skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For social media outrage, women seem to have more power than men (eg. this article), so your claims about men are sexist due to the power imbalance. I'll also demonstrate the equivalence of your statement to racism by changing some words:

"What makes more sense? Some black person has been violent and only showed the positive side in his defense, or three random unrelated white people -- who he claims only ever had lovely, adoring exchanges with him -- decided to destroy his life for no apparent reason."
> Apparently, it's some kind of alias "feature" they added to Windows at some point. What legitimate reason is there for that

It's a loophole so they don't have to ship Windows with a version of Python and then have to support it for how long that version of Windows will be supported. So instead the user gets it from the store (and it's upgraded via the store).

Same thing they did for years "Add or Remove features" where, to enable certain things they wouldn't bloat the base OS and made them optional download.
> Halflife Alex

Alyx. Sounds the same, but this spelling has the right gender.

> And even with [Alyx], the player base is so limited due to being a VR exclusive.

I have played it, and am currently replaying it with developer comments on. There's a reason it's a VR exclusive. There is no way this could transfer over a flat screen.

VR interactions are fundamentally different. Motion sickness severely constrain how many players may move about (it gets better with practice, but Alyx is aimed at beginners). The ability to pick up objects and throw them about is crucial to immersion. The kind of weapons that work in VR are different (1 handed mostly). Pacing is different we move slower in VR than we do in a flat screen FPS, often by a factor of 5. This modify level design and how to manage tension. Even combat must be paced slower, especially at the beginning where players have yet to reload their guns seamlessly (requiring gestures is more immersive, but there's a learning curve, and doing it under duress requires serious training).

A flat screen port of Half Life: Alyx would not be a good game. Most rooms would feel cramped. Some parts of the game would be cumbersome. Others like the Jeff chapter (Jeff is an unkillable monster with very good hearing) would swing between being overly punishing or way too easy. Many puzzles would have to be cut or replaced by something else. Some weapon features like an aiming laser would not even make sense (unless you remove the aiming dot at the centre of the screen, making aiming way too punishing). An inventory of 2 items (plus ammo) would feel limited for no good reason the player can see (one item per wrist is an obvious good reason in VR).

Some games, like vehicle simulators (car, plane, spaceship…) can indeed have good flat screen and VR version. Standing first person games however cannot. The difference between a keyboard/mouse/gamepad and a pair of knuckles/Vive/touch is too great to compensate for, in either direction.
Try spending just 10 minutes browsing r/all
it is a solid call out. One of our teams had to rip out and completely re-think our integration with OpenTracing because of allocations in the client at the time. I believe that's been fixed.
> Venture capitalists are a primary source of vigor [1] for the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Silicon Valley, and venture capital as an asset class largely punches above its weight.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this is the first sentence in a post written by an investor about an investor. So, ya know, I'm a bit skeptical.

The cited paper does very little to make me feel any better. For one, it's not a history paper - you know... the closest bit of academia to the "study of what happened." It's an economics paper that uses some sort of system model to argue for what links / nodes are valuable in the "silicon valley network."

Yeah, nah. Systems like these rely on far to many assumptions-from-no-where to make compelling arguments about how the real world works. One can massage these models to output pretty much any result one wants (tweak the constants a bit in favor of the venture capitalists, if you so desire).

I'll also note I stopped reading the post there. The rest of it might be inspired, but I couldn't make it through that first sentence.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0308514090278682...
NotJustBikes did a video collaboration with Strong Towns and discussed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY

Great channel for those interested in urbanism.
> Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence

It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.

My issues with using this study to give the above advice:

1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.

2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"

3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels

Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
Nine Dead in shooting at San Jose rail yard
You make your build system emit a compile-definitions.json file that has all the compiler flags for every file you compile and feed it to a language server (rtags or clangd usually, either standalone or part of another plugin like YouCompleteMe). CMake has a flag to do that as part of its configuration step (and remembers it), for other build systems you can use something like bear: https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear .
The argument made is that governments already changed policies.

For example, the 1992 UN Climate Convention said:

The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner

The European part of the Netherlands ratified that. It also ratified the 2015 Paris agreement.

Argument seems to be that is enough to require Shell to react soon and strongly.

