skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yeah, some reporters can be nasty and I wonder if there's a way for the players to complain.

I have seen Liverpool's coach, Jurgen Klopp, lose his temper over a reporter after a game.

But, you know what, the whole thing makes fans even want to watch it for the drama
I’m 49, my wife is 34, we have 4 kids and $2.3M saved. When can I retire?
Yes, I meant that exact kind of push notifications like APNS and GCM. If you have an official app for your own service, you simply implement them on your backend. If you're making a third-party app for something, then yes, it's inconvenient, especially if that something doesn't cooperate. Though some services that have open APIs offer you a form to specify your APNS/GCM credentials.
>Yet, people keep buying computers. Why?

The majority of wealth is owned by the top 5%. Are they really spending a significant fraction of that wealth on computers? Deflation is never about what people buy, it's what they keep.

>I would argue deflation has been the most significant driver of the IT industry in the last 30 years

No it hasn't. The IT sector drives deflation and there is nothing wrong with productivity improvements. You just got cause and effect backwards.

>and in turn has been one of the greatest drivers of prosperity in that same period. As computers become cheaper, more people can afford more them and more value is added to society.

Inflation increases future incomes. If computers cost the same but you get higher salaries that's a good thing.
Fully agree. And it still tells me that my iPhone setup is incomplete because I haven't set up Apple Pay yet.
It's more akin to facism, but they all lead to totalitarianism.
So, the complaint here is that Spotify, already paying 75% of its revenue in royalties, dared to set up a way to tip your money directly to the artist. Who, presumably, gets about 80% of the money you put in. Instead of adding that to the royalties, out of which the artist would get between 13% and 20%[1]? How exactly is the Spotify's move dystopian?

[1]: https://medium.com/soundeon/what-is-the-typical-revenue-spli...
How are they supposed to collect fines then?
I find this attitude peculiar.

The editors who provided all that value will get $0.

It's like buying an album where $9.92 goes to the label and yet the label still complains about freeloaders depriving the poor musicians of income if they don't pay the $10.
> but if they’re showing the same banner now

Sadly, the banner has only gotten bigger and more dire over the years.
Another article bemoaning the plight of the “genuinely creative” and blaming tech because for people’s preferences. Look: the barriers to entry have gone way, way, way down - especially for music. It’s never been cheaper to create or consume music. And, it turns out, people are interested and entertained by a lot more than just music! If you’re a musician trying to make money then your competition is all content creators. Sorry you’re not so special anymore, but the radio era is long over.
Active Learning with the Nvidia TLT
I think it's easy to get lost in the weeds on this. What was the fundamental innovation of Bitcoin? It was a blockchain that functioned as a decentralized ledger that allowed un-trusted parties to verifiably exchange value without a trusted intermediary. Game theoretical mechanics were added to try to prevent collusion, resist censorship, and to make the network permissionless, to varying degrees of success. What is the cost of this? Obviously, massive inefficiency. Bitcoin's solution to the Byzantine Generals problem (which was previously unsolved) was to propose that everyone store a copy every single transaction that ever happened and have everyone verify that, and then to protect that network, to instigate a Red Queen's race incentivized by a self-reinforcing reward mechanism. Is this an optimal solution? No. Did design decisions lead to perverse consequences that the creator(s) didn't intend? Yes. Is this also extremely limited in functionality due to it's original design constraints (which have since ossified, perhaps intractably)? Sure. And do most things require the function that a blockchain (or decentralized ledger technology in general) provides? No. But, it does solve a very real problem, and all of this "waves hands" is part of the process of discovering where it's most appropriate.

I think what's being lost in this discussion, since almost no one posting here is either passingly familiar with the past decade of crypto-economic research, or with the current state of the art in "crypto" technology (almost none of which revolves around or even involves Bitcoin these days). Almost all of the promising new networks provide at least 1000X transaction throughput at 1000X+ transaction efficiency while retaining decent Nakamoto coefficients and allowing some level of computation ("smart contract") and composability. (Yes there is also plenty of useless stupid stuff that sadly is a huge waste of resources, but hey, we survived Dotcom Bubble. It's just part of the process.)

I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't see the potential there, just as I don't worry about anyone who might have said that the Internet's impact would be no greater than the fax machine (in fact, a single Nobel laureate chimed in early on to both of these sentiments) - whether this turns out to be true will depend largely on the people who choose to build their vision and prove people wrong... or not.

