skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I find, after creating software for 14 years, that 1) clients don't know what they want (..)

I've logged in just to point out this fact, and to call out how the author of this anti-user stories rant is completely clueless and out of touch with the reality of developing software.

The whole point of user stories is to not only specify an objective target but also a concrete definition of done, in spite of the clients' inherent ambiguity and flexibility, and very often also contradicting notions inherent to their asks.

User stories report intent and context along with the goal. User stories adds information that helps developers help the customer. If you remove the out-of-band information, you are creating a process that is a throwback to the bad old days of waterfall, where saying that it's the client's fault that the devs built the exact opposite of what the clients were expecting.

All which was old is eventually new again, and in the case of "linear method" the novelty is not having a clue of what you need to do to meet customer's demands and expectations.
I find tracking abhorrent.

However, the more I read about FLoC, the more I want to also read a blog post that shows just how finely I have been identified. The practice of the theory. Like the browser fingerprinting sites we all know and love.

Is there a site out there that shows how poorly this new tech protects my privacy?

It would be great to show to people.
What would be the criteria for saying 'eth2 works' in your view ?
Isn't this still a form of control? Like the idea here is to psychologically manipulate people to have different values? What happens when some people don't respond to this proposed conditioning?

I would like to believe I have somewhat of a unique perspective on this. I was raised with the exact cultural values you talk about, and I ultimately chose to reject them (at least partially).

However, I do want to acknowledge what seems like a destabilizing, negative effect "hookup culture" or the like has had on society. Dating apps are part of this whole issue as well.

My own position is that I want to be in a committed relationship but never married. So I guess you could peg me as a serial monogamist.
Getting closer to infinity every day.
Bitcoin is already terrible and it’s structured to get ever more terrible.
Your dream and Mr Robots dream died along the way.

When all debt was erased everyone filled with panic flocked to the evilcorp coin.

The system exists today for a reason. Discover and elimate each reason to change the system.
The key difference is that banks aren't ponzi schemes. They use your money to actually do things in the world to make a profit, and give you a cut in the form of interest. A ponzi scheme doesn't make any new money, it only redistributes money among its members. This is the fundamental reason they can never be sustainable, and require the majority of those invested to be relatively new to the scheme.
Typo in headline?
The details of that probably haven't been settled by supreme court rulings, but the basic principle is that when a corporate entity says something, what's actually happening is that a person in the company is saying this thing, on the behalf of other people in that company, on behalf of, etc until you get to the shareholders. It's people all the way down, and people have rights. The same could be said of the government.

Note I'm a British Citizen, but the same basic legal principles apply over here, and have done for hundreds of years. I know there's a widely held conspiracy theory that this is all new, but jurists and legal scholars have been discussing and applying these principles for a very long time.
Looks like I overstated it a bit. Here's some detail on the changes made in 1970 and later that decade: https://www.congressionalresearch.org/LRA.html
This is the best (and also approachable well-written) book on the topic that I've found: https://bitcoinbook.cs.princeton.edu/

My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that POW is computationally expensive because that large investment of computation is what creates a chain of successive blocks (the blockchain). This prevents someone from rewriting history of transactions on the public chain (which would allow them to 'double-spend' or to take their money back).

POW currencies are guaranteed to prevent this kind of abuse unless any individual entity is able to get more than 51%. There's an incentive in addition to this because corrupting the integrity of the network would also devalue the currency. Larger networks (like BTC) are harder to do a hostile take over of because it's harder to get that much compute (though mining centralization is a risk).

POS relies on some variant individuals 'staking' coins to enable transactions, this means putting them up in escrow sort of in the network (they are paid small fees for this based on how much they stake) and if abuse is attempted, the system takes those staked coins away. There are no mathematical guarantees outside of this incentive.

POS is not as standardized across different currencies so I may be missing important bits in my understanding.
> All these technologies give us new capabilities and allow us to more precisely understand and shape the world.

Allow who to shape the world, exactly? Because it's not me, and it's probably not you. Technology gives power to those who control it, and control over face-recognition tech, personalized risk-scoring and ad tech is in the best cases behind several layers of bureaucratic abstraction. Our world is being shaped by megacorporations and governments, not those whose lives these technologies have the potential of having the most negative impact on.
Bangladesh, which you've used as an example of good conservative marriage values, forces most young girls into marriage and has some of the highest rates of domestic violence in the world. Excellent example!
And this is exactly why I'm so skeptical of cryptocurrencies in general. There doesn't appear any viable way to make them work as currencies that doesn't either have horrendous externalities, simply replicate what existing currencies already do (often poorly and with many downsides), or often both.

