skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I'm not suggesting thy are charitable. I'm only suggesting that they are not omniscient.

Sorry, I was just being snarky. I meant that there's so market is so "deep", that it surely represents the true prices.

>But I mean, if this were the case, a common failure mode for restaurants would be full tables right up until bust, right? Low prices due to unprofitable margins would mean lots of demand. Losing money on every head, but lots of heads.

They're not unprofitable margins, they're low margins. Restaurants have a high fixed cost, but low marginal cost. Every day they have to have some amount of staff and food, but once they have sold enough for the day to cover those costs, each extra doesn't cost them much at all due to the relatively low price of food and water and electricity and gas (compared to the labor).

I'm not sure on the statistics of the exact failure mode, but I do know that your run of the mill restaurant can't charge people $30 per entree and get away with it. There is a cap on how much people are willing to pay most places, with the exception being a select few that cater to the rich, have a certain ambiance, reputation, quality of food, etc.

>But, IME, in my area, restaurants that fail in the first year or two do not fail in that modality. They usually have some of the lowest prices, but empty seats none-the-less. Because the food isn't good, or the menu is weird, or they don't do marketing right, or the location is wrong, or a million other things. But in my area at least I basically never see restaurants will full tables fail.

You're right that there are many reasons for them failing, but many can't work on things like marketing location, or quality food, because they can't charge enough money for those expenses in the first place. Celebrity chefs can come out swinging with high priced menus, but not the vast majority who might be doing it because it has low start up costs and they don't need credentials.

Where I live, entrees cost $15 minimum, and with tip, you can budget at least $20 per meal per person. Even with that, I doubt the cooks are making anywhere near a desirable living, and I doubt the restaurant owners are making a decent living, especially if they're paying rent.
Sounds like a Sisyphyian effort to have the software retry harder (harder meaning in a different, more effortful way, rather than increment the retry loop counter).
Ignoring all the layers of HTTP to use it as a dumb tunnel is a really effective way of forcing everyone to reinvent a lot of wheels at every phase of the interaction. A lot of people do it, its usually a brittle and expensive waste of time.
>"Intel's suggested defense against Spectre, which is called LFENCE, places sensitive code in a waiting area until the security checks are executed, and only then is the sensitive code allowed to execute," Venkat said. "But it turns out the walls of this waiting area have ears, which our attack exploits. We show how an attacker can smuggle secrets through the micro-op cache by using it as a covert channel."

>"In the case of the previous Spectre attacks, developers have come up with a relatively easy way to prevent any sort of attack without a major performance penalty" for computing, Moody said. "The difference with this attack is you take a much greater performance penalty than those previous attacks."

>"Patches that disable the micro-op cache or halt speculative execution on legacy hardware would effectively roll back critical performance innovations in most modern Intel and AMD processors, and this just isn't feasible," Ren, the lead student author, said.
> Nope, I can buy my mom an iPhone and know that it's not possible to totally brick it by clicking a link from a dodgy text/email

Uhm, I guess that's true in the same sense that it's usually more rainy in New York than Chicago: One click RCE aren't exactly impossible for IPhone, just historically more rare than on android. Though recently at least one exploit broker stopped accepting iOS Safari one click RCE because they just got too many shrug.
Exactly.

Maintaining laws which force working employees into poverty in order to support inadequate business models is not the solution.

Employees outnumber business owners - more people having spending power is vital for the economy.
So are you basically saying that you would fire anyone who is a Muslim, if according to their own beliefs/faith, they don't support gay marriage?

Your position is probably straight up illegal by the way.
BeachBody talk can however goes towards the other third rail in a business/corporate environment - sex.

Politics, religion, and sex are always going to be a problem in a company, as they distract from the core mission, divide people along lines that aren’t helpful in accomplishing the core mission, and add large potential liabilities everywhere.
Port of dplyr and other related packages in R to Python
Our ongoing commitment to supporting journalism
> what about cleaning and filtering out useless commits, by soft reseting the branch and commiting just the actual changes to merge.

So... squashing?
Bingo.

A lot of people who open businesses aren't doing so to open a business. And most of them don't even know it. A lot of them are trying to open a clubhouse they charge people to be at.

You see it often in the board game/comic/hobby sector. Someone gets it in their head that they could open a shop and it will be great and blah blah blah. But yeah, it goes south because what they really wanted was to play games for a living.

