skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's a colossal "if", the idea of "welfare queens" living the high life on government benefits is never actually true outside of fraud cases.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/montana-governor-ends-e...

>In towns like Bozeman, where costs of housing have skyrocketed during the pandemic, workers “are not getting jobs because these jobs don't pay enough to pay their bills,” McWilliams said.
Please can we get this more attention: https://sqrl.grc.com/
Well, Slate Star Codex and its sidebar of ads was a good counterexample. I would routinely click through to find out more, because its ads were a) aesthetically pleasing (they had a consistent style, for example) and b) highly relevant to my interests (because a very consistent type of person is interested in the ads on that particular site). To a lesser extent, I think the human-delivered ads given by the presenters of The Magnus Archives podcast were decent enough, though the algorithmic ones were predictably useless.

It's possible to target ads to a specific audience by exploiting the selection effect that led to your audience existing. This doesn't favour general-audience communities, sure, but I'd honestly be happy with the answer "general-audience things just aren't how the future looks".
Expect to see it more:

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/apr/08/house-advanc...

This is brought on by a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, and there's a significant chance it will permit creationism in schools. Expect to see more attempts to reach the Supreme Court to overturn its previous decisions, and if it does, expect a great many states to pass similar laws.

And then expand them.
I agree with everything you say.

>Computers do NOT make the stowage layout. The stowage layout is the responsibility of stowage planners.

Yes, that's what I meant by "those who tell the computer..."

>how tall something is stacked is too simplistic.

And that's why I went on to expand on the dynamics of timetables, third party contractors and the correct execution of lashing instructions.

It's true that the captain has the final say, but realistically for large ships and the combinatorial explosion that comes with them the captain and his deck officers simply doesn't have time to check and correct the work of either the stowage planners or the stevedores. Even if they are all western Europeans and Americans with genuine documents.
That's sarcasm but let me try to address the notion behind it, to best of my limited personal understanding; "prevent spread" has multiple factors to it.

My impression, in my locality, is that at beginning of pandemic people focused on notion of using masks to protect themselves (and many though not all governments indicated that's not efficient/recommended).

Then "as time passed and we learned more" focus moved to using masks to protect others (though many individuals, in my circle, still aren't clear on that).

My impression is that we have evolving, and still not necessarily 100% certain evidence/understanding, on how it spreads and what are the most effective measures. It's made more complex because

a) there's no silver bullet; most measures increase your chances to some percentage. This makes discussion between experts and public more difficult as public tends to think in binary terms.

b) While yes there are many public health measures we've known for 100 years (wash hands, have clean water, cook/boil/heat things to sterilize them, sneeze in elbow/Kleenex, wear mask, remove waste, etc etc), not all are equally effective against all vectors. What seems "Common sense" / "Logical" to a layperson like myself, may be more nuanced to an expert with experience.

I mean, for what it's worth, I'm 100% certain my dad, a year in, is still worse off for using a mask because of how he uses it. Many and especially older people around me reuse their masks for days and weeks , touch them constantly, put them under their nose for prolonged periods, don't squeeze/tighten them sufficiently, etc. Even if all that touching doesn't hurt, their belief that they're protected coupled with incorrect usage coupled with likely increase in risky behaviour is a net negative.

People can scream liberty and freedoms and personal responsibility, but I feel public health officials have to look at cold hard facts, of both disease but also people's actual behaviour (as opposed to some ideal non-existent form) and how it actually affects spread rather than how it logically intuitively should.
I do molecular biology full time, but I truly believe that I learnt the skills I need to do this in my first project where I took over a several thousand line perl web app. The developer had been extremely clever with his use of tricks, which made debugging and reverse engineering a massive challenge. I often needed to internalise the state of the whole app to reason about why things were going wrong.

Those skills have served me well in my current work in debugging biological systems, where the organisms responsible for all these “clever” hacks are long gone, and all we’re left with is a system that often doesn’t boot back up after a crash.
They are part of the European Economic Area (EEA)[0] and have to adopt a lot of the European Union law[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area#Rights_...
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/abandoned-ships/ just had an episode about ships where the crew is not able to get off for various reasons. One of them that I hadn't known was that if you leave before you get paid, you typically forfeit your pay.

