Regardless, the paper is still only affected by physical forces: your hand, gravity, wind.

Now, suppose you've been really unlucky the past few throws: you have missed 5 throws in a row because of the darn wind. Does it make you more likely to win the next throw, because you are "due" a win? Of course not, because the wind doesn't know or care about your paper throwing hobby. The wind does what it does, regardless of how many of your throws landed in the trashcan. If anything, missing 5 throws in a row makes it _less_ likely to land the next shot, because it may indicate conditions unfavorable to throwing (strong wind, loss of confidence, etc.)

Now, the coin flipping experiment with the weighted coin obeys the same physical laws as the paper tossing experiment. It's just a physical object that's affected by forces from your hand, gravity, air, etc. If you throw 6 heads in a row, there's no magic that somehow alters the coin's path in the air on the 7th toss to make it come down tails. The universe doesn't care about our little games.
The fact that your previous 6 flips were all heads was an unlikely outcome, but the coin has no recollection of what just happened and doesn't "care" about the past when you flip it again. The maths term for this is to say that each coin toss is "independent." I would not bet that you'd get another 6 heads in a row, but I would bet that the next coin flip will be heads.
I consider Elon to be a troll, who's messing with people. He's named his CFO "Master of Coin".
I was surprised to discover that FTP (or SFTP) is not reliable. A couple of years ago, I discovered that there were mis-matches between files sent to a remote SFTP server using Perl’s `Net::SFTP` and the checksum that was sent after the complete set had been transmitted. The uploaded files were a few bytes smaller than they should have been.

I didn’t have the time/resources for a deep dive to determine the root cause of the problem so my work-around at the time was to use `stat` to compare file sizes of the local and uploaded file. If they didn’t match, the file was simply re-transmitted – and it always worked the second time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, tinygo was originally intended for embedded, so the good news is that many significant wasm binary size optimizations are still to come, I think.

Today, there are ways to get the binary smaller, but they involve avoiding certain libraries or preferring certain implementations of common libraries over others.

It’s definitely an art that requires conscientious practice these days. A run of the mill go application will not compile down to a tiny wasm with tinygo, without refactoring.

But it’s possible. Like I said, it’s on the outskirts, not downtown. Still within reach at least.
Thanks for the share. Great list that.
That's quite interesting. That's the kind of information that should be provided to high school freshmen.
I don't see the problem. The Netherlands subsidizes sex for disabled people. Making a basic human need into some sort of taboo fetish as too many countries do goes against human nature. The French and Japanese I think have it about right.
It actually holds up really well. Not long, and easy to read. It's been a while since I read it, but I remember being surprised at its simplicity.
You expect 60% of your flips to be heads at the outset. Let's say you flipped it a bunch and you're running at some rate.

How could the past flips of the coin possibly influence the flips you get in the future? The coin hasn't changed, the surrounding area hasn't changed, why would the coin suddenly have a different chance of turning up heads on your next flip? There's no probability god that mucks with random chance to make sure 'runs' are balanced overall. Every coin flip is independent, which means all the coin flips are also independent of the past coin flips.

If you've "had 60%", that means you've had an unlikely run of heads. Let's say the last 6 flips were 5 heads and a tail, a slightly unlikely outcome (3 in 16, I think). What physical force is acting on the coin to make it less likely to be heads, in the future? Why wouldn't it still have a 60% chance of coming up heads on the next flip?
I don't own any apple devices. I'd support movements to get Apple to be more open to allowing the apps you mentioned, excluding fortnite, onto their platform through alternative means. However, epic seems to be dominating the discussion and they are a bad actor acting in bad faith who peddle digital crack to children fleecing their parents. If we can disambiguate between useful apps, or apps that aren't designed to vacuum money out of children and the flaws with apples model that'd be great.

To say that you can just install lineage is disingenuous. I've never had an android phone that allowed custom ROMs at launch so my argument stands against these phone manufacturers as much as they do against Apple.