I don't think it's a coincidence that even a decade plus later, the primary use cases for crypto still seem to be grey/black market deals, speculative investments, and pyramid schemes.
It is already live since December 1st, 2020 https://beaconcha.in. The next step is to perform the actual "merge" from PoW to PoS which will happen this year
We used to (indirectly at least) until 1971 when the US went off the gold standard in order to not be bankrupted by the Vietnam war
Other people's risky sexual behaviour can harm you even if you (normally) don't engage in it yourself; it's not like skiing where people can break only their own necks. You can do two things to minimize the harm:

(a) try to reduce the number of people who engage in risky sex—through changing people's views, different upbringing and whatnot;

(b) try to mitigate the consequences of their behaviour—by subsidizing testing for infections and treatment.

Note that there's no dichotomy here.

I don't know if there's a good, reliable way to do (a); also, some people can be against it for ideological reasons. But (b) in the meantime is straightforward to implement and is known to be efficient. Why not implement (b) and make it work it while we are arguing about (a)?

> maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it?

Conservatives should not be stigmatized for supporting (a), this is not prejudice, they can have the view they have on sex. But I don't see a single reason, except prejudice, that can make you go against (b), which is simply practical.
I don’t think the problem here is people aren’t aware that venereal disease is a possible result of unprotected sex. You have provided just as little evidence for your assertion to the contrary.
Thanks for this little tangent, it was pretty informative. what's your opinions on nominated proof of stake?
I largely agree. It's specifically because Bitcoin is perceived to be a place to hide capital from inflation - and the world is comically flooded with capital right now, chasing anything and everything - while all the central banks are busy vaporizing their garbage fiat. Bitcoin is not a currency. It's bizarre that people keep calling it that, years after it became obvious that it's not. If it were a currency, Bitcoin would collapse rapidly toward zero, because it's wildly impractical as a currency.

The Forbes list of world billionaires features 2755 names. They gained $5 trillion in wealth over the past year. Bitcoin is a trivial toy next to the wealth in the world today. A fun little token play thing, a place to hedge a couple of bucks, it goes in the basket.
Ideologically, sure, but practically? Not a chance. Coinbase was instrumental in helping Bitcoin achieve its current stature.
> only domain registrars will be able to dictate what content may stay alive on the internet

Can't/doesn't PeerTube work with IP-addresses directly?
I think the idea is that it discourages certain kinds of consumption, and that's carbon-based consumption. Once upon a time, that could have been construed as a broad-based consumption tax simply because there were no non-carbon alternatives. Today, in 2021, that's not the case. Solar is already the cheapest source of electricity, and the relatively higher price of CO2 emitting energy is already a market-based "consumption tax". A carbon-tax just exacerbates and speeds up what's already happening. That's probably acceptable because time is of the essence as far as the climate goes.
Of the three, Madoff killed no one.

Also of the three, Madoff was a real person, not a fictional character, which is probably where the comparisons start to fall apart.
>The use of AI in the military is exempt, as are systems used by authorities in order to safeguard public security.

Of course.
We are the goo ;) (I want to finish that “goo gatchoo”, musical puns aside, we are what grey goo is capable of and what it ends up looking like).
Money has always been a tool for trading time
Having 2 phones and 2 accounts I just checked.

I opened Whatsapp at xx:00, other phone says "Last seen xx:00". Put phone to airplane mode, and at xx:03 I opened WhatsApp in that mode, then put WA on background (without "killing" it from the task switcher) and I immediately turned off airplane mode.

I checked on the other phone, and it still said "Last seen at xx:00". So, it seems that line is honest, since I was on airplane mode, the network didn't "see" me.
I think you're correct to say that you shouldn't take what experts say as gospel. But every individual's time and resources are limited; if I had to verify the result of everything I read from first principles, I would be doing literally nothing else with my life (no time to eat or sleep, either).

People need to do their best to judge how trustworthy a source is, and make their own decisions, but remain open to conflicting information if their trustworthy sources are later found to be wrong. And people also need to accept that any decision they make based on that information isn't 100% certain.
School has limited influence on kids when compared to parents. If your parents don't see casual sex as a big deal, neither will you. If your mom got pregnant at 14, well, I guess it's not a big deal if you get pregnant at 14 either.
At the end of the day the corporation is still enjoying those rights. The majority chose to ignore the veil and freely pass along citizens rights the to association.
> to algorithms that notice true but politically inconvenient

I don't know that I agree that there exists an algorithm that can determine what is factually true, so I'm not sure I agree that an algorithm can "notice a true thing".

Do you have an example of when an algorithm noticed something that was objectively true but was shut down? Can you explain how the algorithm took notice of the fact that was objectively true (in such a way that all parties agree with the truth of the fact)?

I can't think of a single example of an algorithm determining or taking notice of an objective fact that was rejected in this way. But there are lots of controversies I'm not aware of, so it could have slipped by me.
You can buy gas in a depreciating currency and save in something else, like people have been doing with gold for thousands of years.
I feel the similar. There are innovations out there and things that change the world and improve the way we think and, work and develop together, and there is this world of essentially greed, where we all just want to get out of where we are - because, why? We have to sell someone else the ticket out, to get richer ourselves.

