skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, no, I absolutely don't see it. The cultural revolution was launched and enforced by Mao, who had absolute control over a very violent regime, about twenty years into the era of Chinese communism.

You know, basically a Twitter mob run amok, rite?
I wonder why does he think it is a popular lore
> When you don't have enough money you don't have a ghetto dog, you don't buy cheap gadgets on Amazon, you don't drink your daily bottle of vodka/whiskey/packs of beer, you don't smoke a pack a day. You don't take a mortgage on a car from a category you can't afford just to keep up with the Joneses when a smaller car would do.

Not saying you're wrong, but I think the article is talking about you.

> found that people from higher income backgrounds tend to struggle more at certain types of empathy. In particular, it found that people with more money found it increasingly difficult to identify with the emotional or visual point of view of other people.

For the record, I mostly agree with you except for the ghetto dog and a pack a day.

Edit: I should add that, of course, this isn't a random person but your father and you likely have a lot more information than I have.
What's the difference between 'arbitrary cultural distinction' and 'rule of a language'?
More than I’m willing to pay to house innocent convicts, and to pay the salaries of the people that locked them up. Fixing those problems would save a lot more money than tweaking death penalty rates (in either direction).
It really is such a waste of time and resources. Like you said, the database seems to be 'all rights reserved', even though the original printed artifacts are obviously out of copyright. Lots of institutions do this with scans of old books, paintings, etc. I don't understand why institutions limit their own impact like that.
I don't think anything you actually said is actually wrong, but it's adjacent to what many rich people do say - that the poor shouldn't have or do anything that just makes them happier until they're not poor. No treats, no recreation, just work at the best-paying job available as many hours as possible and save every penny. And I do have a problem with that. It's a deeply punitive and judgmental attitude, as though being poor is a moral failing that any decent person would seek to resolve as soon as possible. As I said, you didn't quite get there but you kind of brushed against it.

These negative attitudes about "bad decisions" are particularly problematic when children are involved. I grew up poor, in large part because my (single) mother made some of those choices. On two separate occasions, a friend begged her to be the managing editor of a very profitable publication, with stock that would have made us actually rich. Both times, and in other cases as well, she declined in favor of running her own "boutique" business which barely paid the rent. As a result, I do know what it's like to be hungry and scared. But if she had made other choices, my brother and I might have grown up to be very different people. Less "street smart" certainly. Also less exposed to true diversity, less empathetic, less appreciative of what we do have, etc. It's entirely likely that we are better off both financially and emotionally because she made those choices instead of rushing to join the middle class as soon as possible.

I've met enough other "once poor now rich" people to believe this is not an uncommon pattern. The ones whose parents did make the more socially-acceptable choice don't seem better off materially or emotionally than the ones who had to pull themselves up later. In fact, I see some seriously troublesome patterns there. I've seen people who were insulated from hardship and striving all their lives make their own bad decisions that sent them (and their families if they'd gotten that far) right back down the ladder. I've seen people who grew up in "no fun allowed" homes do worse. Those are bad patterns to encourage.

Even as I write my own checks to support my "foolish" parent, I find it's better for my own mental health (and therefore that of my family) to focus on forgiveness and gratitude for what was rather than resentment over what might have been. One lesson that being poor did teach me is that everyone makes some bad choices, and some people are broken by them. Making the world even harsher doesn't seem like the solution.
10+ years ago part of the allure of tech startups was they really “got” what made technologists jobs fulfilling. Back then companies had management that had no idea how to build high quality software. There was lots of waterfall like process and TPS report style bureacracy.

Fast forward to the present. FAANG companies dominate the economy. They pay well, offer upside in actual stock, AND most crucially: they do a better job giving more fulfilling tech work than most startup

Who wants to work at a startup where management likely sucks? They might have no real track record building good tech or empowering great technologists.

You’d rather have your 40 hr / week FAANG job doing what you love, spend time with your kids and family, where you know the balance of risks means you’ll likely end up in a position of upper middle class life (if not outright wealthy...)
As Traster said, they don't want to be labelled as a porn site in spite of the streaming content they have, and so i.e. they must implement a change that gives them some plausible deniability in the face of advertisers.
I've seen many of them on the front page, so this cannot be true.
Wow and a startup employee is different? Not a wage slave? So many more compromises in work quality and delivery get made at a startup vs FAANG. Not building a quality product. Building an MVP that fools a few early adopters to part with their money. Then sell out and cash in (not you; the founders).