Simply, my perspective is that people are going too hard on apple and not hard enough on Google. They both need to be broken up and forced to allow more programs on the products they sell. Epic is tainting the argument and trying to disingenuously spin their self interests as a benefit for consumers.
> I’ve heard this many times but do not know enough to say how big of a problem it is ecologically.

https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/hisc/info/invasive-species-profiles/...
Sorry, I should've rephrased to say "you're being assessed as carrying yourself incorrectly or being unable to perform..."

Meaning, if they're making it to an interview, they might be failing at a personality/conversational portion, and if they're not, it's probably because their resume/achievements do not get them to the next interview phase.
Scott Galloway: unified monetary theory of everything
For anyone actively managing investment portfolios, a deep understanding of the Kelley criterion is very important. For example, it is common practice to use "Half Kelly" to size positions, but most sources only provide a hand-wavey intuitive explanation. Thorp's paper[2] quantifies the benefits for any fraction of the "full Kelly" bet and its implications. In addition to Poundstone's book [1] I strongly recommend Ed Thorp's highly readable paper[2].

[1] Poundstone, William (2005), Fortune's Formula: The Untold Story of the Scientific Betting System That Beat the Casinos and Wall Street,
[2]https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20090320125959/http://www...
Show HN: India's first self-driving electric car built by 20 years old student
One major Lisp thing I've been musing about lately...

C programs don't understand other C programs. Of course the C compiler itself is an exception but in general you don't expect to be able to feed your compiled C .exe another C source file and do anything useful with it. That's crazy talk. Likewise with Java or C++ or Fortran or...

But Lisp programs understand Lisp programs. The compiler is always available even at runtime. And not just the compiler but the lexical analyzer, the parser, and the evaluator too. Output is also easy: You can write a Lisp program that builds Lisp data structures dynamically in memory and then prints them to a text file as Lisp source code. Which you can later read back in and execute as a program.

This kind of thing is so natural in Lisp that it opens up whole new ways to think about code. So why is this useful?

One example: In many programs you need configuration files. So you write configuration files for C programs in XML or yaml or JSON and then use a library function to parse them. Why don't we write configuration files for C programs in C syntax? Well, because C syntax is rather inconvenient for this purpose and because there aren't many C libraries that parse C syntax. Besides, how do you handle includes, compiled libraries, macros, linking, etc? Again, crazy talk.

Not so in Lisp. Lisp syntax is very convenient for configuration files (because it's s-expressions) and the parser is built-in. So you write configuration files in Lisp and parse them at runtime! If you change a setting at runtime, it takes not much more than one line of code to automatically print a new configuration file. Which you can then tweak with a text editor if you so desire.

Another example: Macros. Macros use this same principle but there's no external file involved. Macros change Lisp's syntax so you can write more advanced programming constructs and translate them to basic Lisp at compile time. It's the same idea as Typescript-- Typescript is a Javascript program that converts a type-safe version of Javascript into basic Javascript. But Typescript was a one-off major project--like building a compiler. In Lisp the toolkit for source-to-source translation is built-in and Lisp programmers use it every day.
An interesting article, the now staple monthly "why isn't GoodReads fixed or disrupted?".

And again the answer is the same, which it seems like a lot of people keep avoiding.

There is no viable business model for an alternative to emerge, simple as that. If someone finds a viable business model for a social media network about books, then they got a billion dollar idea.

Although I doubt it, if there is someone like that, I wish them the best of luck.
>Seems more like an issue for parents to manage.

No, it seems like zuckerberg should justify why this needs to exist. There doesn't need to be an Instagram for children. What benefit to children get by having an Instagram. Why should this now be an issue for parents because zuck figured he could monetize children?
Mosquitoes are a major pollinator.
I see a lot of sites grow to thousands in monthly revenue fairly quickly and sell quickly for a minimum of 40x monthly multiple. There are tons of resources and tools out there to build sites that will generate a lot of organic traffic.

It takes a lot of work but if you have the resources practically all of it can be outsourced. What I do is learn as much as I can about each role that is needed, then I hire virtual assistants and train them to do that role. That helps keep costs down since you aren't hiring an "expert".