Thankfully, this is a bonafied bubble and in a few months, it'll all tank again.
It isn’t about sex with strangers. It’s about any sex with anyone who isn’t /exclusively/ and /indefinitely/ having sex with only me.
it has been 5 years an ethereum is still a long way form any sort of POS adoption
The most obvious would be small universal systems, although (a) the importance of that is subjective and (b) much of the credit goes to others (e.g. Matthew Cook for proving Rule 110, Alex Smith for the 2,3 Turing Machine)
no it's not, where would you even come up with the idea that it was?
thank you! shared that to a lot of people
In the past, Bitcoin exchanges IMO felt shady. They frequently were run from foreign countries and got away with avoiding Know-Your-Customer banking laws.

Coinbase brought a true sense of legitimacy and trustworthiness to Bitcoin exchanging.
The EFF has https://amifloced.org/ if that helps any.
Done? You fixed inequality? Awesome!

We do collect tax. Not nearly enough. The mega-rich have avoidance options akin to multinational corporations, and we celebrate this status with rich lists and awards?

It's not enough. If we can't pay a public school teacher a competitive wage, they won't be competitive posts, they won't be competed for; we all lose out. Rinse and repeat for every public service helping children and their communities.

And we set this bar, we choose to only afford the cheapest possible options for society's base level. We choose that because we can throw cash at private schools, tutors, summer schools.

I'm not a communist, but I think our tax and social welfare systems need serious help or it's all going to fall apart.
Ask HN: Is $350k CEO salary normal for pre-launch company that's raised $2.2m?
For reference, there's a pre-launch/pre-revenue company on Netcapital that is raising at a $49m valuation. [1]

The founder is receiving a salary of $350,000. [2]

The CEO says this is "very normal." Is this a "very normal" salary?

[1] https://netcapital.com/companies/genesisai

[2] https://netcapital.com/files/7b0a9a34-f7d8-4a33-9b13-1f31af79bc08/genesisai_offering-statement.pdf
The effect seen with these two adenovirus platform vaccines seems to be exactly what this would suggest we should expect too.

Roughly the immune system says "OK, let's attack things this shape" - which is why it's so useful for defending us against a wide variety of viruses - but alas, the shape it's picking in some patients happens to also match Platelet Factor 4, so now they are mounting an immune defence against their own blood clotting mechanism which is bad.

I don't know (perhaps if I read more papers about this I'd find out) whether it is suspected that the immune system makes this bad matching choice based on the spike protein (which we want it to match because of this coronavirus killing millions of people) or the adenovirus (which even if it could replicate in humans, which it can't, basically gives you the common cold so who cares) which is delivering it. If it's the latter, that's showing an advantage to the mRNA vaccines, since they don't need a viral delivery mechanism at all.
Yep! I do that and just hand the URL to friends.
Yes! Nintendo helps us hold on to the yume in our kokoro! Look to the mirai for that hikari at the end of the tunnel!

In other words, I'm sure you have fond memories of playing a bunch of Nintendo videogames, but if you think that to climb out of economic stagnation, we just need to believe in ourselves, that's just a bunch of mealy-mouthed wahoo!
It's weird seeing this argument that green energy is somehow free and infinite energy.

And yet, look at the market for Nvidia and AMD GPUs right now. The miners already know that gamers have been pushed out of the high end GPU market. Supply and demand doesn't go away. People still need electricity for doing things other than mining Bitcoin. All that happens is their electricity rates go up.
did you dismiss this one already? https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/could-bitcoin-solve-oil-...
45 billion market cap is "research phase"? Exactly what would make it move out of "research phase" then?
You've been posting a ton of Show HNs that are not valid Show HNs. Can you please read the rules? https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

In particular, it needs to be (1) your own personal work that you're sharing, and (2) something more than reading material.
The document assumes you have used SQL in anger before and run into it's lack of modularity. If you haven't run into those things then you'll miss the point. But if you have then this looks really interesting.
Currencies don't have market caps, assets have market caps. The fact that people talk about crypto's "market cap" is as clear an indication that it's not and never will be a currency.
> Monogamy, and vanilla sex are essentially risk free

Except you cannot guarantee the other person will actually be monogamous. We saw this with the initial AIDS epidemic in the '80s/'90s, when uber-square supposedly-monogamous (and supposedly heterosexual) individuals turned out to be anything but - to the shock of their official partner.
I don't think Finnish (or any language in a state of diglossia) is the best example here. That is, Finnish is already essentially two separate languages. Written Finnish (kirjakieli) is a somewhat artificial language that was a compromise between different dialects, because at the birth of Finnish literacy there was no longer an "original Finnish" on which to base writing.

