skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is article comes at a good time.
I feel like the tech sector over the past 10 years has been focusing mostly on very safe bets.

It's been shocking for me to see how terrified multi-millionaires are to invest even $100K into a risky but potentially transformative project; instead preferring to pile onto the latest hot startups which other big investors are dumping their money into... Like a herd of sheep. This behavior underlies a lack of self-confidence.

When you have a lot of money, your odds of success are much better, so why waste it and act like a sheep? Is it because a lot of wealthy people nowadays come from lower classes and they've struggled to shake off the herd mentality which is so pervasive among the lower classes of society? They think they're playing the same game as before; with all odds stacked against them, but this mindset is counterproductive to a wealthy person. Once you have a lot of money, the game is rigged in your favor, not against you; there is no excuse to act like a sheep anymore.

If the majority of rich people keep acting like sheep, the system will collapse under its own weight from the sheer inefficiency. Capitalism doesn't tolerate deadweight; it shakes it all off sooner or later.

Now investors are realizing that if they want to only make safe bets, then they should just invest in Bitcoin or some other scheme with high network effects... Maybe now is a good time for investors to actually judge investments based on their disruptive potential instead of just looking to other investors to outsource decisions. If you just want to participate in a social scheme; just invest in crypto. If you want to invest in a business, then you can't avoid taking risks!
It's a pretty standard thing (US) to start with for entry level jobs. What the GP is claiming that is that policies that: "everyone starts here with 2 weeks, you get a 3rd week after N years, a 4th after M" are kind of bs for senior employees. They have a point; this rarely applies to senior management, for example - and effectively you are asking people to take a major quality-of-life hit when changing jobs.

This can lead to conversations like: "You've asked for N weeks vacation but policy is strict everyone starts here with 2 weeks". "I can probably live with that for an extra X k/year." ... "We can do N weeks".

I think in tech 2 week is becoming rare though. More likely either longer, or so-called "unlimited" (which itself is nonsense).

The more weird thing I find in US corporate culture is a tendency to not take the vacation you are allotted. In some countries this is legally at least problematic, in the US it's sometimes a badge of honor.
And because the second group fails (or were outright scams) the record of all of them is lost. We know about the HUGE venture capital failures like pets dot com, but there were thousands more in the $1-10m range nobody cares to even document. Similarly throughout history. The "crazy ideas that actually worked" are talked about because of how rare they are.
Death and violence were a daily occurrence in not-so-distant past. The current era is an aberration when viewed from this perspective (a welcome one - but an aberration still). We'd do well to remind ourselves that reality is not sterile and violence-free like the mass entertainment/information industry wants to present it. That doesn't mean you should watch such violent materials, but they do spark reflection and conversation.
Huh, I vaguely remember hearing about the Stellar Lumens airdrop and I just checked and I have ~$230 USD of them in my Keybase account which is nice I guess. I'll probably just hold them but I had forgotten all about those.
Not generally. Big firms it would be email 1st with browser for most line of business apps , excel close second, third PowerPoint, with Word behind by some distance and mainly for reading, rather then writing so Acrobat is high on the list as well.
Most of the excel workbooks would be lists and trackers of various kinds, many just (big) tables without any formulae at all.
Is it true that chromebooks outsell other laptops?
It seems people often have a weird "anti-bias" to believe that everything that goes on to be wildly successful was originally dismissed as ridiculous or impossible. First of all, it's not true. There are plenty of examples of ideas that seemed good to begin with and turned out to be good in practice. So something seeming ridiculous doesn't really count as an important quality in predicting success. Secondly, even if it were somehow true that all successful ideas seemed ridiculous, that still says nothing about how likely something is to succeed. What percentage of failed ideas originally seemed ridiculous? It's also an important question, but I guess one you don't need to answer if you're a billionaire and have a large audience of worshipers.

Sometimes a stupid idea is just that.
Source or example?