I'm growing a couple sites right now that I haven't written a single word for or taken a single photograph because I have some awesome writers and a photographer. I've also never posted a single article to Wordpress because, you guessed it, I have an awesome VA that I trained to do that for me. I even have a content manager (the highest paid role) who manages the writers and tells them pretty specifically what to write.
Legacy media is a tough business. GBTC is paying Time in crypto produce shill content.
Erlang makes heavy use of green threads to do this kind of work. You spin up thousands or hundreds of thousands of these. Kernel threads are too heavy weight to do so. And making them lighter weight has tradeoffs too. Erlang makes use of a GC and immutability to make tasks more restart-able; maybe Rust's memory safety features would let you do this sorta kinda, but I don't think it's been really demonstrated fully yet.

Like sure, you could build out some of these features, but they only truly work really well if you extremely commit to the architecture, in my opinion. And the kernel isn't about to do that.
I was surprised that java was missing from CS curriculums at University of Colorado Boulder. Roughly 20ish years ago we moved the data structures class to java at the university I worked at.

There were a lot of complications(students hadn't learned java previously), and it took some understanding of what the JVM was doing, vs c/c++ where pointers made it very clear what was happening. This was also in very early days of java, just at the beginning of JIT and hotspot.
Having rights is orthogonal to receiving funding. Whether it should be the case or not, it is within government power to withhold funding from a public entity if it, say, puts forth journalistic effort to uncover a majority party scandal. And that is unlikely to change in any other nation's context.

As for journalistic integrity: take America as an example again, where integrity has been overridden across the board in favor of party line messaging. Very little journalistic work is now done, public or private. And indeed, again, the public entity would have even less incentive to poke the bees' nest that makes its honey.
> (BTW the public health offices are notoriously overworked during the pandemic, so it's not clear to me if they'd even manage to do anything with this data).

Anecdotally most of them are completely overwhelmed because of the currently fairly high case numbers and effective contact tracing does not really happen anymore. Also they mostly live in the technological stone age so they have a hard time scaling it up [1].

[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-health-care-tackling-covid-with...
To be fair, as a participant in psychology experiments I go in aware that it's plausible, even likely that I am being misled about what's really going on. That's even necessary in some experiments. Maybe I'm not technically lied to but if deliberately engineering a false impression is the goal, psychologists are the people to do it in a controlled experiment. The experimenters aren't (ethically) allowed to cause you harm, and they'll probably tell you exactly what was really going on afterwards at least if you ask, but during the experiment everything is potentially suspect. Maybe the task you're focused on was just a distraction and they really care whether you notice the clocks in the room are running too fast so that "five minutes" to do the task is really only 250 seconds - but equally maybe the apparent "time pressure" to complete the task is the distraction and they really care whether you lie about completing it properly given an opportunity to cheat.

So if the experimenter in a psych experiment tells me the coin is biased 60% heads, I don't consider that the same way I would if the friend I play board games with says it.

As a result chances are my first few dozen bets are confirming this unusual claim about the world. Biased coins are hard to make, is this coin really biased? Maybe I try fifty bets in rapid succession, $1 on heads each time. Apparently that's expected to take about five minutes of my half an hour, and before that's done I won't feel comfortable even assuming it's really 60% heads.

And at the end of those five minutes on average I turn $25 into $35 and feel comfortable it's really 60% heads or that I can't tell what's wrong.

Now, why gamble on tails? Well like I said, Psychologists mislead you intentionally during experimentation. Maybe the experimenter tells you it's 60% likely to be Heads. If the gamer told me that, I believe it's 40% likely to be Tails because that's logical, but when an experimenter tells me that, I wonder if it's also 60% likely to be Tails if I bet on Tails, and I might be tempted to check.
It's the same if you ask "Please cancel kids being silly". Kids will always find bad things to do.
That article is from 2015. I would not interpret that as writ.
This is cool. Is there an ML component, or is everything hand curated?
> The argument for patents is simple and clear: the alternative is broader use of trade secrets.

You forget “Benefit from state power to enforce it.” It is a subsidy from the taxpayer to private corporations, even if the patent holders participate a good share: lawyer fees at their expense, but judge salaries aren’t, and it keeps even the supreme courts busy - far from negligible. Guaranteeing patent owners that their implementation will never be used anywhere, and that the state offers this guarantee, is quite a nice gift, which could benefit everyone if people from all walks of life held patents.