Written Finnish is mainly a written thing, and while there is a close correspondence between the orthography and how it would be read aloud, when Finns actually speak they use spoken Finnish (puhekieli), which isn't standardized and varies from region to region.
You can tokenize anything in concept- right now it's just crypto + small number of stocks. It's slowly building out a distributed version of Wall Street. That is the value-add, and it doesn't need to do anything more than that for it to be revolutionary.

Loans in defi are over-collateralized right now meaning there's very little risk for the lenders. This will likely change as distributed identity/credit scores are implemented.

A couple examples of what's to come: https://cointelegraph.com/news/defi-s-critical-missing-piece...
https://medium.com/minaprotocol/snark-powered-defi-teller-bu...
Wolfram Physics Project: A One-Year Celebration and Update
If you enjoyed that, stay tuned for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11108738
There is currently no way to port user profiles between homeservers of matrix. They have it planned, but I don't know the current progress on that.
No credible way to decouple production/consumption from emissions has been found. So no, we do need to start curbing consumption, especially among people in the top wealth quantiles (because they consume the most).
I understand that sucks, but that doesn't really sound like the fault of the device to me. It really sounds like one of those "you're holding it wrong" type of excuses.
> That’s not true. Most speculative investment promise revenues if they succeed.

That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely)

> For your last sentence, why would that be true?

Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the origin of the returns which you are giving to investors.
It appears to be broken on our sites. Generating embed codes for any playlist shows an error for us. To get it working on my site, I had to replace "videoseries" in the URL with "playlist" (no quotes) and then it worked. Really strange issue.
I grew up in a fairly wealthy little town where pretty much nobody was the child of a teen parent. It’s awfully facile, and to my own experience, to pretend the children of such parents are the only people having sex in high school.
Pretty much every sitcom today glorifies casual sex and avoidance of committed relationships. “How I Met Your Mother” for example.
It seems to work for covid trackers app. Can't the same techniques be applied to dating app data ?
It's not some kind of vague consensus, just like it's not some vague consensus that gold coins are worth more than copper coins.
And now it's far lower than it opened. Is there even a point to reporting on IPO secondary markets like this?
Garry Tan: I funded Coinbase in 2012. 6000x on my best startup investment yet
I wonder about volatility of these crypto exchanges.
Cant a single government of a large nation deal a serious blow to such a company?
Amazon appends reference code to every search: nb_sb_noss_2
Every time I do any search on Amazon - the resulted URL appends "nb_sb_noss_2" ref code:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=stainless+steel+bar&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

It seems impossible to get rid of this behavior no matter if i clear cookies or use privacy window.
I also found lots of amazon product links on internet includes same ref. code as well.

Whom it belongs to?

Who is monetizing my (our) purchases?
If Coinbase gets sufficiently mainstream, I suspect it will mitigate a lot of this.

A transfer of BTC between two Coinbase users can happen off-chain, which means skipping the work necessary to mine a block including the given transaction.
This accusation is over the top.
The title should read "Europe seeks to limit use of AI because they can't build any AI system themself"

The state of AI in Europe is a sad joke and we already think about regulation.
c can then be used as "ch", as in Italian.

x can then be used as "sh", as in Portuguese.
Not if what you show isn't the primary market of YouTube.
One important difference in favour of PoS that isn't brought up often is the financial cost to pull off an attack. Pulling off an attack in most PoS protocols results in coin slashing for the attacker ("deletion" of coins used in the attack) and on top of that can (and likely will) result in coin devaluation as well. This makes a successful attack against a PoS system very very expensive. The resource is spent and actually burned.

With PoW however the GPUs or ASICs don't disappear or lose value after the attack (caveat that the ASICs can lose value if networks switch away from the algorithm it is built for). The hardware can be used to attack "competitor" networks or used again in another attack against the network or other networks in the future.

In this sense, I suspect that PoS networks are able to properly recover from successful attacks far easier as well as dissuade attacks from the offset.
I don't see any reason to be skeptical of proof-of-stake. The ethereum beacon network has been up and running fine for months. And POS negates the power usage objection to POW.
> Feels like a bunch of people buying digits rocks.

I think it's more like digital beanie babies but to each their own :)
It is humorous that you bring up Luddites, as they were one of the first 19th century movements (among many) that sought to fight the mechanization and industrialization of their labor, and were repressed by military might because god forbid someone sabotage a machine.

Many "innovations" were bought at the beginning not for real use, but in order to threaten the working class with this new tool, so that they do not ask for more job stability, higher wages, or reduced working hours (e.g. grain harvesters, industrial looms, etc).

And the new technology when used often resulted in a net negative in terms of life expectancy, environmental pollution, danger or physical load, which was then disregarded as a necessary sacrifice that the poor need to make in the inexorable march of progress.