Connection to your comment: there was a huge explosion in Beirut. There were safety issues with a ship loaded with fertilizer. The port offloaded the fertilizer and let the crew leave. One consequence was the terrible explosion. The other was that before that the ship sank. Big ships are described in the podcast as needing constant maintenance to keep them from sinking, which is one of the reasons ports are reluctant to let the crew leave.

Seems like it's similar for much smaller boats.
Three weeks is becoming pretty normal. A lot of places like to combine that with holidays and say 25 days (standard US is 10 holidays).

At most small places where HR is flexible, the PTO package is highly negotiable and I usually leave that to last and tack on an extra week, as they know they want me by that point and it doesn't cost them anything extra.

The conversation does go like you describe at some places, but others are absolutely rigid. One place where I actually accepted an offer, they increased everyone's vacation after my negotiations (small company). That has to be the most goodwill I've had when joining a team of people I didn't know.

But you're right, I never say now. I price it all accordingly, so they can say no.
The only real thing I remember from a certain SciFi book is a guy who's "First genetic hack was to regrow his teeth every 20 years." that seems entirely plausible.
Oh, that was not clear from the essay, and honestly might change my opinion a little. Is your position "targeted ads cause harmful privacy violations, but my work is exclusively devoted to reducing the privacy impact, so I don't believe my work is harmful"? If so I would encourage you to edit the essay, because that's not at all how it comes across right now, at least to readers who aren't familiar with your work. I had assumed turtledove was one of many projects you're involved with.
It is not really down (obviously) but its price overflowed the range for a 32 bit unsigned integer and so, from what I understand, at least some software has apparently problems to display the price properly.
Any code of conduct violation or accusation will be taken with the greatest level of seriousness and will be investigated by myself.

Rest assured that violations nor CoC trolling will not be tolerated in any way.
> May be I am living in my bubble, but most of the site I visit, mostly mainstream media news in tech, along with most of the social media post, has a flat out dismissal of Ads in general.

I'd apply the same logic here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Ad supported models on news paper websites have nearly killed publications like NYTimes. A lot of smaller news papers have died. Only after the paywall model really took off have they been able to survive and thrive.

So there's nothing you can say to the media that will convince them that there's value in ads.

To them, ads and big tech in general are evil entities and must be criticized at every possible turn.
I figured that was subtext, and that we're not necessarily talking about what a hotel executive would think.
Your framing of the question totally ignores opportunity cost. All that time spent working on ultimately failing crazy ideas is time you did not spend working on anything else, either marginal and likely or less risky/crazy.
I tried to explain this here but was flagged by mods rather than downvotes.

Emotions beat out statistics, optimism beat out realistic expectations.

I know our politicians aren't scientists but even the majority of the intellectual class completely blew it.

I'm not sure how, but it would be beneficial to humanity to use this event as a filter for logical intellectuals and emotional intellectuals.
You’re trying to lump different advertising together. I am specifically talking about gas station signs. People in EV’s don’t suddenly buy gas because they saw a large BP logo. That choice was made when you bought the car.

It’s little different than a hospital sign. People don’t think hey there’s a hospital maybe I should have this gaping chest wound taken care of. Which is why they end up as H’s with a simple arrow rather than list out which specific hospital etc.
We’ll, one of the corners cut was in the design of the control rods, and the Soviet government hid that from the operators. Did they screw up? Sure, but they did so believing — having been told — there was a fail safe that simply did not work as advertised.
Photojournalist Arrested at BLM Protest Wins Lawsuit Against Police
There was an excellent breakdown about the challenges with growing teeth recently on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26854080
Not only regrowing whole teeth, it should be possible to reengage the cells that build the teeth in the first place to repair cavities. All the "machinery" is there, it's a matter of figuring out how to reactivate it.

As for crooked teeth, it seems to me that Levin et. al. are unlocking the patterns that govern such things, and we can hopefully look forward to even jaws and even correcting deformed bone structures.

It's interesting to try to think about what form a machine would take for "re-imprinting" new skeletal structures into existing bones, eh?
I am not following your reasoning here. Is there some property of organic matter that is necessary for intelligence, are you arguing that intelligence can only arise via natural selection, or something else?