If say, patents are mostly held by major corporations, then it is a subsidy from all taxpayers. Whereas trade secrets do not benefit from public enforcement. It is ok to protect everyone’s things because everyone has some, but the state still forbids holding a million dollars on the street because it would be too costly to protect. So we can say no to protecting virtual things when they are too costly for the public and when it distorts the market in favour of big corporations.
Did they know that it was biased towards heads? With only a 60-40 split I probably wouldn't notice it unless I was actually keeping track, which could take a while. A 6-4 split on 10 tosses doesn't tell you anything. If you told me it was a fair coin and I thought the experiment was about something else, it might take a very long time before it occurred to me to test the hypothesis that the coin wasn't fair.

If they knew it was biased... I'm sure there's an optimal strategy, but a simple strategy would be "bet half of what you have on heads every time". Any idea how much worse that is than the optimal strategy?
would you consider a book reviews website a profitable niche? seems like it'd be a gamble in terms of effort vs reward given that most books are pretty inexpensive
You must know that breaking down and verifying someone else's analysis is more time consuming than writing your own. Just like dealing with a bug in another person's code.

Given them the benefit of doubt that Go team is cautious about binary size. People have dug in to this. Sure, they could do a better job giving some breakdown, but claiming that they are careless deserves that kind of response.

Given a choice of their time, I would rather have them work on some other Go language problem. Most low hanging fruit has already been had. See [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://dave.cheney.net/2020/05/09/ensmallening-go-binaries-...

[2] https://dave.cheney.net/tag/performance

[3] https://dave.cheney.net/2016/04/02/go-1-7-toolchain-improvem...
That sounds like a super fun project.
I read somewhere that all the lethal-mosquito-eaters already also eat the non-lethal kinds, as well as other insects
Coming from a nation whose borders shifted all the time I definitely dont see it like that.
I quickly searched but couldn't find the exact study, but I've read that by adding the past numbers digital signage to roulette tables, casinos experience a significant (I'm thinking it was like 100%+) increase in wagers when people believe that a color is "due" simply from not understanding independent vs dependent events. Humans love to look for patterns, even when there isn't any real _meaning_ behind them.
I don't understand this comment at all. Let me clarify my point slightly. The quantum walk is a unitary operator acting on a Hilbert space H consisting of two parts H_spin and H_space

H = H_spin ⊗ H_space

In this example H_spin is just a qubit and H_space is L^2(Z).

In my example above the |0><0| and |1><1| are projectors acting on the spin degree of freedom (the first Hilbert space) and the sum_i |i><i+1| and sum_i |i><i-1| are shift operators acting on the space degree of freedom (the second Hilbert space).

If you take the unitary I wrote and do the iteration

U (H⊗I) U (H⊗I) U (H⊗I) U (H⊗I) ... U (H⊗I)

where U (H⊗I) is the Hadamard operator on the spin Hilbert space and I is the identity on the space part you get exactly the quantum walk that gives the "fangs" picture.
> C# is perhaps much better, but has stronger proprietary ties and vendor lock-in

What vendor lock-in? The whole thing is open source from the compiler to the runtime - https://github.com/dotnet

If anything Java is more locked in as the most popular and 'official' runtime/devkit (Oracle Java/JDK) is completely closed source.
Shout-out to the audio/mixing engineers who handle NPR Tiny Desk concerts. Every single concert I've ever listened to sounds phenomenal: well-mixed with a surprising clarity and very little noise, considering the venue and how crowded it gets "on stage" with larger ensembles.
Indeed! Here is my collection of FFmpeg CLIs: https://github.com/kdeldycke/kevin-deldycke-blog/blob/main/c...
Yeah, agreed. The story in PoE1 made way more sense in that sense. The game itself is just so amazing than I forgive a lot of the plot-related holes.

The worst part is that it's clearly set up for a third which will almost certainly never happen.

The de-protagonising is definitely a concern also, but I file that under the "Empire Strikes Back" approach (i.e the second can end on a cliffhanger (sortof)) which will all be resolved by the third.