I think I agree. I don’t see a need to introduce financial incentives. The government doesn’t pay companies who don’t dump chemical waste, persons who don’t steal, etc. either. It’s enough that it says those things shouldn’t happen. IMO, this case is similar (but more abstract). The government clearly said we must act soon; Shell knew that, and didn’t do enough.
Right, which is why you refuse to believe the accusers, right?

All we have here is judgement. There's no meaningful evidence except testimony from the people in conflict. You made one call, grandparent made another.

Why should only one be sexist?
-isms are a belief that "$group does $thing, so $person who is a part of $group probably $thing" held or supported by a large enough group of people that it out-powers $person.

Saying only long-held -isms somehow pass your bar is gatekeeping and not ok. Victims don't need your approval.
I probably shouldn't nitpick here, but Chrome's WebCodecs team is a subset of the Media team. Color simply wasn't the first priority to implement.

What has changed is that more functionality got pulled into WebCodecs as it became clear that existing web platform objects (eg. ImageBitmap) were not an ideal fit.
Always a good idea to leave at the top. Congrats to him.
Not sure what Shell is talking about, they recently won a Dutch offshore wind tender with zero subsidy, assuming they expect it to be profitable why shouldn’t they be able to expand on this?
Building the Future of Spotify Desktop Apps
Whenever I read about LSP I'm reminded of Jonathan Blow's talk Preventing the Collapse of Civilization where he talks about LSP and how it turns your single app into a fragile distributed system[1].

The sheer complexity of going from vi, to vim (and plethora of plugins), to vim + LSP is simply insane to me. It does feel like we've all lost our minds.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW-SOdj4Kkk&t=2546s
Freenode, OFTC, and probably others that I can’t think of off–hand are a bit different from general–purpose IRC networks. They are geared strictly towards providing a place for users and developers of open source and free software to talk about the software. I’m sure you could distract yourself from your studies by going to #nethack or #erlang or #emacs, but most of the conversations being had there are much more productive than any discussion of pop culture.
They tried to open one in NYC (Roosevelt Island, Development, between Manhattan and LIC), but there was major pushback by both faculty and some students/alumi

They felt opening Stanford to more students will dilute its brand/exclusivity feel, and character, yada yada....

Basically, some folks that wanted to keep it an exclusive club, nixed it.

Right now Cornell has a tech campus there.
Yes, it’s a bit like saying, “My favorite colors are blue, green, and a potato”.

But a potato is not a color!

“Which is why I included blue and green.”
... this comment reminds me of something about the smell of napalm, and victory ...
> I did not get that. Do I need to know him personally to know that he has junkie and a criminal?

Yes, since you only seem to know what right wing media tells you. Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.

> George Floyd and other black criminals

This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.

> everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.

I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi. I said "defending nazis is reprehensible" basically.

> I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.

Again, no you are not. If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights. Right to life and all that.

> serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.

I agree, but this isn't a trial.

>decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists

I mean, it did? Look at the 50's. Rightwing cancel culture and deplatforming at it's finest. Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok - that's sort of what our justice system is based on, since you likened this to a trial.
It's on http://www.kalmykia.net/

Weird.
They’re sticking it to shell because they’re trying to reduce carbon emissions as a nation and shell accounts for 90% of total carbon emissions (according to another comment here). So if they want to make an impact nationally, it basically has to be against shell.
I hope you're right. As long as home values don't drop -too- much below existing prices, damage would be minimized.

Big second order effect of a potential housing crash: There's a non-negligible part of the population that uses their homes as their own lines of credit. As their home increases in value, they occasionally will do a 'cash-out' refiance of their property. Or will open up a HELOC. If the market tanks, people who rely on this tactic will find themselves in a crunch quickly.
Activist Wins Exxon Board Seats After Questioning Oil Giant’s Climate Strategy
> Not being viable as your daily driver does not make it crappy.

What does it make it then? Some unicorn device that I'm unworthy of? Is there something wrong with my workload, or Apple's? Apple is marketing the M1 to computer users. I'm a computer user, and I cannot use it as part of my workflow, I have every right to voice that concern to Apple.

> And you see no reason to celebrate the first genuinely viable, power-efficient and fast non x86 CPU being a mass success.