While I agree we are no where near creating general artificial intelligence in a way required to found an interstellar civilization, I don't see how it would violate the laws of physics. Which is more likely: it is impossible to create actual artificial intelligence or we just haven't been trying for long enough?
Maybe this will force governments to adjust taxation of energy generation to reflect its environmental impact.
I would accept a cook, btw, if anyone out there is bribing :)
I can't imagine why you would want to haha. I don't really want to own Apple, I just want price action to the upside. Owning shares in a commodity ETF is no less real than owning a bitcoin.
Or war.

Some of the oldest cities in the world are in the Levant - Aleppo and Damascus in Syria. Or Jericho in Palestine. The trouble is that those cities also have had gone through significant conflict, so ruins tend to not survive.
This is just another thing to add to my book of reasons the "neorationalist" community is just sophistry for the 21st century, in terms of both the rhetorical turns that it takes as well as sociologically what segment of society it appeals to.
> but does your math include removing all the tax that pays for benefits that would no longer be needed such as unemployment, social security, etc.?

Earned benefits like unemployment, disability, and social security are usually not targeted for replacement by UBI, and it is dubious that it makes them unnecessary (especially UI/DI, given benefit levels) unless it is at a very high level.
I think you're reading too much into this. It doesn't say "you will be judged and punished". It says "All complaints will be reviewed and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the circumstances."
> if they did not change our behavior? If we'd do something naturally, there would be no need for ads in the first place.

How would you find a USB charger brand if you were unaware of any to begin with?

> Why do folks trust some brands, and not others?

So then why even have a brand to begin with? Are you suggesting we just ban all advertising altogether? When you start a new company, new market, new idea, then what would you suggest that isn't advertising for a company to do to explain to customers what it is you do and how you may help them?
That’s not what the inspector general of the DoJ says. This was a policy instituted by Trump’s DoJ. Why would AG Jeff Sessions say “We need to take away the children”, if that was already happening?

> The five U.S. attorneys along the border with Mexico, including three appointed by President Trump, recoiled in May 2018 against an order to prosecute all undocumented immigrants even if it meant separating children from their parents. They told top Justice Department officials they were “deeply concerned” about the children’s welfare.

>But the attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, made it clear what Mr. Trump wanted on a conference call later that afternoon, according to a two-year inquiry by the Justice Department’s inspector general into Mr. Trump’s “zero tolerance” family separation policy.

>“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

>Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants.

> The Justice Department’s top officials were “a driving force” behind the policy that spurred the separation of thousands of families, many of them fleeing violence in Central America and seeking asylum in the United States, before Mr. Trump abandoned it amid global outrage, according to a draft report of the results of the investigation by Michael E. Horowitz, the department’s inspector general.

> Though Mr. Sessions sought to distance himself from the policy, allowing Mr. Trump and Homeland Security Department officials to largely be blamed, he and other top law enforcement officials understood that “zero tolerance” meant that migrant families would be separated and wanted that to happen because they believed it would deter future illegal immigration, Mr. Horowitz wrote.

> “The department’s single-minded focus on increasing prosecutions came at the expense of careful and effective implementation of the policy, especially with regard to prosecution of family-unit adults and the resulting child separations,” the draft report said.

The cruelty was absolutely the point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/us/politics/family-separa...
Your understanding is mostly correct.

The issue with the fuel rods is that they were double purpose - the lower portion actually increased the reaction rate, while the upper portion decreased it. Because the team had manually fully retracted the rods, both portions were outside the reactor vessel. When it scrammed, the first portion to enter the vessel was the lower portion, which counterproductively increased the reaction rate further. This was one of several poor design choices in RBMK reactors.

You are correct that the people on shift did everything wrong at every step along the way - alongside management, who pushed forward the safety test that caused the accident on a skeleton night shift who hadn't explicitly prepared for it. The test deliberately had the reactor operating in an unusual, low-power state because it was supposed to test whether you could use momentum still in the turbines to bridge a gap until emergency diesel could be brought on line in the event of a power failure affecting the pumps that circulated coolant water to the reactor. However, the shift let the power in the reactor get too low, starving the reaction, and then took increasingly dramatic steps to attempt to bring the power back to specified (low but not that low) levels. These steps included disabling automated control of fuel rods, decreasing the rate of coolant flow, the removal of 18 of the 28 'fail-safe' control rods which were never to be removed, and disabling most of the automated scram mechanisms. Obviously, these steps were not normal procedure and constituted serious flaws in judgement.

