skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Basically the whole term Gain of Function Research is referring to any research that involves deliberate alterations to pathogens to make them more transferable(including the ability to infect other hosts) or deadly.
I'm referring to your example where the oil is still extracted. The Netherlands can reduce it's own fossil fuel extraction and reduce the demand for external fossil fuel extraction.

The tax scheme already exists and is implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field

But this one is actually more due to the earthquakes than just climate change.
Reddit does this with the vertical lines on the left margin.
As you present it here, that is indeed ridiculous. But people often questioned well established scientific ideas for no sensible reason at all. "I think the earth is 10,000 years old" -> "Is it appropriate for you to dismiss well established ideas in geology backed up by many independent lines of evidence because you think? Why do you think that?"

The appropriate way to question that idea would be find counter-evidence, find mistakes in the data used to arrive at the current orthodoxy, find better explanations, etc etc.
Eric Carle, Author of ‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar,’ Dies at 91
actually, having gotten a phd and attended many journal clubs, "seen his papers roundly critiqued on the merits at too many journal clubs to count" is as strong a point as anybody can make.

Journal clubs are vicious. Everybody's got their brains and knives out …

actually, having read what you wrote, saying that “journal clubs are vicious … everybody’s got their … knives out” undermines your argument by implying that even good papers will be “roundly critiqued” in that setting, making this about as weak a point as anybody can make.

—

on further reflection, what I do find to be a strong point but in favor of Loeb’s argument is the fact that it triggered the scientists who wrote this comment and its grandparent to underscore the point of the article by more or less heaping scorn on the author, listing their own credentials, and proceeding to make — forgive me — non sequitur arguments from authority instead of substantively refuting the claims.

if this is what happens to a former department chair at Harvard when they question orthodoxy, it indeed does not augur well for less-credentialed researchers, regardless of the merit of their work.
Lol, they're not even trying to hide it. Do you see what people like Paul Graham tweet? They're pretty open about these nasty things and then they get all surprised when people call them out on it.
We both know what "the constitution favors" means, and it isn't pretty.

By locals I meant Malay, since there aren't a lot of Dayak, etc. walking around the cities.

But I forgot to mention that prostitution is allowed for Chinese women in Malaysia, so the first floor in most hotels is a giant brothel. Gotta love Islamic countries. :)
Well. With such large firms, shareholders are quite a stretch of distribution. Voting proxies and the complexity of introducing a shareholder vote proposal quite drastically restricts the number of shareholders who can make stuff happen at these firms.
So to allow any post through, twitter should have a process that randomly selects an unbiased jury of other twitter posters, and have them judge the post before it becomes public? And that process will be administered by democratically elected representatives who ultimately decide on the 5% that doesn't get thrown out? What if you are a person who just happens to hold strong preconceived opinions about a lot of things, wouldn't you be seen as "too biased" for any jury, and get totally excluded from this process? Would that be the system being fair, or would it be another example of "cancel culture" stopping people from being jurors? I don't know, I'm just spitballing here, I'm not a legal expert or anything, but I do know that jury stacking/tampering is a real thing that happens.
I feel like I often see this line of argument on the internet: “Every scientific revolution was unforeseen by the mainstream of its time, you don’t want to miss the next one do you?”

But until someone proposes a predictive metric for evaluating which of these “non-mainstream ideas” are good and which are bad, I don’t think this is a fruitful area of inquiry. And that’ll be a tall order, since many of the available methods for determining truth are the very things keeping these ideas out of mainstream scientific journals. And cultural metrics like “It pisses off the establishment, so it must be right!” apply equally to both correct and incorrect non-mainstream ideas.
The depth of the lid isn't great enough.
How about “a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Because that's what this Princeton study found: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem

We live in a plutarchy disguised as a constitutional democracy sold to its employee-citizens as a democracy.
> severe autism certainly looks like something different

Some authors [0] have criticised that idea though. Severe ASD very often (but not always) co-occurs with intellectual disability, but intellectual disability with and without ASD don't actually look that different from each other, and we really have to ask how useful it is to distinguish ASD from non-ASD in cases of intellectual disability. Added to that, in many jurisdictions people with an ASD diagnosis get better services, so there is continuing pressure to reclassify people from ID without ASD to ID with ASD, not justified on any scientific grounds, but simply because they'll get better supports with the ASD label than without it. That has driven a lot of diagnostic substitution from pure ID to ID+ASD, and lends support to the argument that the whole thing is more about society and culture than actual science

[0] see for example Graham Collins, "Does a Diagnosis of ASD Help Us to Help a Person with Intellectual Disabilities?" in Katherine Runswick-Cole, Rebecca Mallett, Sami Timimi (editors). Re-Thinking Autism: Diagnosis, Identity and Equality. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2016. pp. 204–220
The success of HN is from its moderation, not from its tech.
For me it's far greater than 50%. Jest sayin'..
You know, this seemed like an interesting case study right up until he quoted Scott Adam's take on "being cancelled."
An ad hominem attack is when you criticize the person making the argument instead of criticizing the argument.