You must be late to the party, ARM has been around for years. Apple's power efficiency is about on-par with what should be expected from a 5nm ARM chip with a gimped GPU. What is there to celebrate, that Apple had the initiative to buy out the entirety of the 5nm node at TSCM, plunging the entire world into a semiconductor shortage unlike anything ever seen before? Yeah, great job Apple. I think it was worth disrupting the global economy so you could ship your supercharged Raspberry Pi /s

> Also not sure why you wave away CPU bound workloads as though they don't exist or somehow lesser.

CPU-bound workloads absolutely exist, but who's running them on a Mac? Hell, more importantly, who's running them on ARM? x86 still has a better value proposition than ARM in the datacenter/server market, and most local workloads are hardware-accelerated these days. I really don't know what to tell you.
You are arguing the very long term prospects for oil and gas aren't great. I agree.

But that has little to do with whether or not this case will have any impact on oil and gas extraction. It's just a PR move, which won't affect the number of barrels pumped out of the ground each year.
That would only work if the review decisions could be expected to be reasonably consistent from person to person. But, from the article:

> In a well-publicized case in 2014, organizers of the Neural Information Processing Systems Conference formed two independent program committees and had 10% of submissions reviewed by both. The result was that almost 60% of papers accepted by one program committee were rejected by the other, suggesting that the fate of many papers is determined by the specifics of the reviewers selected and not just the inherent value of the work itself.

With this much demonstrated discrepancy between two sets of reviewers, it’s hard to believe that adding a validation step would produce a consistent improvement. How can people be expected to find improperly accepted papers when they have less than 50% agreement on the acceptance of good-faith submissions?

Honestly I think this seeming randomness in acceptance is at the heart of why people might think cheating is acceptable. If the process is not reliable, why bother submitting to it?
That could get complicated fast. Imagine ten thousand copies of your brain, all with different ages, experiences, and opinions, deciding what to do with your money, how to educate your children, what kind of relationship you want with your spouse.
>It's that easy it could have been worse or better.

Lead by who?
> But in English using the title Doctor is assumed to mean medical specialist in general circumstances. Any Ed.D that stands up when the flight attendant asks, “Is there a doctor on the plane?” deserves a scolding at the very least.

I dunno... Jill Biden made an ad in which she called herself by her title 'Doctor' (which is proper, since she has an EdD) and then gave advice on COVID, and we were told that this was sexist because she's really a doctor by many mainstream news outlets.
> The thing that makes science different isn't that scientists are more rational than everyone else but that it's possible to challenge a scientific finding with evidence. Even with evidence some people will still resist, but if you publish your experiment and your findings and it gets replicated you at least have a chance of changing enough minds to change overall opinion quickly.

I don't know. I'm quite a fan of Lynn Waterhouse's 2013 book Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity. Waterhouse argues that there has never been any good scientific evidence to support the existence of autism or ASD, that what evidence has accumulated undermines rather than supports the theory that it exists, and that it is past time that researchers abandoned the concept and moved on to something else. (At the end of her book, she tentatively proposes replacing the concept of autism/ASD with "phenotypes of neurodevelopmental social impairment".)

But I very much get the impression that few want to take her argument seriously, not due to the quality of her arguments, but because people have so much invested into the concept of autism/ASD – there is a whole community of people who identify with the concept as a diagnosis for themselves and their family members, there are many professionals who have built their entire career on the concept, entire institutions, billions of dollars of funding (both for research and for support services), and Waterhouse's ideas are just too threatening to all of that for many people to seriously consider them. The social, cultural, political and economic/financial factors supporting the theory are more important than the question of its scientific truth.

(To be clear, Waterhouse doesn't deny that the symptoms of autism/ASD, in their immense variety, actually exist. She has spent much of her career working with children who suffer from these symptoms, and she knows how disabling they can be for individuals and their families. But she argues that autism/ASD is a scientific dead-end in terms of actually finding effective treatments for these symptoms, that abandoning the concept is necessary to move the research forward to discovering their real causes, which will hopefully lead in turn to effective treatments for them.)
> in the US, a large number decisions that are effectively "policy", questions of how we live, wind-up buried inside supposedly technical/professional regulations - zoning, codes and other standards.

While I see your point, I would state it somewhat differently: in the US, there are, roughly speaking, two opposing viewpoints on "policy" about "how we live":

(1) The viewpoint that a central authority should figure out some "best" way to live, and impose it on everyone, or at least everyone in a significantly-sized geographic area, via technical/professional regulations, zoning, codes, etc.