They want to be a business owner, but they don't want to run a business. If that makes sense.
Time spent "twiddling" with the repo is time spent documenting the business reasons for code changes. Depending on what type of code you're writing, this might be not-so-important or massively important for future understandability.
One irritating omission is that the article doesn't compare python to python function call overhead.
A verified history of showing up in time and not getting fired for theft or negligence is definitely valuable.
It sounds better than it reads with the appropriate pronunciation, but with a western accent.
> As an example, a lot of websites drop support for IE. If the makeup of IE users affected by it over-indexed on any particular type of race/gender/class/sexual orientation, would you classify that as inadvertent discrimination?

It's likely that until recently (maybe), that IE users were more likely to use JAWS and accessibility tools than other groups, especially if they couldn't afford upgrades to newer releases of JAWS or were stuck on enterprise computers.

> If a first version of a new website/product wasn't built to be perfectly compatible with accessibility standards, are they inadvertently discriminating against those with disabilities?

Yes, if the site is inaccessible. That said it's harder to claim that a game designed for a touch screen is inaccessible and discriminates against accessible users who prefer keyboards, perhaps, due to the hardware they use. The game might work better on a touch screen, like Fruit Ninja and might be very hard to replicate without a touch screen.

> Software bugs that may not be equally felt

Maybe. If the bug was a recent introduction of a non-binary gender field and only those with non-binary genders were affected, it could be considered inadvertent discrimination. It can also be considered a bug. Its severity depends on how long the bug remains in the system. If it's pushing a year, that's more likely discrimination in addition to poor QA practices and a likely inability to listen to user feedback.

> Is the only way to not inadvertently discriminate to ensure products are built to be optimized for every single human and use case? Every edge case needs to be solved for before launch?

I think we need to keep in mind that just because something could be discrimination doesn't mean we can't forgive and move on. Mistakes are a fact of life, and nothing's perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim for shipping fewer bugs, it means when we can, we fix the bugs, we listen to users, etc. It's very possible that one user's perfect app will in fact be completely wrong for another user, so pleasing everyone is impossible. It's why ergonomics has been so hard, humans aren't all the same height, etc.

Sometimes you need settings for users to adjust software to suit their preferences, such as font size. And sometimes you make font size part of the game, and it's not adjustable. If allowable under law, being inaccessible can be a choice, or it can be inadvertent. It's true some folks can get really worked up on a topic they care deeply about. It's also true that it's just software, and new software will come along eventually with different features that may please some audiences more. Or less. It all depends. :)
I laud them for standing up for their ideals. That said, as a conservative, I don't ever "bring my whole self to work", even if my employer says to, because (a) I know my personal views are not welcome in the Bay Area, and (b) I think it's concerning that many companies are trying to become more than just a place to work on interesting stuff and get paid for your work. They must now make political views known that align with those of their employees as if to be one of the tribe.

I have my own tribe, consisting of my family and friends, and they won't fire me when the economy goes south.
So, maybe Basecamp wanted to downsize and found a way to avoid making it look like layoffs...

Sure the targeting might not be quite optimal, but if it gets the job done...
> Any employer that abruptly told me I needed to watch what I said at work would lose me, too.

That's literally 99.99% of employers.

> I'm not saying I demand the ability to be rude and awful, or go on political tirades, or anything even vaguely like that.

Based on your initial response, it sounds like that's exactly what you're saying. They have a problem with employees not being able to speak about politics without some of them going on tirades, and some of them accusing others of acting in bad faith, and more assuming those that try to refrain are implicitly agreeing with one stance or another.

> Telling me I have to avoid entire categories of normal conversation is itself authoritarian politicization of the workplace, and I'd happily tell him to go fuck himself, too.

And you can! And they did! These people were not only there by choice, they were given a very good way out if they didn't like the change. But I also hope none of them that left because they feel the need to proselytize at work don't come work with me.

But also, let's consider when the types of interactions being described at this company became "normal conversation".

> But I spend more time talking to people I work with than any other set of people.

Hopefully primarily about work, at least when working. They aren't paying you to talk about politics. If you're doing it outside work, nobody cares. Basecamp doesn't care either. They made that clear. Just keep it off their company communications. You can even talk politics privately with your friends if you work there, because they aren't going to turn you in (and if they would, then maybe you should consider why and maybe not bother them with stuff like that).

Most people aren't hired to speak their inner thoughts to the rest of the company. Most people don't try to. Somehow it's a problem when people are told explicitly what they should have already internalized, please don't.
The solution will be "do not share the micro-op cache between different address spaces".

Which for old hardware will translate to "flush the micro op cache every time the address space changes".

