skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is largely a result of just-in-time manufacturing.

Companies hate holding on to inventory. Most companies now don’t hold on to any extra stock needed to manufacture their products.

This is great for your finances in normal times. But don’t complain when there is a shortage and you literally have zero slack for delays and your factory sits idle — that’s the well-known drawback.
Shenyu – High-Performance Java API Gateway
NMN - nicotinamide mononucleotide

NR - Nicotinamide Riboside

NAD - Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
It's almost like the FBI's activities on this matter are futile and should be replaced with continual public service announcements telling people to not give money to the telephone.
You'll see me even write e-mail!
The sneaky part of this question is that it gives information about the outcome and then asks you again about the probability. Forget the extra balls, and just drive the point home directly: suppose I pick a ball at random, and show it to you. It’s blue. I ask: “what are the odds that the ball is blue?” (exact phrasing as original question).

There are obviously correct interpretations for 50% and 100%. It depends whether I’m asking:
- What’s the probability of this outcome?
- What’s the probability that the ball I’m holding in my hand in blue?

The second is effectively a “resampling” with a population of one. You are simply assuming the second interpretation and arguing for it, but I don’t dispute the logic. The original question is unclear whether it’s asking for the probability that you picked a blue ball initially (50%) or the likelihood that the ball is blue, given some information of the outcome. But we don’t normally speak of probabilities this way. The odds that you picked a blue ball initially were 50%, even if you picked a red one.

By giving only partial information, the question creates more ambiguity since the answer isn’t definite. (When there is ambiguity in a question, I believe most people will discard trivial interpretations over substantive ones, which is what pushes toward the “resample” here.)

Anyway, I’ll leave it there since I think it’s clear there are correct interpretations for both, depending on what the question is actually asking.
The falling Chinese space rocket is a policy failure
Its not that technological progress has stalled but that the outlook of people has stalled.
In my opinion the perception that the pace of innovation has slowed down is the result of a shift away from the physical to the digital. For the last 25 years or so there have been massive innovations in software. A lot of things that were once largely locked to the physical world (banking, diverse entertainment, catching up with old friends and acquaintances) have now been digitized and implemented at a massive scale. It's great and all, but it's not the same as something you can reach out and touch. Even considering something like Neuralink, the hardware to sense brain signals needs to be there before the software can do anything. Innovation in the physical world is what makes things feel like we're living in the future.

There was an article about this that I read years ago that goes into much more depth about this, but I'm having a hard time finding it. If I remember correctly it discussed the job opportunities of people in post world war 2 era, and that many of the (feelings of) innovations were a result of the booming material sciences in response to the cold war, though I'm likely mis-remembering some details.
Nah. The point is, don't make your argument in obnoxious, off-putting, offensive terms.
> no rules about publishing false information about companies/projects, etc.

This is already covered by slander and fraud laws
I might be wrong here, but this is my understanding.

You'll always be able to show a blue ball as the second ball after the first is drawn. So arguing that it tells you something about the statistics of the state of the system after the first has been drawn is wrong. The chance that the first draw is blue is 50/50. The arguments that lead to 1/3 are trying to use the second event as a statistic for the state, however for that to be appropriate the problem would have to be phrased as:

You draw one ball and set it aside, then draw another, if the second ball is red, you start the entire thing over, if it's blue, then you continue the experiment.

Because otherwise the assumption that the second drawing can tell you the statistics of the underlying state is wrong.

The question of the odds really boils down to, did we randomly pick a ball and observe it? And if so, what would have happened if we didn't observe what we specifically stated for this instance.
Green Threads Explained in 200 Lines of Rust (2019)
I think mcfly's ( https://github.com/cantino/mcfly ) prioritization engine is still the killer feature for my purposes, but the sync server and timing display are both fantastic ideas, and I'd love to see them all together. Mcfly's also Rust+SQLite, even....
Thoughts on the way we measure time
The answer is to stop trying to scale trust and reputation. Those things are valuable because they're hard to come by. Online reviews and scoring systems try to look trustworthy and reputable, but they're counterproductive when literally anyone can write them and there are too many to properly vet.
The normal courtesy for LTB is a year, often 18 months.
I once read somewhere that a two pizza team is 5-10 people.

So, I assume the pizzas in the US are pretty large.

Our "large" pizzas here in Germany have a diameter of 26cm. I usually eat one of those on my own.
The issue with this approach, is whether those "features" are real, actual features improving people's lives or just bs.

Slack is a usual target of derision around these parts, for example. I don't use Slack, but my client has me use Teams which seems just as bad, maybe worse.

I really wonder what those great features of Teams are that have a chat application lag on an 8th gen desktop i5? And I mean lag for basic UI things, like move the mouse around the list of contacts. When nothing else happens on the computer.