Normal procedure would be to shut down completely when power levels drop that low, and then a waiting period and a several-hour-long startup procedure. The extremely low power state allowed a phenomenon called xenon poisoning to build up, which made restoring normal operation difficult - hence the normal procedure to shut down completley and allow the xenon to naturally decay. The attempt at restoring power despite this condition led to very unstable neutron flux, and with it unstable core temperatures, triggering alarms from several systems that were continually ignored.

Finally, the flaw in the design of a positive void coefficient (meaning that as heat goes up, water turns to steam, and the presence of the steam causes the reaction to become more efficient and produce more heat, in a runaway) actually struck, as the unstable neutron flux presumably spiked and the coolant flow was already further decreased (they had started the actual test, so the coolant pumps were being powered only by leftover momentum in the turbines). In combination, large steam voids formed, and then thermal runaway, and then a scram that actually first increased reaction rates further. (And then fuel rods fractured and many control rods got stuck at only 1/3 insertion, with the increasing portion still within the reactor). The void coefficient is why the test was supposed to take place around 700 MW, not the ~200 the operators had managed to restore; above around 700 MW the void coefficient in RBMK reactors is negative and such a runaway would not occur.
In terms of cost per citizen that's actually the same order of magnitude as the $700 billion quoted here [1] (if as citizens we count Ukraine and Belarus, which is of course not totally fair).

But yes, Covid is also incredibly expensive, and with a couple of years of hindsight we will no doubt talk about its major political impact just like we are talking about Chernobyl contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union.

1: https://globalhealth.usc.edu/2016/05/24/the-financial-costs-...
> Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance.

Circumcision, and perhaps female breast cancer, aside: the accumulated evidence is pretty strongly in the opposite direction. There have been quite a few studies on the topic over the last 30 years, with little improvement.
> Paul Graham is indirectly talking about

I find it strange that for someone that is a relatively immune from any real scrutiny, and constantly claiming to be a bold thinker, PG is always so coy in his writing.

I would find PG's recent stream of ego driven rants much more enjoyable and potentially insightful if he would just say what he's really trying to say.

He might be trying to add strength to his arguments by making them somehow more general, but since these pieces always seem very clearly about a specific bone PG has to pick, the result is they read as some of the most cowardly essays I've ever encountered.
If you're familiar with Elixir you can call Gleam functions the same way as Erlang functions. Gleam compiles to typical Erlang code, and you can even read the compiled output to get a better idea of how it works.

Later we will have more docs on how to work with Gleam from Elixir specifically, thank you.
> How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in?

That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished.

> They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for?

How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem.

What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency.

> You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains.

The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now?
Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government.

> That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs.

Unless you're a baker.

Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it.

Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
Forem – For Empowering Community
And there is only one confirmed death from the nuclear incident.
You can verify that you have a key that corresponds to a specific quantity of Bitcoin. What you cannot verify is how much you can exchange it for. This is no different than owning a share of a commodity ETF. Transacting via custodian has literally never once gotten in my way. Has it for you?
A large part of non-personalized EVA suits is, when an emergency vacuum release occurs you wouldn't want astronauts (cosmonauts, if you prefer) looking for their personalized EVA suit. Seconds matter. I have a disability and would love to go into space, but understand the necessity for uniformity in EVA suits. I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but many of the well articulated amputation prosthesis might risk a suit puncture, the stresses on the body could cause high/low blood sugars when a person is unable to get to medicine or food to regulate their blood sugars, epilepsy is a non-starter, eye sight might be a pass with surgery (though I saw a pilot talking about that above), I saw someone arguing for paralyzed astronauts which was an argument that was beyond me (sorry) - I just don't think we're there yet. If we were at the level of a space elevator, then I think this would be a fantastic plan, and I would be the first in line! But as a disabled person, this seems to put inclusion and politic in front of safety protocol. They aren't just choosing astronauts based on physical performance, these are also startling smart individuals who have worked hard and I don't think that should be forgotten. The vast majority of them are science nerds, not jocks.