I have difficulty in believing anyone in their right mind would victim blame someone sitting on a bench for not getting out of the way of a car. This reeks of urban legend or motivated anti-motorist propoganda. The motor vehicle would have to have completely departed from the designated motorway and would as a result be completely at fault. Failure to respond to signal is also the motorist's fault, and even when out of compliance signalwise on a crosswalk, the pedestrian has right-of-way. It's right in the driver's manual for most States in the U.S.

Unless we're talking somewhere with much more fluid road laws. For the record, I've been that pedestrian getting clipped several times, and people on bicycles make me so paranoid in city driving, I've been known to lower windows to try to verbally communicate.

My issue is generally with other motorists for the most part.

>Automatically pardoned in reader's minds

There was a time I'd say you were over stating tilted journalism's influence. Nowadays I'm not so sure anymore.
I rememeber doing that too, leaving to get dinner, coming back and being still in flight.

But still, if I compare that to hearthing to some location, hopping into a portal, flying to some objective, landing at the marker on my minimap to pick up some item, flying to some quest giver for the reward and then flying away, the latter feels so much more shallow.
At minimum it seems like I’d have to choose an instance size, an OS that was compatible with my software, install the editing software, mount a common storage location with my footage, etc.

What I’d like to see is a service that let me add my credit card, click a button, and launch a video editor on a high-RAM machine that I pay for the hour (including the software license fee).
Webtorrent-desktop: Streaming torrent app for Mac, Windows, and Linux
I've been using scroll.com. It removes ads on many sites for $5 per month (Vox, The Atlantic, USA Today, Kotaku, ...). Apparently sites make more from scroll subscribers on average than they do from folks seeing ads. Twitter just announced they bought scroll.

As for this article, I think it is good to find a way to have targeted ads while preserving privacy.
If your free money covers groceries and rent, then you compare "get up and go to work every day" with the luxuries you can use the extra money on.
It seems to me that aliens as an explanation for UFO sightings is inherently contradictory.

If you assume they came and are attempting stealth, then they've done a terrible job of what should have been a trivial task. Assuming they have the technology to detect intelligent life on our planet from many light-years away, one would think they could safely observe us from inside our solar system but outside the atmosphere, where they would be virtually impossible to detect. If they do need to enter our atmosphere, it should be easy to set some rules on movement (acceleration limits, etc) such that, at the very least, they do not immediately strike a casual observer as an unusual phenomenon. Instead, they have managed to be seen and recorded so many times that they have not only been sporadically observed, but have actually inserted themselves into our cultural zeitgeist.

On the other hand, if you assume they are here but do not care about being observed, one would expect much better documentation of them. For that matter, if they do not mind being observed one would expect they would hover or land near objects of interest: cities, planes, near world leaders, etc. Instead, UFOs always seem to have almost a furtiveness to them, quickly accelerating away when they realize they are being seen.
Sure it does, and it has nothing to do with another country.

They will take 10 years teaching astronauts about everything from orbital dynamics to spacewalking to Siberian survival.

It's literally millions of dollars spent on one person, so you need to maximize the probability of success. It's why they go for perfectly healthy people, both physically and mentally. Can't have someone quickly out of breath, or someone who breaks down in a stressful situation.
I always thought of it as a tolerances thing. The stronger/fitter (for certain definitions of those words), and the smarter (ditto), the more slack you have built into the system. On the average space flight, an average person is just fine, but when things go sideways, it's better to have someone with very exceptional abilities. That's also not to say that seeking "perfect" astronauts selects for the most ideal abilities, but that was my thinking about what they were going for.
I really love Baudrillard's writing and I'm particularly fond of America. But, I do take issue with this idea of "the larger context in which it took place" being the American media. When the context in which took place, is Saddam beginning his plan of conquering the middle east. He's not wrong about the American Media, but he really does go three essays about the gulf war, without mentioning Kuwait.
In terms of novel space exploration, it would only make sense to compose a crew of smaller individuals who require less space, consume less food, produce less waste etc. There's a strong case to be made that a first time Mars mission, or similarly challenging feat, would be best undertaken by an all-female crew.
My work on advertising is on Turtledove
Here's a replay with four: ॠڅܕଘळطЫݎ௧ڠແझ३ටիઉ౬ѲໃҲɷඤwঅஓڠເ੪ϢඞПݹਹɈຽঅதڗІށ௨౾Іނ௨୮າএƐඉƊݲడقঀஈஜɜາঌ௧ปบदਹؼƟԿЬඦƊݹݦਮȜƏஓڄຯࡑ୦ΟරݞԪػଅޅޛٮഫɞϯغȣßಣϷМѠ౫7