I remember when I was younger, at the beginning of the 2000s, I used to chat with friends on whatever IM clients we had at the time. On computers ridiculously slow by today's standards. I used to have a 1.4 GHz Athlon until the late 2000s. Single core. 256 MB RAM. The chat client would never ever lag. I guess we didn't have emojis at the time, but smileys were good enough. I'm not really sure that wasting all these resources on that is such a good investment.

There is a noticeable delay between my key press and the character showing up in Teams. Sometimes the characters don't show up in the right order (how's that even possible?! and yes, it only happens in Teams). That's just text. No 4K screen sharing of an AAA game. No live UHD camera with 32 people multiplexed in ultra quality on a 8k screen or whatever. Text. We used to have this down. What happened? What features do we have now that justify this terrible regression in UX?
I don't think this actually matters. Suppose Monty doesn't actually know which door has the prize, and just picks randomly between the two. Now the only difference is that Monty might accidentally pick a prize. Suppose he does. What are the options now?

1. The game goes on, and you can just switch your guess to the door he picked. (WIN)

2. The game resets due to Monty's error and you play again. (REDO)

3. Monty just decides that you lose since he picked the prize. (LOSE, NO CHOICE)

Options 1 and 2 don't deprive you of the car. But option 3 doesn't give you a choice, so there is no dilemma.

So conditional on having a game where no prize has been revealed yet and you get a choice to switch, I think it still pays to always switch.

Another way of putting it: you get to choose between partition 1 covering 1/3 of the board where you get 1 guess, or partition 2 covering 2/3 of the board where you get two guesses. It works even if all of the guesses are random.
Meet the Hyperion tree (though it's in California):

https://i.imgur.com/91lnAGL.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree)
"The results published by the IPCC and the official US National Climate Assessment suggest even that global warming will only have only minor effects on the world economy."

As the financial crisis has shown, I would be very careful before letting the future of the planet depend on the predictions of neoclassical economists. Professor Steve Keen, for example, has written[1] about the absurdity of some assumptions in which these predictions are based.

[1] https://profstevekeen.medium.com/economic-failures-of-the-ip...
Indeed; it's their country's law enforcement being okay with the crimes that's the core of the problem, here.
This is a really common misconception that buyers have.

Just stop and think for a second - put yourself in the dealer's shoes - why do you think the dealer would want cash? No reason. They don't want your cash. A cash buyer is a pain. They want to sell you a loan.

The last time I bought a car I offered cash, and they countered with a four-figure discount (on total cost of ownership) if I took part of it as a loan. I now have that part of the price invested, creating money, while I gradually pay the loan.

And my credit score went up as I had a new, responsible loan!

Cash buyers are fools, unless you're really at the point of valuing not having a loan for moral reasons (maybe a German?) at four-figures.
You also have the same problems of history revisionism for the far left as well.

You can't trust wiki when it pertains to politics.
> If you think they are wrong, then say why they are wrong.

Climate scientists have already responded to the claims in question in writing. The ideas aren't being shunned because they are controversial. They are being shunned because they are bogus.
> Google now tells me that's wrong.

Google is not an authoritative source on pronouncing words in English. In fact, there are no authoritative sources on pronouncing words in English.

There are references for common usages, but anything that is mutually intellegable is not wrong, even if it's not common usage or listed in the references.

Plenty of people pronounce the g, and plenty of people would know what you mean if you said I graphed this with g'new plot, and not if you said you graphed it with new plot. So, I for one, would prefer if you countinue to voice the g.
What age group are you in?
I’ve found exactly one supplement that had a major impact on my quality of life, and that’s magnesium. Something about magnesium supplements greatly reduced my daily anxiety, to the point that I was amazed because I’d always just imagined I was an “anxious person”.
150+ million USD is spent per year by the organization while most of the work is done by volunteers.
Quite a serious money-making engine.
Where are they? Look at these explicitly 'small trucks': https://www.motortrend.com/news/best-small-trucks/

What am I supposed to search for, small small trucks? Trucks that are actually small? Looking for cheap trucks still delivers large vehicles, just with fewer features: https://www.motortrend.com/news/cheapest-pickup-trucks-frill...

I even searched 'smallest trucks' and...guess what. The Honda Ridgeline seems like the most compact but they're all pretty chunky. https://www.web2carz.com/autos/buying-and-selling/8257/these...

If you suggest used trucks, that just shores up the point that manufacturers keep building bigger trucks. Please show us these small trucks of which you speak, even if they're more expensive or whatever.
"Rolling coal" (modifying a diesel engine to run rich and increase soot in the exhaust, a.k.a. incompletely combusted fuel) has become a statement in many places of the U.S. that you are opposed to the EPA, clean air rules, regulation, and in general the perceived nanny state.