I would guess that can be done with a microcode update and that the performance hit wont be too massive.
I think you’re right that this is one of the biggest downsides. It’s possible to feel people out by how they react if I point out discrimination in the product, and if that goes badly I might consider leaving the company before discrimination against me becomes a problem. But I would also say that most of the discrimination I’ve experienced is not really overt enough to be a good early warning system. At some point it becomes irrelevant to wonder “am I not getting promoted because I have X marginalization, or is my work actually not great, or does this person just dislike me specifically for no reason”; better, in my experience, to consider it one of life’s mysteries and try to find a new job.
Granted that the severance will cover it, but COBRA is not cheap (you pay the same your employer + you payed)
I would like to see the counterpoint to DHH’s blog post. There seems to be something missing because saying a names list is part of or indicative of genocide/systemic etc seems too far out to only be that.

Pessimistically, I’ve witnessed similar exchanges that didn’t seem plausible to me, but yet were very real to the people making the claim. I remember a friend who was convinced that their trans friends lives were in danger after the 2016 election and claimed that management not denouncing the election and allowing friends to work from home for safety was “literally the same” as attacking them. It was so weird having them walk through the logic I thought they were joking. Fortunately, everyone lived despite continuing to come into the office (until covid of course).
> The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful?

Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies.

> Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem.

Yes there is, it's by dividing into kWh per transaction. You can't pretend this away because you don't like the landslide loss.

[edit] I'm sure you well know those counterarguments are meaningless because they fly in the face of math. Look this is typical of crypto folks, who know well they're melting the ice caps to enrich themselves. It's shameful, and you should feel bad for participating in this. The comparison in the domain is against, for instance proof of stake coins.
If we're using that example of inadvertent discrimination, I think it's certainly feasible to have non-political discussion around improving it.

What you described sounds like a product flaw. Customers/users won't want to use a product that delivers sub-optimal results. Any internal employee saying "hey, we have an error rate of X% for this Y segment, and they represent Z% of the user base" isn't engaging in controversial political discussion (in my opinion).

However, if an individual chose to describe this flaw in more loaded language, it could easily turn political and combative for the team.
Cardano and Coti Parnership Singed
Nope. You can still discuss politics over beers. Over barbecue. Over the phone on your own time. At your favorite place to volunteer. At your grocery store... Just please don’t do it where others are trapped having to hear you without any way out.
> Houston, March 2019, my rent renewal was $1500/mo for a 12-month lease or $1500/mo for month-to-month or a new contract. Houston, October 2020, my rent renewal was $1500 for a 15-month lease or $2100/month for month-to-month or a new contract.

Is there a typo here? You have to sign a longer lease but you are paying the same per month... that's a 0% increase.

And as for month-to-month, paying zero premium for a month-to-month lease is abnormal in pretty much every market...
Ask HN: Best RSS feeds with good/full content included?
I'm building a site (https://public.do/) which allows people to annotate publicly available information. One of the things I want to do is add RSS feeds.

Certain feeds like those from Quanta do provide almost the full content you get from the article itself on their site.

https://api.quantamagazine.org/feed/

You get pretty much all the content (sadly missing the incredible images).

Other public information, like that from Science Mag, has almost nothing but headlines (at least from the ones I've reviewed).

https://www.sciencemag.org/about/email-alerts-and-rss-feeds

I'm reading things from ScienceMag and having trouble retaining it, so I want to track information as anki cards, but they don't really provide the information there other than a headline and a summary.

What RSS feeds are out there that contain "good and complete content" and don't require you to head over to their site to read the entirety?

I can understand why a commercial service would only provide headlines as a teaser, but surely there are good publicly produced RSS feeds that have rich information (and want to syndicate it as widely as possible)?
Ah yeah. You can always look at how Europe is empty and has very few, if any, restaurants with their minimum wages and healthcare. Oh wait...
The government always has to push the narrative that their tax increases will be on "them" the others, the people better off then you, not you. No no we will never increase YOUR taxes, we are only taxing "them" the ones that sleep on money and keep you down by not paying their "fair share"

Of course when the tax bill actually comes many people are often shocked they are included in "them"
Yes, kind of, but also no.

Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act.

But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
The thing is, “the business” tends to always treat the employees as if money is running out. To the limit permitted by law.

This limit needs be adjusted, that’s all.
It's a bit sad to me that the question here is "did you buy a book in the last year". Also sad that most people didn't. I am curious, among people who buy a lot of books, like a book a week, whether those people still prefer paper books.