The comment above is criticizing the argument: the argument is "My ideas are being unfairly dismissed by the scientific community," and a valid counterargument is "No, your ideas are being fairly dismissed by the scientific community."

Yes, an obvious implication of that counterargument is "The person making the argument is the sort of person who publishes ideas that are regularly dismissed by the scientific community," but the strength of the counterargument does not rest on discrediting the speaker as a person - it rests on directly refuting the claim being made.

Or, in other words, if I were making the argument "Prof. Loeb's ideas are being unfairly dismissed by the scientific community," the exact same counterargument could be made against my argument. The fundamental reason an ad hominem is fallacious is that an argument's validity doesn't depend on who's making it. In this case, the argument is equally prone to refutation regardless of who's making it.
But isn't that what makes it a tax? I'd be happy to pay a price in exchange for Apple reviewing software for quality and security, but that's a service I can choose to either buy or eschew. Whereas a tax is something I'm forced to pay.
Again, there is nothing wrong in critiquing his scientific ideas.

Being generous even if he's flat out wrong about Oumuamua, stating that "he has fringe ideas" as a response to an article about the reaction to fringe/fanciful ideas in science is doing him a disservice and not really discussing the article at hand or the points contained therein.

Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think I've used:

- a pixel charger
- macbook charger
- HP charger

and the Switch works fine with all of them.

OTOH, if you try to use one of those for the docking station, the docking station will refuse to work

I heard that it's because it supports only a lower amount of Watts than what the Macbook charger can provide, for example... (60W or 85W)
While other chargers, like the pixelbook's (45W) work just fine

But I agree that it's unnerving: I connected a disposable switch to the cables that I didn't trust, before trusting to use my main Switch with them
Browser times out on article.

Here is my take. I like C when I work on firmware for less powerful microcontrollers. I like modern C++ when I work on backend servers / middleware. I like Delphi / Lazarus when I work on desktop software. I like Java Script when writing web front-end libraries / apps. I like Python when shell script gets a bit too complex. Etc. Etc.

The real truth - I do not really like any of those. They're just practical tools that help me build my product. Product designed and created by me is what I like.
Wouldn’t a ‘solution’ only work if there actually is some underlying objective quality to a paper? It might be the case that different reviewers disagree because there is no right answer, because there is no such thing as objective quality.
Scientific Euphemisms Do Not Improve Causal Inference from Observational Data
Depends on where you live. At least in the UK, ISPs can kick and scream but generally won't terminate you.
Really enjoyed the Schadenfreude in this headline: https://earther.gizmodo.com/shareholders-tell-exxon-to-eat-s...

Seriously though, is this as unprecedented as it sounds at this scale?
It went to ex-shareholders.
At the end of the article, the author seem to have listed every diversity criteria, except the diversity of thought. With Democrat to Republican ratio of professors in the leading US Universities being 11.5 to 1 [1], there is a growing danger that Stanford will go the way other universities have gone: lowering academic standards, admitting students based in their identity affiliations (and of course rich parents who could skirt the system), lowering faculty standards in technical departments, etc... The Stanford startups will move towards social engineering, disguised as impact investing. Move towards normalizing the discrimination against Asian and Indian male students and entrepreneurs.

[1] https://econjwatch.org/articles/faculty-voter-registration-i...
> It’s just a general breakdown of the rule of law and trust all over our society. When everyone around you is breaking the rules and receiving no repercussions, then following the rules yourself is equivalent to choosing to lose.

More specifically, it's the perception of a breakdown that drives this behavior.

When it comes to cheating, there's a growing perception that "everyone else is doing it" and therefore it's not wrong to play the same games as everyone else.

The current political and social media discourse revolves around ideas that "the system is rigged" combined with a die-hard notion that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and/or evil. When people are bombarded with these ideas every day on their social media feeds, cheating a little bit to get yourself ahead doesn't feel like cheating. It just feels like leveling the playing field.
That is not how limits work. No human we are aware of in the history of the world has been to Mars. Does that mean Mars is above a limit?