(2) The viewpoint that individual people, or groups of people who have something in common, should figure out how they want to live and set themselves up that way, and decisions about how various people and groups who happen to be in the same geographical area interact should be made by negotiation and consensus among the people and groups who are affected. Input can certainly be sought from technical professionals to inform those decisions, but at the end of the day, the people who make such decisions should be the people who have to live with the consequences. And to the extent that top-down, large-scale policies play a role, it should be to ensure that individuals and groups have the tools they need to make such decisions for themselves.

What strikes me about this dispute, as with pretty much all such disputes that I have seen, is that both sides adhere to viewpoint #1; they just have different views on what the "best" way to live is that should be imposed on everyone. Practically nobody in such discussions even considers viewpoint #2 at all.
They should switch to a QMK based firmware. I use it on mine and the flexibility is amazing.

https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2020-07-09-kint-kinesis-...
This does come up in "friends and family" rounds though. It's relatively easy in a tech-dense city to find 35 friends and former coworkers willing to invest $15k, but I wouldn't expect that all of them have accumulated $1mm yet (especially in a high-tax locale, if your coworkers are late-20s/early-30s).
What's your point? As long as they're right sometimes, it makes the unfortunate casualties worth it? A needed sacrifice for the greater good?
I guess I'm confused, there are a lot of things in life that become known by hearsay and don't reach the same consensus as codified law. What makes this special? Would it really be any different if twitter actively had daily democratic polling on who should be criticized that day? And how would that be any different from "mob mentality," if large groups of users all decided to impulsively vote the same way?
What has been stated so far is not 'judgment'. SavantIdiot has merely stated a prior that applies to any and all accusations of some sort, regardless of the evidence. The fact that OP can provide evidence of unambiguously positive exchanges, while not dispositive as has been pointed out, is at least enough on its own to overcome the prior.
That’s not the question you asked and you know it.

That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.
Global poverty has plummeted over the last 70 years
Might want to talk to folks in Singapore, where the government infamously uses strict libel laws to bankrupt and jail its critics.
>"One way we can make the world better is by fixing the rules. Getting rid of ones that are unjust, and making the rest more consistent."

I once saw sign on a street: do not do something (do not remember what) and reference to a City Bylaw numbered as 37 thousand and something. That is just for one city. Good luck changing this sheer insanity.
All of those incentives just increase demand for housing and bid up prices.
Supply needs fixing.
Yes but if program constants are in executable memory, then you can end up with byte sequences that represent numeric values but also happen to decode into the problematic instructions.

For example, this benign line of code would trip a static analyzer looking for `msr s3_5_c15_c10_1, x15` in the way you described:

uint32_t x = 0xd51dfa2f;
Lack of trust is a symptom not the cause. I hate it when I hear politicians and the like bemoan a "lack of trust". I don't want to trust you! I want to hold you to account!
Now I wonder if my neutrogena spf 15 moisturizer is contaminated as well…
The page you link to even talks about it being a model rather than a scan:

> It is a mathematical model of an ordinary Melitta-brand teapot

> The teapot model was created in 1975 by early computer graphics researcher Martin Newell, a member of the pioneering graphics program at the University of Utah.[3] It was one of the first to be modeled (using bézier curves) rather than precisely measured.
Oh, Canada - the take-home is lower but the healthcare is nice. I'm now even a dual citizen!
I would say that serverless does a bad job handling databases, especially Postgres, since they are designed around a small number of high-volume TCP connections while serverless causes lots of minimally-used sockets to be spawned putting heavy pressure on Postgres' fork-per-socket design.

I also had very bad experiences with AWS Lambda being very disconnected from how you would typically structure and deploy a backend service; dead endpoints wouldn't actually be deleted without special care being taken, so you could accidentally have code in production that still works using endpoints you thought you removed and no longer have the source for (actual issue in another startup I joined), and of course the API endpoint structure (URLs, HTTP methods allowed, payload provided) were dictated by Lambda, not the needs of your frontend or backend code. This implicit scaffolding in Lambda also makes it very difficult to do integration tests locally.

So AnyCloud lets you structure your backend code how you want, so local testing is about the same as how it would behave in production, and it handles not just autoscaling like Lambda but also the deploy/monitor/autoscale/rollback needs for you, and since it produces instances in your cloud more similar to the kinds of clients DBs expected, its much harder to break postgres.