Personally, I really prefer Kindle books. They don't take up a lot of space, you don't have to figure out how to get rid of your old Kindle books, you don't lose your Kindle books and accidentally rebuy a second copy. You can keep your Kindle in your pocket to make it easy to read whatever you want wherever you happen to be when you have some free time.

I do wish Kindles were faster. Faster to turn the page, faster to turn on, faster to respond when I tap on a word to see its definition. Sometimes I almost get a "Google Reader" vibe, where I completely love the product, and the company itself seems a little "meh" about it.
Coinbase vs. BLOCKCHAIN. Whichone is best?
Tech startups are not very comparable to restaurants. Restaurants have limited capacity, limited ability to scale, usually pay rent (so any success can be partially sucked up by the landlord), and have limited times of the day and week to earn most of their money.

To support terrible profit margins (relative to the risk), I also would look at the financial status of restaurant owners/operators, who by and large, aren't in the higher end of the income scale. Almost no one tells their kid to grow up and aspire to be a cook or open their own restaurant (unless they already have a a trust fund).
It can be safely used with proper precautions, but it's understandable why people shy away from it. Still, there is a huge difference between being "exposed" to lead paint from a piece of fine art vs living in a house whose entire inside is coated with the stuff and it's flaking off the walls.
Yeah that's totally understandable. I'm not advocating for removing/demoting major media stuff or bumping up obscure sites, not even saying anything about the scoring algorithm should change.

Rather I think obscure sites should get more opportunities to be organically upvoted on (and if they don't get voted up, then fine) and not just fall off /new after a few hours only to be seen by a few people. The BigCo stuff naturally gets posted often several (different) links from different people, whereas obscure stuff is only posted by a single person once. So this is about evening the odds.
> apparently there were also some cutbacks to benefits and allowances and stuff.

They cut a fitness benefit, wellness allowance, farmer's market share, and continuing education allowances. However, they paid each employee the value of the benefit for the year and they created a 10% profit sharing plan. https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5

It's unclear how much money the 10% profit sharing is worth, except that now it's 50% better for the 2/3 of remaining employees. (edit: Yes, this is an oversimplification.)
Whoa whoa, hold your horses. I have used nothing _but_ the git CLI for all my commits, rebases and squashes for the better part of 10 years now.

I do agree with you though that rebasing and squashing are absolutely easy and awesome and whoever doesn't agree probably comes at it from a badly run repository with utterly bad practices and it would probably _benefit_ from a proper squashing and rebasing practice.
> and you ca[n] choose to self insure if you have sufficient cash set aside.

I think you are ignoring the third party risks - damaging an expensive car or hurting someone. In that situation, you use insurance if you want to protect your money. If you have no money, insurance make little sense, and you just suck up the risks of pranging your beater.
Two things:

1. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of people making minimum wage or less are older than 25 years old.

2. A single person working a full-time job (32 hours) at minimum wage makes $12,064. The US federal definition of poverty for this individual would be anything below $12,880. So yes, minimum wage workers are literally, by definition, working for poverty wages.
Same here, read it when it was posted elsewhere in this thread with an implication of “this’ll show you how basecamp management’s in the wrong” and that was the only part that stood out to me as wrong in their handling of this. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, as I read on, but it never did.
None of the "it was all their secret plan!" explanations make sense because whatever the plan, it could have been done more directly and easily (and probably more cheaply), and without all the drama and negative publicity.

If it was layoffs, you just do them. You don't explain and you don't create a large number of now-ex employees going to Twitter to say why you suck.

If it was downsizing to something more comfortable for the founders, again, more easily done with the same buyout package, and much less of a black eye by just saying "we want a smaller company, so we're putting our money behind doing right by everyone as we get what we want."

If it was getting rid of agitators, it's actually easier to fire them and deal with the lawsuits. Most companies have some amount of ongoing legal expense, and getting sued isn't that bad if you're not smoking-gun discriminatory. You can always file a lawsuit, but it's much harder to get somewhere with a lawsuit, and there's a reason corporate attorneys get big bucks--that Basecamp has to pay.

The best explanation is the most obvious one: they made a colossal blunder in handling this and have footgunned their company badly enough that there will now likely be a second wave of buyout accepters who are people who don't want to stick around to clean up the mess.
Wasn't dhh working on it too? maybe there's remaining devs that can get it working. but that will really stink, considering that it was the best thing I've seen (outside of htmx) that can kill the front-end monster.