Ok not a wage slave, because the wage isn't worth it. To work overtime without compensation or really any hope of compensation, to help somebody else win the lottery. Just a sucker I think.
The main effect of this is the generation of DC or very low frequency AC voltages on long pieces of wire. The longer the wire, the higher the generated voltage and current.

In 1859 the effect was to generate high enough dc voltages to cause shocks, and ruin equipment, likely due to insulation breakdown. Modern lightning protection would handle that, were long telegraph wires in use today.

The thing everyone worries is transformers. If a transformer has no power on it, the currents available would barely cause a measurable change in temperature. (lets say 100 amps across a 1 volt drop, 100 watts of heating)

Transformers are designed to maximally use the available flux handling capacity of their core. As the flux rises, eventually a saturation point is reached... at this point, the resistance to further current increase in the coil (the inductance) drops rapidly, leading to a surge in current at the top of the AC cycles, which then leads to rapid heating. As commented above, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27238108] this can then lead to damage if the saturation isn't detected.

If a Carrington event were detected in advance (we have about 12 hours warning with the satellites in the Lagrange point between earth and the sun, as the solar wind travels less than the speed of light), the prudent thing to do is turn off the grid, the second best option is to watch everything very carefully for the duration, and proactively turn off the circuits with overheating transformers.

Given the well known long term consequences of letting transformers saturate, I think prudent grid operators won't have a problem.
Well it doesn't tell you why the original state of the universe had such a low entropy, but it can at least be used to show that entropy should increase from there.
> What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?

What percentage of the population should California force onto the streets? Framing the question around a "percentage of housing" minimizes the humanitarian aspect of the problem, at the absolute minimum.

Questions about sufficient conditions are policy ones, and they seem irrelevant (again, at best) to the material fact that SF already has thousands of people sleeping in the open. Focusing on them seems prudent.

> If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?

I don't know if you've ever been to a homeless shelter. I have, and you really don't want to live in one unless you absolutely have to. The idea that individuals with means would willingly prefer and tax the resources of the shelter system is farcical.
Startups shouldn’t be romanticized so much, but it can be a good job.

A good startup experience can help you figure out what you really like to work on. In a big company things are already specialized — it’s pretty hard to be a data engineer and move over to the android team. Not impossible, but hard. That’s why people say you go to startups to “learn” — because in our line of work you learn by doing and in a startup you can usually do a lot.
Who Understands Crypto Art?
Send Linux Torvalds a note and tell him he has only superficial knowledge of C.
Yes, we have viewer insights and analytics giving you the ability to see who is engaging with the content and where they are spending the most time - it’s basic right now and will evolve over time.
hah. nope. you are simplifying things a lot.

working hard does not mean shit. whenever you hear someone saying they want hard workers you should turn around and run.

delivering results is where it’s at. people do this at startups and companies of all sizes. nobody is gonna keep you and pay you if it does not make financial sense.

what happens in the case of a startup is that a lot of corners are cut in order to get something out the door and gain customers/marker share. it’s do or die. but: this corner cutting has its cost that, if successful, you will pay back with interest in the later stages. it’s not good or bad. it just is what it is.

bigger companies have more structure and are better about both optimizing for cost (ie we don’t want to build something that will cost us X now and 100X over the next 5 years) and optimizing for risk (if X leaves or we learn about Y market factor we should be able to keep going without going bankrupt).

the “what work feels like” is some bs. you define what work is for you and diminish other people that just don’t know the feeling. please.
Thanks, I had no idea things had progressed so far, I basing my opinions on out of date perceptions I see now. On the other hand 14 states not compensating is not good.
You mean they're poor and they think they're real human beings!? /s
Yeah; I first heard about this from a German speaker who was complaining about it. He said that you could mangle 99% of English Grammar — no problem. But! you get the order-of-adjectives slightly wrong, and a native English speaker will look at you like you're from Mars. His second complaint is that the rule is rarely taught to native English speakers, such that they (we) don't even know how hard of a rule it is.
I don't see how that follows. Free market must have rules to be free - market with no rules undergoes self-destruction quite efficiently, just like free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences. Just mention zoning regulations explicitly.
Between working for a startup and a corp, I can't say I have massive emotions either way now. I'd definitely suggest working for a startup at one point, but not for too long, while taking care of your physical and emotional state.
This matches my feeling that it’s a post-Big Sur upgrade issue, which makes me hope it can be fixed.

Has anyone spoken to Apple Support regarding this?
With a little bit of practice, you can get used to anything that reduces comprehensibility.

That doesn't mean doing it is a good idea. Every time you do, you sacrifice a bit more.
Can we equally punish defenders who get criminals released, who shouldn't be?

