skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Worse than getting your information from the opinion section of the WSJ is imagining that empowering a local petty tyrant to refuse a ballot to a voter is a good idea. Their policy and training is to issue a provisional ballot to virtually anyone. You really don’t want local poll workers trying to adjudicate everyone’s signature or photograph. The problem in the NY investigation was that the dead people were still registered. The report was not directed at the performance of the election department on Election Day, it was directed at the maintenance of the voter file.
I'm a midlevel. Following this for ideas if I get fired.
These are cheaper?

https://www.sceptre.com/TV/4K-UHD-TV-category1category73.htm...
I had to use Phabricator a few years ago and I hated it. It's way too hard to use for honestly not a lot of gain. Reviewing code was not enjoyable.

I like the simpler approach offered by Bitbucket/GitHub/Gitlab. Reviewing is easy and painless.
> I can see the appeal of someone running quick, ephemeral data analysis not wanting to deal with static typing

I've seen and heard this, (Data science field definitely loves their Python and numpy) but I really believe the common problem of non-reproducible research is partly due to the language choice (and probably more to the root cause - this sentiment in research).
You could just buy a generic giftcard (like Amex one) and use it to make the actual purchase.
> 1. SARS-CoV-19 doesn't have a direct predecessor virus

That we know of. We do way way too little research on viruses in animals. We may never know predecessor in nature, and that doesn't mean it's created in a lab. Same as the fact that we don't know how universe behaved in first moments after big bang doesn't mean that god exists.
Government bodies have forms that require you submit a phone number. You cannot go to a restaurant without using a QR code reader to see the menu. I'm not sure what reality you live in but having no phone is akin to living off grid now
Thought-provoking podcast on the science of change
I only have experience with one particular model during a long-term relocation, but I found that combination washer-dryer unit to be incredibly slow and small. It made sense for a small apartment, but given the choice I’ll take a full size washer and full size dryer anyway. I guess it’s only puzzling to me why small apartments rely on laundromats instead of adding combo units so day to day washing can be done without leaving home.
I can see an extended two stage sleep rhythm making more sense at times of year when daylight is short (9 hours of daylight at my latitude) than when it's long (15 hours). It's much harder to extend your night downtime to last 10-11 hours when it overlaps at one/both ends with sunshine.

With the increase in physical activity during Summer, two stage sleep seems more biologically useful in Winter anyway. In days of yore, what else was there to do during all that dark?
This isn't from a vacuum.

For 18 months the media completely ignored the lab leak theory and dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.

This isn't driven by nationalism it's driven by the fact that 18 months later not a single intermediate animal host has been found which is unheard of with coronaviruses. It's not just that the virus at its present state won't infect animals it's that the original variants of the virus that first appeared will not easily infect other mammal species.

President Xi is a cancer on the Chinese people and through this virus he has become a cancer on the entire world. What he has done to China is terrible, and he is increasingly to me the worst human being on the planet. We are talking about a dictator on the level of Adolf Hitler with an economy unparalleled in the history of the world behind him.
The ideal for me would be some strong static typing mode for the main code providing all the guarantees you want and some dynamic typing mode for the tests which lets you test everything well.

The main downside for me of the static typing is that it's close to impossible to provide a good testing experience, DSLs, mocks and spy objects kind of require some form of dynamic typing to be usable.
1. Try to get them to throw out the first number. You never know, they might offer more than you would have asked for. (This isn’t always possible, especially for entry-level jobs.)

2. Always politely reject the first offer.

Then make a specific counteroffer, don’t just say “More money, please.” Give a specific, reasonable-sounding justification. It doesn’t even have to be that great.

“I am excited by the opportunity to join $COMPANY as a $ROLE. It is directly in-line with my career path, and I’m confident that I will bring my skills and enthusiasm to this role. However, based on my research into prevailing industry wages/salaries in our region, I believe $X is more appropriate for someone with my educational background and level of experience.”

3. Ask to see the entire compensation package, not just the wage/salary.

Stock options/RSUs?
Employee stock purchase plan?
What kind of health insurance do they have?
How many paid holidays?
Vacation policy?
The pattern I see emerging is that people prefer to make more frequent 15-20 minute stops along the way rather than stop for a "full charge". That's enough to stretch your legs, use the restroom, buy snacks. Not very different from gas stops today.
Well at least Biden doesnt support social media censorship /s
> A first-year student is unlikely to understand C++ template metaprogramming, or just about any Haskell code, but that's not to say they should always be avoided in production code.

They're just the people to read a book on the topic and try to use it everywhere...
The person who wins the lowest price box is not the lowest price. It is the lowest price who agreed not to sell on other sites for a lower price than one Amazon.

You as the customer are being tricked.