Limits are not defined by history, they are defined by our current understanding of science (and they are often wrong).
I found a buffer overrun bug causing incorrect results in a C dependency recently. I don't like C anymore.
General graph - no. Planar graph you're not sure would remain planar if you added another node - seems pretty large.
That seems to hinge a lot on having a specific and consistent definition of what "related to the job" and "part of their work" means that won't unfairly affect some companies, maybe there is an established legal definition of that somewhere?
This is a great lecture. While he is specifically talking about database research, a lot of what he is relevant to academia.
Isn’t this already how it works? The current state represents everyone doing what you describe... enough people chose to delegate trust to the publications that everyone is fighting to get into, and here we are.
Well, all languages have good and bad parts. C and (the modern) C++ are two completely different languages in what matters most, and, to be fair, it is C++ in which much of the world-class software, like Unreal Engine, is written in. As much as I love C, if faced with a large project, I would only choose C++ as the implementation language.
> created by the government

The entity sure, but beyond the entity you have a group of people who have created something and want to sell it to you. If the Democratic will of the people said that we should jail them for creating shows we don’t like, I’m sure you’d object. Just because the people will it doesn’t mean it is correct.

People have a right to get together and create things and sell them to you under a contract. You have the right to accept or refuse. That simple.

Our society is regulation drunk.
- I think VSCode is a great piece of software until my it starts using most of my laptops resources and my fan kicks in.

- I do a lot of work in a terminal. VSCodes terminal support is pretty bad. It might be better when they get nicer terminal tab support (not what they recently added)

- vim + terminal is considerably lighter and faster
All of those solutions assumes that an objective rating exists. There might just not be one.
C is not a "portable assembly language" even if you really, really want it to be.
It's extremely important to recognize that piracy is only a workaround for the consumer side. The consolidation of media production undoubtedly also changes what media gets produced. The types & style of content produced in each era of 'Hollywood' is incredibly influenced by who held power in the content creation process.

At several points the studios had the upper hand which meant that actors would only appear in a single studio's films. When more regulation freed actors from those types of contracts then celebrity actors were the major selling point. And for a while individual directors had a lot of power including final cut privileges which is why older in the 80s often had a theatrical release and a directors cut.

It seems that overall we are moving back towards studio control as single companies once again control production and distribution. For the most part this has worked out OK since most of these companies (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) were actually competing with the 'legacy' studios. However, now that major consolidation has taken place including the growth of Disney, etc; we are likely to see the industry and content itself shift to meet their interests. You can already see that, outside of small players and foreign sources, most studios focus on single annual big budget films marketed to an international audience (read: US & China). Just look at the top 20 films from 2015 vs 1995 vs 1985.

[2015] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls073655785/
[1995] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls057887703/
[1985] https://www.imdb.com/list/ls057991323/
Subscription model gets a hard nope from me.
With the intent of siccing a mob of people on someone to harass them online? No, never. In the article, the problem is not that the women discussed the fact that they had received harassing emails, but that they attributed those emails to a particular person without any proof that that is true.

"I received an anonymous harassing email" - true statement, not libel

"I received an anonymous harassing email and it was definitely from this guy" - if you can't prove it, could be libel.

See the difference?
I made https://colorcontroversy.com/. At some point I should go through the logs and figure out which colors are the most controversial across different browsers.
1. Go to {insert-seedbox-website-because-there-are-so-many-like-seriously}.com (I'd share my favorite, but you know, don't want to break any rules, suffice to say there's a great search engine named "Google" that will point you in the right direction)

2. Pay $5-$10/month for a seedbox that pre-hosts rTorrent. Zero configuration. It will give you a web address, you visit it, and boom, torrent client.

Wait, should I pay for it in Bitcoin? I mean, you can. But you don't have to. It literally doesn't matter. No one gets caught doing it this way, unless you're a real Whale.

3. Go to {any-number-of-piracy-websites-even-that-one-everyone-knows-about-yeah-it-still-exists-and-its-fine}.com

4. Download torrent -> Upload into your rTorrent

You can, alternatively, skip all of that, pay for NordVPN or whatever, and just use your favorite local torrent client. Same thing.

A whole 3 pages, to be sure. I've got friends who wouldn't know a Mac from a PC, and they still pirate all the latest movies. Its startlingly easy. Experientially, there's near-zero risk of getting caught. It hasn't changed even a millimeter in a decade. Its the same process we all used back in middle school (or, you know, wherever you were ten years ago). Its just gotten cheaper, and also less interesting because of the Golden Days of streaming, but I think it'll come back if streaming continues splintering as it has.
This feels like the PG situation where people don't like the Mighty browser idea so he publishes an essay saying

"Yeah well...look at the history of crazy ideas in science"

Getting a little tired of people making this argument.