-20 legal points for each aquitted defendant that goes on to actually be a repeat criminal.
Eye witness testimony is unreliable, but that doesn’t mean it’s always false. It just shouldn’t be the only evidence or the primary evidence in a conviction, as in this case. But if it’s used to corroborate other known facts that haven’t been revealed to the witness, then it’s still beneficial.
As someone who left paycheck to paycheck life, I do struggle to emphasize with the paycheck to paycheck class.

I didn't buy luxuries like alcohol or fast food, I didn't even have enough money for that.

But this class would find a way to go on vacation, buy juice, and get takeout.

I'm long gone from that problem but I'm still frugal.

Until that class stops buying needless luxuries, I do struggle to emphasize.
Funny how those same companies never are willing to pay you for that 24/7 availability. I'd be happy to do that, if they paid me for it, and not with bullshit options.
Wouldn't it be whichever has more attestations by stakers?
Says the country which organised a coup in Iran to install a dictator, financed another local dictator to attack it, then waged war twice against him leaving a country in ruins, supports and arms a religious absolute monarchy and its wars, supports an apartheid regime, paid jihadists in Syria to keep a civil war running...
Their dual mandate is to maximize employment and manage inflation. Their mission is exactly not to create inflation (or at least, too much of it).
If what you say is true: that prosecures or promoted based on conviction rates, false convictions should count as -100 convictions- perhaps even more.
fellow Canadian here ?
Microscope Sees Atoms at Record Resolution
Sure, but then the lesson to take away from this is that the company in question apparently isn't offering enough to make that job worthwhile, and that's not the fault of the people turning them down.

When the company phrases their rejection as "we don't think you're committed enough to do this", that's when things smell off to me. They're hiring for a specific role, they should act like it.

As an analogy, if you hire me to build software, and then slip in that you expect me to spend 10 extra hours a week doing cold sales calls, I might turn down your job because I don't want to do sales, I'm an engineer. And the problem at that point isn't my commitment to the company, the problem is that the company hasn't figured out it needs to make the sales tasks part of the job description.

How do interviews get to this point? How does a company get to the point where you're talking to the CEO, they're laying out their exit strategies, and the job requirements still haven't been made clear?

> "we feel like you are not willing to put enough skin in the game" or "everyone else sees the opportunity here is is willing to work their asses off, why are you different?"

Those quotes say to me that the owners are viewing this as a question of "loyalty" or moral obligation, not as a normal part of a job negotiation. A good test: if the CEO feels offended that you ask for more compensation in exchange for being online 24x7, then this isn't about trying to hire a specific role, it's about their ego/entitlement.
It depends.

If you want to learn a lot, get a sense of startup, have great founders, bootstrapped company then startup is a good idea. Especially at the start of your career.

But if you are late in your career with family, responsibilities and health issues - then startup isn't the best place to work.

I hope - you decide weighing everything and enjoy the process.
Not sure why they’d ask for a US applicant, but a lot of countries’ job application/interview processes make the US and Canada look very progressive. Maybe they hardcoded the DOB box.

Things that are common in various other countries: including a selfie with your application, DOB, marital status, citizenships.
One approach that can be adopted on a personal level is simply changing the way one thinks. For example, switch from a binary (true/false) method of epistemology to trinary (true/false/unknown), defaulting to unknown, and consciously insist on a high level of certainty to reclassify an idea.

There's obviously more complexity than this, but I believe that if even a relatively small percentage of the population started thinking like this (particularly, influential people) it could make a very big difference.

Unfortunately, this seems to be extremely counter to human nature and desires - people seem seem compelled to form conclusions, even when it is not necessary ("Do people have ideas, or do ideas have people?").
Help wanted, work from anywhere except if you're located in Colorado
Anyone here exactly building something with this platform?
I know people to whom the /s doesn't apply...
>Again I can only lament the lack of science education in this country.

What country exactly?

> Triangles show up as triangular bokeh... therefore... must be aliens??

No. But, "Triangles show up as triangular bokeh" completely disproves the sentence "it's just bokeh, not a pyramid". Additionally, when people talk about UFOs, they don't imply it must be aliens (even though it's the most probable explanation for several top members of the US government).

> This is a much better read than Twitter...

Agreed. Most reads are better than Twitter. But let me recommend you to read something on the UFO phenomenon, so that you get a better understanding of it. For example something from Jacques Vallée, who has been applying data science to it since the 70s.
No one would ever want to be a judge then. And your second paragraph is very much in conflict with the tenet that everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
RADAR vs radar.

Acronyms should be all upper case. But no one really cares for words that have entered common languge
They say “skin in the game” but they mean “skin in the machine”.