I sell for 15 on Amazon, 10 on my own site and someone else sells the same product for 20 everywhere. Guess what price goes in the buy box. 20.00

"One other thing - as a shopper, no other shopping website comes close to Amazon’s customer service"

Where is the chat button? Where can I ask a question? Where can I let Amazon know something was wrong with the refund they sent?
And in a year there's basically zero progress in hard facts supporting this hypothesis.
Does that matter. A team with a senior/junior separation should have in place a system of peer review where a code not understandable to a peer will not get merged upstream. There would be a CI system with a linter that forbids abusing syntax for writing dense/obscure code. If a code requires documentation there should be in place a doc-coverage tool which forbids new undocumented code from being merged upstream.

If these systems are not in place, and a senior developer can get away with writing overly complex code, then that is the fault of management, not the developer.
Let's see. Dijkstra introduced the A* graph search algorithm. Knuth wrote THE classic algorithms book. Peter Naur is best known for his work on parsing (he is the N in BNF notation).

Even if you try to draw a distinction between computer science and software engineering, most of the people writing those papers were pretty squarely on the computer science side.

But I don't draw that distinction. ALL of them were tenured professors of computer science. ALL of them were published in journals of computer science. There is no valid basis on which you can draw an artificial line between computer science and non-computer science, and put those outside of computer science. Doubly not if your goal is to say that computer science is a subset of mathematics rather than its own thing.
If everybody adds his/her rust+wasm+calculator projects in the comments, let me jump in as well with mine :) https://bbodi.github.io/notecalc3/

Nice work btw!
The customer service of my credit card company accepting a charge back is better than Amazon's. If the customer service of <no name vendor> is terrible the remedy is simple.
History of Wrecking
“But it’s like the early Internet!” shouted the Emperor’s coinholders. “The Internet wasn’t yet useful a mere, um, thirteen years after its invention either.”

I can see how people in their twenties would fall for this argument because they can’t remember. The reality is that the internet was immediately extremely interesting (either useful or fun) for practically everyone who got access. Email and ftp alone were killer apps. A bit later came Usenet and IRC and MUD gaming. There were things to download, people to meet, flame wars to participate in. People would stay up until 4am to get a chance to go online in university shared facilities.

With cryptocurrency there’s nothing to do. You could pay $100 to buy a “cryptokitten” or whatever, but then you’d be stuck shilling it on somebody else somehow. The community is a mix of Scientology-like groupthink and multi-level marketing sales pitches. The early Internet was infinite times more fun.
A non-manager architect should have some sense. They should know all the open problems in their domain and recognize who is solving them and how well they're doing it.

But, yeah, the scope is basically limited to each employee's direct manager. No one else can reasonably maintain all the context and perspective required to judge accurately.

The fundamental requirement is a high level of competence in the manager. It usually requires significant self-confidence, technical skill, and experience solving similar problems.
SPX grows 8% a year (6% when adjusted for GDP growth), US real estate increases 3.8%, and bank interest rates pay FAR less than even "reported" CPI, which is a joke of a metric almost entirely weighted by oil prices, which are not determined by a free market [0]. And that's before the insane levels of money printing and spending we've seen this year, which show no signs of being undone, even as the country opens back up. Inflation isn't 2%. People like you lose a lot of relative wealth to the "smart money" by thinking that's true, and it isn't fair to have a system that exponentially benefits financially smarter investors (an inflationary environment). Barring an improbable windfall or significant income growth, a responsible, hardworking person can't meaningfully improve their financial situation by saving all their money in the bank, which is a sad reality.

Asset inflation benefits the wealthy, while bear markets improve wealth inequality, and printing money and QE reduces the corrective measure to wealth inequality to instead reduce the short term pain [1]. Consumer inflation is a tossup.

[0] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/gasoline-prices-adjust...
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...
Repairability is a red herring. As a professional, I care about “time in service” and “maintenance cost”.

A completely unrepairable tool that is in service a lot longer for way less maintenance? I take that any day of the week.

And here’s the thing, I don’t really care that you can repair your Dell. I wouldn’t be able to do so without putting in a lot of time and it would be a little stressful. Reducing that time requires a significant investment.
3rd world primitive radiator repair
Whether something fits an ideology or political agenda should be irrelevant. Either it was engineered and escaped a lab or it didn’t.

Also in this case the GoF research was partly US funded and involved US researchers, so it can’t be blamed exclusively on China. If the lab leak hypothesis is true there will be lots of egg on lots of faces.
I have couple of questions, if there are two main theories:
virus came from lab or through evolution:

1) can artificial viruses be injected in wild animals? (I guess so)
2) can that animal then pointed as a natural source? (I guess so)

I ask this because:
1) science has difficulty to answer what is natural and what is artificial, we have the whole genome, and yet we cannot tell if it is artificial or natural development
2) how could science say that virus in wild animal is natural or artificial?