You have to try to sacrifice some lines in order to get guaranteed lines.
I'd consider leaving my faang level salary for more personal time. Give me a four day week or, even better, a three day week and you could have me for much lower than my current salary.
These are not exclusive propositions. You fix/patch/seal any leak you know of and can fix and set up a pump to deal with the rest. And then you monitor both to check that the pump still operates and the leak rate did not increase.
JavaScript, bitcoin and many more :)
The fact that circumcision of unconsenting infants is legal is insane to me.
Cryptocurrency Losing Its Anonymity
It is a lot nicer to tcpdump/wireshark when you can see everything, but most of the patterns of bad behavior are visible with encrypted data too.

Of course it's not as easy as it used to be / there's a lot more hurdles.

Encryption as you mentioned; although if you control the client or the server, you can often log keys and decrypt with wireshark, but it's a lot of steps, and you don't get helpful feedback to find mistakes.

NIC offloading means the OS doesn't necessarily see packets as they are on the wire. Segmentation offload means you may see larger packets than are on the wire, and checksum offload often makes sent packets show as errors but they're fine on the wire. If the NIC mutilates the packet, that's hard to debug.

It's not easy to run packet captures on mobile devices. If you can't get tcpdump on the device, you can't get captures from the client side of your cellular data. A lot of people don't have a network router they can run tcpdump on either, and if not, they can't get the client side of wifi data either.
Good point. But for every Amazon back then there were hundreds of Pets.com.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster in itself. People had their savings wiped out, lost their jobs, and had to barter beg and steal just to feed themselves. Organized criminals bought up the state's assets for pennies on the dollar and set themselves up as oligarchs. Several former soviet allies turned into dictatorships or failed states.
We are sending people in space for the last sixty years. Each of them has been monitored comprehensively and we know what are the stressors during those missions. Especially when it comes to height and legs, they doesn't mean much in zero gravity. If the person is tough enough to survive the acceleration, they should be good to go. The only real issue might be if the equipment has some hidden assumptions for the arm length of the user.
Bastet has a hard setting, which is really torturing the naive souls playing it.
I've done both perm and contract work (lately the latter, by my choice), and here's what I've seen.

1) some people prefer stability, they are the ones who will prefer "perm"; make sure you're offering actual stability. Frequent re-orgs, etc. will drive off the very people most likely to prefer permanent positions

2) there are good senior engineers who aren't into a lot of people time, who will prefer not to do contract because of the salesmanship that is inevitably involved. If you're requiring a lot of meetings, etc. you are driving off the "I just want to work" senior engineers who you might otherwise be able to keep.

3) offering interesting technical problems or attacking an important (to society) problem, is a non-salary method of attracting senior people who have probably had a job which lacked these in the past

4) by the time you're senior you have done a fair amount of slogging through bad code; a greenfield project (where you get to make your own architectural decisions) is one way to attract a senior engineer

5) by the time you are a senior engineer you have figured out that what matters most is your direct supervisor; make sure yours are a pleasure to work for.
I don't feel any party should be amplified. However, I am curious why you might feel one should.
Hold it. I agree with you, but I'm having a language nerd moment. This feels like one of those "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" things, where although the point is made clearly, the metaphor is literally false (vinegar is incredibly good bait for catching flies).