My friend is a Tesla owner in Georgia and has been deliberately blasted by these guys at stoplights a few times. They tried, anyway—hard to do this to a car with superior acceleration and a HEPA cabin filter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
A couple things:

- There would be no reason for the book if he was going to reiterate conventional wisdom. Selling books requires something that stands out from the noise. That's the context, and it should not be dismissed.

- Few catastrophes are predicted. We can put off deciding. But if we wait too long to decide, or decide wronh the risk is significant.

- Pollution is pollution. Reducing it hardly seems like a bad thing.
VMs and because I could! I have maxed out the RAM usage in a 16GB VM before... desktop Linux doesn't not tolerate low RAM well.
Show HN: An interactive CLI tool to generate LaTeX files from a template
How long can that definition of a force have existed? 60 years? "Carriers" (carrying particles if I understand you correctly) only makes sense in the context of the standard model. It rubs me the wrong way when a field co-opts layperson definitions of something and redefines them to be something incompatible with the original definition, but I can understand that maybe physicists are not interested in helping people maintain what little physical intuition can be gleaned from the world around them.

But I digress, are gravitons not a carrier of gravity?
Yeah, I shouldn't have said easy, but easier to make millions that way than trying to create a legitimate startup or something.

And you're right, there are certain kinds of scams that are possibly more lucrative for way less effort. A lot of these ransomware gangs started years ago when such scams weren't quite so lucrative. I wouldn't be surprised if many are pivoting into cryptocurrency-related scams and heists.

If you're ignoring effort, though, that one Twitter hack with the BTC-doubling scam made about $100k over a few hours, and that was with access to the top accounts on the platform.

According to a random Google search, a ransomware operator makes an average of $300k per company-ransoming. If you're getting 5 companies to pay you an average of that much per week, it's probably more lucrative than any giveaway scam, even if it takes a lot more effort and skill. And if you're getting more than 5 companies per week, it might be more lucrative than almost any kind of scam.
I kind of feel like our focus historically has been around equality of opportunity. That (to me) feels like, at least partially, the wrong way to look at it. Unless science comes to the conclusion that there is in fact some super human species then equality of outcome should already be happening if equality of opportunity is truly already happening.

I like your ideas. I'm not that familiar but thank you for pointing me to these things. I will look into them.

I agree that education is an important barrier, but the people who need that education spend all of their time trying to make ends meet. They probably ultimately fall out of love with the idea that anything in their life is destined to change.

Also, just to mention, I think you understood my premise. Taking government out as the middle man on at least some of the responsibility for wealth (re)distribution.
The wikipedia article on NIAC - the National Iranian American Council, which seems to be an Iran state-sponsored organization, is guarded by their members. Luckily Wikipedia is fairly good at pointing it out in this instance:

> A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

But going to the talk page shows they still control the page and content on it.

> Dear User Wikidave2009, since June 2017 the well-sourced March 2017 revelations and implications section has been created five times in this page by three different editors like Wiki726, Ours18 and myself, you have deleted it every single time without providing any credible reference to discredit that the sources cited in that section. Your claim that these sources are "fringe" and "dubious" is not wellfounded. Michael Rubin is a leading expert on Iran at the AEI, Darren Tromblay is a veteran intelligence analyst and both the Small Wars Journal and Commentary Magazine are solid and reliable sources. I do realize that you are very dedicated to guarding the NIAC page, however, you're forcing your opinion on this page without any regard for other editors who disagree with you. Please STOP removing content that you don't like, and perhaps find a way to deal with this conflict of interest that is obvious. Alwaysf (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That section is not on the main page. You can see it in the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Iranian_...
There is an old method of forest management which I can't immediately remember the name of which does exactly this, cut down trees to their stumps and let the new growth build up for a number of years and repeat.
Welcome Android Users to Clubhouse (new Android release blog post)
Right, but my point is that it's still not public information what entitlements apps use. Apple's policy is that users should not be able to read the contents of encrypted IPAs at all. The fact that you can do it doesn't make the information public - you have to go through extra steps, many of which are illegal to explain to you in most parts of the world, to be able to decrypt IPAs and read out the entitlements file therein.

As an example of how zealous Apple is about keeping apps encrypted; they even disable iOS app support entirely on M1 Macs if you've unlocked the hardware for third-party or modified operating systems: https://twitter.com/never_released/status/139070741193000140...
But the question is why didn't any of the functional languages with these desirable features ever reach mainstream popularity.
Chips shouldn't go obsolete so fast. Your local auto parts store has in stock parts for cars made 50 years ago. That include aftermarket parts made in the past few years.