Why don’t we inject by protocol an artificial detection sequence when we do this kind of research?
Ding-ding-ding! This is indeed the root cause of much of the pressure that drives academic researchers to publish All Of The Things. Funding agencies care very, very, very much that you have a published track record of having done something similar to whatever it is that you are proposing to do, and regularly will reject otherwise solid applications due to the PI not having sufficient relevant publications. Not saying it’s right or wrong (that’s too big of a question for an Internet comment) but it’s one of the main motivating forces behind anything that a researcher does.
This is the way. The best way is to run the handle of a teaspoon under the tap and stir it through the grinds before grinding.

It doesn't matter if "burr grinders suffer from static build up" when they're categorically far better than anything else when it comes to grinding.
> I hope I don’t offend you by suggesting this, and I’m ready to face a hard rejection - but you could probably benefit from saying No to obligations/responsibilities more often

A couple of things. I'm outlining common challenges so your advice would have to be applied broadly. You'd be asking a large chunk of the population to not be engaged in their community, etc.

Past that, my not-absolutely-critical activities did wind down when catastrophe after catastrophe became the new norm. In that phase, what was left was minimal for survival. Letting any of that go would just tack-on another catastrophe.

Again - the larger point is that I wasn't an outlier for the whole of the US. However, within the group that have the resources to post here, midday, I might be an outlier.
I know I'll will probably sound a bit Luddite by saying this, but just the examples already make me cringe: a welcoming video for a corporation saying "we're looking forward to have you here", narrated by a _bot_, is as dehumanizing as it gets. :(
Adding on to the thoughts about everyone writing terrible code sometimes, there is also “terrible code makes lots of money”.

Source: over 20 years doing software dev at various companies with terrible code that makes millions. Happily my current job has really great code (imho).
The key to all negotiations is to avoid "you vs them". Don't engage in an arguement over money, ask "what would it take for you to justify paying me the extra"?

Your partner in the negotiation (note, partner not adversery) has a whole bunch of worries NOT connected to the dollar amount: will you fit in (will he look bad if you don't), will you leave too soon, will you phone it in, will you be reliable, will you refuse $X/hr (will he look bad if you don't AND will he look bad if he pays you more than that).

You're job is to find out what he is concerned about and then deal with those concerns. That allows him to pay you extra. You're working together on this.

In my second job in tech I had two issues: I wanted about 10% more cash and I wanted more time off.

I knew they had had issues with staff turnover. So I suggested delaying the higher pay and split it in two raises: one wasn't until I'd been there 6 months and the rest at 12 months. So I got a 20% raise, more than I actually wanted, just by dealing with their bigger concern.

I got the raises in writing of course.

For your case, what do you need to do to be worth the extra $/h? Presumably the CTO wants you to reach certain milestones so ask them to be specific, and tie things to that. Maybe if you had qualification Y he would feel happier justifying the higher rate. So if the company pays half you could do that in your spare time right?

The added advantage of this is that it makes it really hard to say no. He sees you as a reasonable person, willing to work with him, able to give as well as take etc. He doesn't want to look petty or uncooperative in front of whoever else is involved. So he will also make offers.

Don't expect to get everything you want or to get it immediately. You won't. But also remember you will regret not at least asking.

There are a bunch of "tricks" (really just tips eg "don't name a number first") you should Google but the overall mindset is much more important.
Totally agree with you, it's not the same without Evan.
> . it has a "weird" furin cleavage site on its spike protein, where "weird" means:

From what I know that is unusual but not rally that unusual or weird.

> SARS-CoV-19 doesn't have a direct predecessor virus

Us not knowing a "close by/directish" predecessor is also not uncommon for a virus which jumped from wield animals to humans. It's a different thing if it's a virus which was a well known one already spread in humans or human cattle/pets and then mutated. But if you look at the wield there are viruses which survived for decades e.g. in bat colonies with some small mutations here and there, for that example case it would be very strange if we would know a predecessor with might already have gone extinct... And similar thinks might very well apply to SARS-Cov-2.
Again: without forward secrecy, you can't delete old messages, because your adversary has already recorded them. The point is that a lack of forward secrecy creates a subtle limit to the security that can be achieved.
No offence, but that’s such a back-to-front interpretation of my simple question, it’s almost like you were trying to be contrary.

Maybe my bad for assuming that any reasonable person reading wouldn’t need it stating that killing people is, yes, immoral. And given this shared understanding, the root of my question was why a machine killing people is more immoral.
Your thesis relies on the selective pressure for psychopathy being larger now than it was previously. Is that the case? It's harder nowadays to be an outright criminal or murderer and get away with it due to strength of the rule of law.
Also "if the code is clear, it documents itself". Which in my opinion completely misses the point. Good documentation doesn't tell you what the code is doing, it tells you why it's not doing something else.
Why r*ped?
Sellers can avoid charging you import duties up front, instead saying to the logistics company that the import duties are COD. The logistics company them pays the import duties themselves as a “loan”, sends you the package, and a few weeks later you get a bill from the logistics company for 10x the import duties to pay back the principal of the “loan” + a “convenience fee.”