It can be applied to literally any idea so its pretty meaningless to say.
Look at C++ as a scripting language and you possibly will not dislike it as much.
They're both a huge pain in the ass. But it's easier to scratch C than C++.
Are you suggesting that Stanford needs to lower its standards to create reserved spaces for Republicans?
Racism depends on making assumptions or judgements about other people based on their skin color. It has nothing to do with power. Minorities don't have a free pass to be racist towards White people, and women don't have a free pass to be sexist towards men.
Same.

I should finish writing a big article title "Why I still don't like C++" for my yet unpublished blog...

Even if I tend to use orthodox C++ for convenience.

But I've been impressed lately by some newcomers, like Zig.
It absolutely does.

The way I understand all the responses to my comment, it seems a lot of people have the impression that the assumption of good faith makes someone naive... But that's absolutely not the case.

The assumption of good faith does not require one to "believe" that any given action is the product of good faith. The only thing it requires is that good faith be the starting point from which you evaluate someone else's (or yes, a for-profit corporation's) actions. All one needs to do is begin by first trying to understand how an action could be explained by factors other than bad faith, or could be compatible with good faith.

This is in fact a very weak requirement!
> The reason why I still like C is that it is a simple language. Simple in a sense that it is easy to express ideas and what to expect from it. For example, if you want to retrieve an array value with two offsets, one of which can be negative, in C you write arr[off1 + off2] while in Rust it would be arr[((off1 as isize) + off2) as usize].

There's an argument to be made that C is a simple language compared to some, I'll grant that. But implicit casts and the integer promotion rules really aren't a good example of simplicity. Terseness, sure, but not simplicity. For example, from https://www.cryptologie.net/article/418/integer-promotion-in...

uint8_t start = -1;
printf("%x\n", start); // prints 0xff
uint64_t result = start << 24;
printf("%llx\n", result); // should print 00000000ff000000, but will print ffffffffff000000
result = (uint64_t)start << 24;
printf("%llx\n", result); // prints 00000000ff000000

There are good reasons why e.g. Go, which prioritizes simplicity very highly, does not allow implicit integer casts.
C syntax is overall simple. The only syntax often confuses me is function typedef.
River Runner: drop a raindrop anywhere in the USA, watch where it ends up
The "standing" decisions are just bad law by judges. The chilling effect on speech is enough to justify standing.
I've been working on a Vulkan rendering engine for an embedded bit of hardware, and even though I spend an insane amount of time getting the colour spaces correct (textures, tools, presentation format, etc) in the end the cheap LCD screen cheated with it's firmware (I wanted BT2020, but it kept on giving 601, I couldn't even get BT709). The firmware lied that it supported multiple formats (including P3), but it was just a menu option with no effect. My reference desktop monitor did show all the differences, so I know that engine code path was correct.
Guessing at $400 - $1000 per core.
One way forward could be to lower the bar for publications.

Once it's no longer about being in the esteemed and scarce "10%", they won't bother because they don't need to. Imagine a process where the only criteria are technical soundness and novelty, and as long as minimal standards are met, it's a "go". Call it the "ArXiv + quality check" model.

Neither formal acceptance to publish nor citation numbers truly mark scientific excellence; perhaps, winning a "test of time award" does, or appearing in a text book 10 years later.
I learned this recently:

> If you receive a shock, if can affect the rhythm of your heart and cause problems later. We’re taught to go and get an ECG after receiving a shock. Like jump in the car and go to the doctor or hospital, and have someone else drive you. If you’ve received a shock - go get checked out. -jaidan

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27259589
GP said "What fraction of all acquisitions end well for the acquired company?"
I don't think there's anything to defend. Quite the contrary, I think the people that are antagonizing someone for nothing owe Andrew an apology, including yourself, for defaming Andrew here.
That's kind of the point of the whole conversation. You can't have a law that restricts what one can call yourself that does not violate the 1st amendment. Certainly you can require one to have a certificate to do certain kinds of work however.
Of course not. I am not actually sure how to solve this problem. I think a good start would be to move back towards encouraging freedom of speech on campus and dialog between people with different opinions.
Big tech and WaPo have had the same political views for years. They were never hard on them.
The founding fathers wanted us to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years.

But they didn't expect that we'd make that wholly impractical by giving Blacks, Women, and non-wealthy men the right to vote.
Anyone have redditlist for startup founders?
For accessibility, assign specific texture patterns on the outside of the insulation for different capabilities. Then you can tell the capabilities by running the cable through your hands.