You cannot support right to repair if you support the idea that chips go obsolete.
Because this argues against what I see as the consensus position, I had a quick look for a review from the “other side.” Here’s one: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052021/dissecting-unset...

I haven’t looked closely at the claims made by either yet, but in my quick search I did note that this book is mostly being discussed by political pundits.

It’s important to reflect on the way that presentations of scientific expertise and (lack of) consensus can be manipulated in the public conversation... but in this case I would argue that the bulk of the misrepresentation of the science for political ends has been by “climate skeptics,” and the title of this book seems to continue that tradition. I found Naomi Oreskes’ and Erik M. Conway’s book “Merchants of Doubt” to be a good, approachable but scholarly history of this type of FUD. There is also a documentary based on the book, with the same title.
One thought I had was to show reviews from people you know. It should carry more weight of you know them personally. Then if someone gives a 5-star review to a scam product then you can personally contact them and say "What the hell?" and block their reviews.

The reputation of a reviewer needs to be on the line to get proper reviews, and also the ones reading the reviews need to have a way to gauge the reviewer's reputation.

Knowing someone in real life helps, but so could something where we can review the reviewer.
Well, if you are currently at rest in relation to the surface of the earth, that means you are moving with speed c towards the future (the ct direction in Minkowsky space time). The shortest path from the past to the future, near a large mass like the Earth, is curved towards the center of the Earth. So, because of inertia, your trajectory in spacetime will be curved towards the center of the Earth. However, the surface you are standing on is preventing this motion via an electromagnetic interaction.
Maybe we should break down the semantics of WYSIWYG while we're at it.
Yes but they were working with first of its kind technology from ~50years ago and could launch 7 astronauts. That it was expensive doesn't make SpaceX first.
Had this happen multiple times with nicotine patches, which you are allowed to import into Canada.

Eventually gave up and bought from Amazon.com (was cheaper than .ca).
Information is like internet.
It should be organized, but decentralized.

Wikipedia is a place of ultra-centralization where a handful of influential contributors have most of the power and will enforce the content they want using administrative processes (or arbitrary locking of pages) until you give up.

Otherwise don't be disappointed the day you disagree with the Wikipedian "neutral" point of view.
Second definition from MW: literally: used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description
I'm sorry, but your post is impossible to grok.

- What do you mean by "the economy" treating a business a certain way?

- You use the sentence "Specifically around raw material consumption and/or other commodities such as energy prices, and even human resources, etc." -- what did you actually intend that sentence fragment to say?

- You say "I would imagine the formula would be based on how many standard deviations from the mean or median a given company was" -- what formula? That's the first time you bring up the idea of some kind of formula.

- You say "based on statistical polling of consumers and/or other businesses it's likely the wealth would be distributed evenly enough" -- woah, what wealth distribution? This is the first time you bring up this topic.

In fifteen or fewer words, what is your proposal?
It's actually the opposite. Most franchise dealers get incentives for financing through the manufacturer's captive lender, so you can often negotiate a slightly better deal by taking a loan.
POCO.

I think Chinese manufacturers have realised they will never be "cool" enough to have insane profit margins.
Notability is one of the funny things on Wikipedia that doesn't have a great solution given that many people are notable in some community (physical or professional). You can make a case for most of the following being notable: pretty much any elected politician even if they're some county registrar of wills, journalists who may have thousands of bylines, tenured professors with lots of papers. Yet, many of these won't have a lot written about them especially in print publications which can run afoul of verifiability requirements beyond a statement about things that they've done.
Bill and Melinda Gates divorce: why the over-60s are ‘silver splitters’
كلمات اغنية الجزيرة فهد بلاسم
As an easy answer: the fewer parts there are, usually the less there is to potentially break down.

A more classic style of toaster can be as simple as a heating element that's triggered by some kind of mechanical timer you set contained within some kind of container. There's much less that can possibly break down with age and burn out. There's no internal sensors, multiple buttons and electronics that can burn out, maybe some sort of WiFi component that might mess up, and more that can go wrong.

Additionally with fewer parts, the manufacturing quality can hypothetically (but not always) be better. It seems easier to get the manufacturing right on a machine with 10 separate components versus say 60.
Conscientiousness is by far the least popular but has the highest income. That is not at all surprising. Objectivity, right and wrong as reflected by a balance of measures, is a rare and unpopular innate personality trait that allows for making micro-decisions many people might find abhorrent, more typically based upon evidence.
Meanwhile I'm playing with a pinebook pro. Comically underpowered arm processor and only 4 gigs of ram. The stock manjuro installation is fast enough and I've been able to to get started with OS development on it.
UK has pretty low prevalence at 3.90% and Ireland at 3.20%? What is their secret?
Applies to ML family of programming languages in general.