A few months back, my partner ordered some books from Taiwan. The books — including nominal “shipping” — were $20; the logistics provider’s bill for the “convenience” of handling our import duties for us, when the seller neglected to do so, was $40.

The worst thing is that there’s no way under an individual shipping recipient account to declare that you want to pay these fees in advance instead (such that there’s no “loan”) or to reject shipment at point of origin if the shipper tries to pull this on you. This is because the “recipient pays” logistical arrangement is intended for businesses, that do both shipping and receiving, and operate without much cash flow, to allow them to postpone the costs of receiving orders until they’ve sold (and profited on) the same goods to others. It’s supposed to be something that they buyer requests the seller to use, for their sake; not something the seller uses unilaterally. So you actually have to register as a shipper business-account to get access to the UX where you can declare that your company wants to pay import duties in advance.
Given the massive levels of evidence destruction involved, that seems like quite a stretch.
Thank you. The 2 parent comments seem to misunderstand a couple things. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s profound, and vice versa. Also, just because something goes over many students’ heads doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth trying.
> fit an ideological narrative.

That a narrative becomes attached to by a particular ideology does not make the narrative ideological itself.
You do need to write less tests with a static language. The types in your program are proof that your program is correct within the confines of the type system (literally, even in the mathematical sense).

The stronger the type system, the more properties can be proven through it (at the extreme end there are, unfortunately not Turing complete, languages where you can prove every single property--those are more used as theorem solvers however).

Back to "common" statically typed languages, there is still heaps and loads to test, as you say. Not writing those tests is not really the fault of the language...
> To me, the stupidest simplest solution is probably the most likely - some naive marketing analyst probably just grouped all traffic coming from the same IP address into the same bucket and blasted ads to them based on recent Amazon purchases at the same IP address.

Yes, the dirty secret of basically all discussions about tracking on the internet is that IP+User-Agent is a pretty good baseline that is commonly used.
Just buy a toy tested according to European Union standards, and labelled with the "CE" mark.

> Drop the toy, or the relevant toy component, five times through a height of (850 ± 50) mm on to a 4 mm thick steel plate with a 2 mm thick coating of Shore A hardness (75 ± 5) as measured according to EN ISO 868 or ISO 7619-2 and which is placed on a non-flexible horizontal surface.

> Prior to release, orientate the toy in a position that allows the most onerous impact onto the coated surface of the steel plate.

(850mm is 2¾ ft.)

More seriously, I think some of these regulations do prevent the lowest-quality stuff you might find in the USA being legally sold in the EU.

https://law.resource.org/pub/eu/toys/en.71.1.2014.html#s8.5
Ah, the Godwin. Just in time.
Also there is question of scale. Like the mixer, the capacity is just too big for regular use. It would be massive waste for me to make much anything with it. As I don't think it scales to small enough amounts.
Performing the calculation with Soulver did not surprise me (being what I calculated in my head ahead of time):

2 + 2 × 10% = 2.2

At the risk of admitting my ignorance, yet more interested in learning something new: should this answer (2.2) surprise me?
If an untargeted Trump ad impression costs $.02, targeting is worth no more than $.01 to the ad buyer. Meanwhile, the information might be worth $.10 to the local DNC or $5 to a prospective employer. The information would need to be laundered for the latter use case, but that's quite doable and economically so.

One use and price point doesn't necessarily preclude the other but discriminatory pricing is easy to arbitrage in the information market, so in practice it makes sense to ditch the low value applications in order to fully extract revenue from the high value applications.

I wish bad ad targeting meant that this wasn't happening, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so :/
Absolutely. Much prefer a small hand-operated device that I can easily store in a cupboard to a big heavy device with a cord that needs to be near an outlet and takes up counter space all the time.

I have come to really, really resist buying plug-in kitchen gadgets. I have a few, such as a toaster and a kettle, that I actually use. For anything else I've found that they just end up living in the back of a base cabinet and I forget that I have them.
Military grade end user shit is usually crap. It suffers from the same problem that so many IT departments have: the guy buying isn’t the guy using.

In the market, competition is strong. In the military market, your connections are way more valuable.
Yeah, I feel like the past couple weeks have been the hardest so far, even though she's moved from sleeping 2 hours at a time to sleeping 3-4 hours for her nighttime sleep. Mind you, this is partly due to feeding/changing logistics -- she's less cooperative now that she has learned to crawl.

Leaning on external help is unfortunately not a great option for us.
It doesn't mention a separate drying capacity, but it is being done in the same drum. It can do 8kg washload and 8kg of spin drying is what I would assume.