> It's much easier to kill snakes just as they've hatched.

Aren't a ton of itty bitty snakes going to be harder to kill than one big snake? I've never tried to kill snakes of any age myself, so I could be way off.
+1 and you can have the Bedtime shortcut automatically toggle it too!
Rewriting in full for the sake of performance gain is indeed a questionable proposal. Rewriting hot spots being the more sensible approach.

A better reason for rewriting however is to migrate to a more maintainable language with focus on readability from one which focus on expressiveness (and hence favored for rapid development) as the project matures.
Vouching for someone to join Gmail is different than vouching for them to join a network a person has a significant social or professional stake in. In tech, we trade mostly (80:20) on competence, outside tech, people trade 80:20 on relationships and perceptions.

Since my upside doesn't come from those networks I can armchair QB it.
In process sandboxing was definitely one of the worst ideas attempted in the early days of Java. None of my jobs in the last 10 years have ran with the security manager enabled, as it's just useless. I'm suspicious of any modern technology attempting to do the same thing, as it's just hard to get right.

When IBM developed Websphere for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, they wanted a mainframe, but you know, web stuff. The model was doomed from the start, as they designed the JVM to run as a process.

Sun attempted tried to get deeper kernel support for the JVM with Solaris, but ultimately just ended up developing the precursor to LXC Containers called Solaris Zones.

What we have today with containers is pretty awesome but it was definitely a bumpy road to figure it all out.
Leaving the spacecraft on the ground due to an emergency might require the escapee to be fully ambulatory, though.
I'm not them but from the top of my mind, an example:

1. Facebook tracks users across the internet to enrich the profiles of their users

2. Data leaks.

3. Users are now in trouble.

I can come up with many more if you ask and then give me a sec.
The Composer at the Frontier of Movie Music
The holy grail of dental care would be to trick the body into growing extra adult teeth from scratch.
Setting aside what's more intrinsically beneficial, one of the big problems with bitcoin mining is that there's no real cap to the amount of electricity it can consume.

With Netflix, their electricity consumption roughly scales with their customer base. Netflix isn't going to double their electricity consumption, unless they double the amount of customers they have. Netflix is incentivized to consume the amount of electricity they need to serve their customers, and no more.

Bitcoin, however, has a completely different set of incentives. Since Bitcoin effectively converts electricity to money, Bitcoin miners will attempt to consume as much electricity as possible, to maximize their mining output. In addition, any efficiencies made doesn't really reduce the environmental impact, as any electricity saved can just be pumped into mining more Bitcoin.
So real estate?
I am really surprised that you didn't choose the more obvious line of reasoning, which would be to bring up examples of companies that PG predicted to be breakout successes and then they failed. PG marveled about Instacart and Flexport well before anyone else, including myself (I know members of the founding teams in both companies very well, and think very highly of them... but even so, I didn't see their companies as the type of breakout successes that they became until PG made his case for them). The constant hate against PG is really starting to get tiring, especially when you see such sloppy reasoning. Why judge his reasoning based on what other VCs thought? Saying PG = VC industry is a really stunningly poor argument IMO.
Burning natural gas releases carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
Lots of comments already, but I'll chime on in.

I realized this very late in life, but I have a test for when it's time to pay attention to a new technology. It's when technical people look at what seems like a groundbreaking idea, seem unimpressed, and say "couldn't you just _____", were the blank is filled with something a nontechnical person doesn't understand or considers very cumbersome.

The web: couldn't you just transfer a file to an open port and use a rendering tool to view it?

Blogs: couldn't you just update a web page?

Wikis: couldn't you just update a web page?

social media: couldn't you just set up group view preferences and use RSS?

youtube: couldn't you just upload a video and use tags for search?

twitter: couldn't you just not? Isn't that just a worse version of what we can already do??

Honestly, I've overlooked almost every one of these things, because I failed to understand how removing small bits of friction can cause a technology to explode.