These sorts of word games work on young naive people, especially young men. Maybe we need to broadly educate people that this sort of exploitation is not okay...
Rich in the UK is rich indeed.
If you learned that punishment produced no useful benefit to society, and you want to punish anyway, then what you’re seeking is revenge, not justice.
You asked for absurd, so:

Eye witness testimony is only slightly more reliable as waving purple LEDs around while chanting long words and rambling off conspiracy theories. (Which is apparently now an acceptable form of criminal investigation in the US).
> And yet, they are also true if they are statement of fact:

The whole point of lying by omission is that the statement is true -- even when what is communicated isn't.
I’ve always wondered whether you couldn’t build a not-fully-ML app for screen-font recognition, that just takes a bunch of fonts, renders out every individual glyph at every size, trims them, converts them to an alpha mask, and then generates an indexible image fingerprint of said alpha mask.

The OCR software would then just need to be smart enough to recognize “things that look like glyphs”, and put bounding boxes around them; and everything from there could be implemented in logic, rather than a model. (Just apply the same transforms to the thing in the bounding box, and then search the fingerprint DB.)
the legal argument in the U.S for not giving compensation (as I recall) tends to be you should only be compensated if there was legal irregularities (cough, cough) that resulted in your incarceration - for example falsification of evidence, withholding evidence by the police, forced confessions etc.

So if things were fair and followed correctly and you were by mistake locked up that's too bad, regrettable but not the state's fault and as such the state does not need to compensate you.
This trend presupposes an ever-growing accumulation of knowledge and a view of mathematics as a collection of discoveries of "facts". I think most people nowadays hold such a view and it is intimately connected with the idea of progress. Wittgenstein himself was quite suspicious of such an idea, however:

"This book is written for such men as are in sympathy with its spirit. This spirit is different from the one which informs the vast stream of European and American civilization in which all of us stand. That spirit expresses itself in an onwards movement, in building ever larger and more complicated structures; the other in striving after clarity and perspicuity in no matter what structure. The first tries to grasp the world by way of its periphery -- in its variety; the second at its centre -- in its essence. And so the first adds one construction to
another, moving on and up, as it were, from one stage to the next, while the other remains
where it is and what it tries to grasp is always the same."

- Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Remarks", Preface

Will the current trend continue so that future discoveries are more and more intricate but also more and more specialised and thus perhaps less interesting? Or will there be a paradigm shift so that we lose interest in many of our "fundamental" results and there will be new low hanging fruits waiting to be "discovered"? Wittgenstein was more sympathetic to the latter view and often countered the view that mathematical results are discovered with the idea that mathematical results are invented (which does not make him a naive constructivist, however).
"You have been found a very bad egg by the rules of the area you are in."

If a person is being sentenced to death, this is a ridiculous statement and it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad.

You don't get the death penalty for stealing purses at Walmart, protesting in the streets, or even killing somebody. You get it for unspeakable crimes that are far more broadly condemned than just the "rules of the area." You get it for bombing planes, child molestation, genocide. People that society should not pity as having a good heart in there somewhere.

These are people, who, frankly, we shouldn't sympathize with. We shouldn't feel bad that they are being put to death as if that is some miscarriage of justice. We should put them to death humanely, quickly upon conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and resign that justice has been done the same way you would a rabid dog. You don't hate the dog or seek revenge upon it, but you know it must be done for the safety of everyone.
World expert in scientific misconduct faces legal action
Sounds like a false dichotomy. It's not like the only two options are cage vs death penalty.
Another interesting approach: https://github.com/recksjs/recks
This makes me think of the composition fallacy[0]. There is another, more specific, term called the "apex fallacy". The idea is that people have a tendency to see only the most successful representatives of a particular group and infer that the group as a whole has an advantage.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
Make a static site with find(1), grep(1), and lowdown or Markdown.pl
Same persona and personality publicly? Lol.
Back in the day of late Pentiums and early Cores those internal names worked quite well, they were used and understood everywhere in computer tech media. Today there just isn't so much buzz (or maybe I'm just getting old and do not fall for it so much anymore, but I'd wager that it's both), the portfolios are so wide that none of the many niches can get much attention and the entirety of x86 has to share the stage with mobile (or in-betweens), more than it had to share the stage with workstation CPU news in early Pentium age and before.
In my experience, the only way to be happy most of the time with what you do is possible iff you are intrinsically motivated to do it.

If you make money doing it, that is the best case scenario. Else you can make it a hobby, and still be happy. There are no black and white answers, unfortunately, and tradeoffs always apply.