Sure, some ideas are crazy new, but some sound too underwhelming to be revolutionary. but they are, there's no question about it, all those things I listed above changed the world, in ways both good and pretty damn awful.
> Separate bike lanes, more like the sidewalks, not just painted lines on the car roads.

That actually leads to more collisions at intersections.

The reason that sidewalks work for pedestrians is because they move at walking speed. That means its easy for drivers to see them approaching an intersection (since they're a short distance away).

Cyclists, on the other hand, move far faster than a walking pedestrian and can be much further away from the intersection where a motorist isn't looking and still can end up in a collision.

The best policy is to have cyclists integrate with vehicular traffic, because cyclists are vehicles, just like motorcyclists.
There’s a cost to building back better.
As a species, we need a pretty wide distribution of experience and approaches or we’re essentially a monoculture waiting for the right set of circumstances to catch us unprepared and fail completely.

As terrible as folks are who would laugh at someone getting sucked into an industrial grinder, they’d be untroubled by anxiety or worry and associated mental issues in a Mad Max type post apocalyptic wasteland and hence more able to survive.

At least that’s what I tell myself to help sleep at night.
Theoretically, sure. Practically we've entered science fiction territory here.
Just because a QA engineer finds a bug does not mean you should spend a bunch of time diagnosing and fixing it.

In either case you can choose to do nothing. Knowing that the bug exists should put you in a better place to make the right call.
Whoa, thanks! I forgot about this and just reinstalled Keybase to check. I had $675 of free internet money sitting there.
IIRC, you need years of growing to get new teeth. This is certainly viable if you lose all of them at a young age from a car crash but for a single cavity, doubtful.
Which deception? I did not indicate one in my post so reference to " that very obvious deception" is not clear to me.

note: "Evolving understanding/new facts" or "new/differing priorities" are not the same as "deception" to me. e.g.:

* Thinking A and Saying A; then changing mind and Thinking B and Saying B; are not a deception

* Saying "Because of X, A"; then later "Because of Y, B", because Y became more important than X, is also not deception to me

* Thinking A but Saying B is a deception to me (for reasons and intents that I may or may not agree with)
Ok, so CO2 emissions, and melting the ice caps. Everything else the parent said applies.
>> Even if 1 in 100 ideas that can bring about 10x change in important areas are all that succeed, we need those ideas to improve things

Even by your own math this is a bad idea, with 1 in 100 leading to a 10x improvement we'd be better to stick with what we've got.
You can delete your phone number after enabling another kind of 2fa. Google will nag you about it but it is possible.

(I imagine someone at Google made sure this is possible and I thank them for it)
Yeah I mean I'm not saying it's a good thing that Mighty exists or that it might succeed. I'm just saying that we shouldn't take pithy Twitter replies as evidence it'll fail.
Yeah, there's a reason they removed it and why people used the shorter portals; but not having hard things with reasons to do them makes the game shallower.

And during those 40 minute hiatuses is when chat discussions would happen (and you'd also plan your questing/travels around that travel time). I'd made some decent money just taking things from the faction auction house to the neutral one and back.
The article ends on a sour-ish note, that Finland lost its lustre for him because "I like it when people smile, laugh, and, yes, even talk to their neighbors. It makes me happy."
Well, these things happen in Finland too, and increasingly so as the 20th century recedes into the distance. But the extroverted cheerfulness is not forced. Maybe the author had been Americanized into trying too hard ?
Granted, out-and-out enthusiasm is an odd thing in Finland; the folk wisdom seems to be that "If you're enthusiastic, you obviously haven't thought it through." Which makes sense in its own way.
I remember buck in the time in Yugoslavia one of the federal radio stations broadcasted Spectrum computer games over the air (FM). You could record the game to the tape and actually play it later.

Copying games was as simple as copying a music tape, you only needed a tape recorder with two heads, those were very popular at the time for the same reason.