Also, there's no question it's all a damn mess, but much more broadly than crypto.
Shitty software being sold for real money also comes with support, which FOSS does not.
"kalk" is a great name for a calculator since the word also means "chalk" in a number of European (and descendant) languages.
Well that March 2020 quote is still correct, isn't it? You as a layperson just think that airborne means something it doesn't mean for virologists (aerosol transmission <> airborne virus).

So the tweet certainly was a typical science communication error, i.e. they forgot that words can have different meanings in different milieus, but it wasn't wrong.
I disagree. If you are willing to kill a person why would you care whether the person willingly agreed to a donation? You could also just fabricate a letter of consent.

I live in a country with Opt-out and the only thing I think that should be changed is that you should be informed about it actively (e.g. a letter on your 18th birthday or so), even though that might reduce the numbers of donators.
In a “would you have” poll, people tend to engage to pick what they didn’t do.

As most people took jobs, it’s the least common response. But we don’t know what proportion are unmotivated to take the poll, or what proportion regret each choice.
Wiktionary indirectly supports translation work that benefits Wikipedia, and provides a place to work on non-encyclopedic content that should not be in Wikipedia itself.
I find this funny. My father, my girlfriend's father (even I, but I don't care about sports) don't have social media at all.

My father probably watches 3/4 hours a day of various sports on tv (my gf's father is even worse). They are the target of these interviews and media.

Can we just agree that HN/Reddit isn't really a representation of society in general. Specially a slightly older population that isn't all in with the new fashions of the internet.

Without the media coverage of the games, of his life and everything around, Ronaldo wouldn't have 1/1000th of the followers in social media. Pick a sport that isn't heavily broadcasted, and you can find a once in a lifetime star that will probably still be working a side job to make ends meet. It was actually the advent of live sports on tv that made sports go from 'oh it is a nice living' to 'best well played job in the world'. The current attitude of a lot of players (not all) is 'hey I got mine already so fuck the ones that come after' and do nothing to help. (Ronaldo has 289 million followers, Bernardo Silva has 2.1 million, other good players have probably less (sorry, I really only remember those two players from the national team, I searched current best goalkeeper in the world, gave me Oblak, with 1.5 million followers). because the media don't focus so much on them, not giving them the opportunity to get those followers)
Yes but outside of personal basic needs, you don't own anything in communism, it's all owned by the community collectively. No doubt completely controlled by the party leaders.
Whats the problem with old technology? Linux is quite old and Unix even older.

>why aren’t they using a more modern/superior X

Because no one cares if it's not superior for that case.
> So you really think russia would invade a NATO country triggering a direct NATO response, with all the nukes still around?

Trump threatened to pull US out of NATO which would make it meaningless

Regardless of intentions, If that were ever to happen, it would put even Germany under threat from Russia's green men.

France/UK's nukes are a deterrent but its doubtful they would be used

US with troops in those countries make it pretty clear a conventional war with green men would be repelled with heavy losses on Russian side.
The tesla is not in earth orbit afaik. Though it is on an earth intercept orbit i guess.
Do fans actually get anything out of these interviews? If so, what is it? I'm generally quite an empathetic person, but for the life of me I can't figure out what possible pleasure anyone can get out of players stringing together platitudes. If they actually have any interesting thoughts on their game they'd keep it to themselves because they wouldn't want to give it away.

For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.
A fun idea about cats on the internet. Toxoplasma is a real brain parasite that infects us, and cats and rats. It changes behaviour of the host to want to spread. Human males are meant to be more risky when infected, for example.

It infects rats to make them less afraid of cats. We get it from cats. Maybe cats are less afraid of us? There's data that suggest that a third of all people are infected. Perhaps these are cat lovers. Perhaps when we are infected we promote and show off our cats so that other humans get infected.

Thus cat videos and pictures on the internet are a by product of the Toxoplasma brain parasite.
Imho this is how we achieve greatness.

People getting pissed over things there parents took as inevitable is basically the definition of progress.

This is the first generation where mental health has been considerd a value. While its easy to dismiss there terminology issues i would say a few things:

1. That its hard to imagine the impact of having a defining life challange constantly talked about by strangers callously.

2. Go back and look at historical "political correctness gone mad" arguments.. even just to the 90s. The ones i have found all seem examples of things we would not dream of saying today and for good reason.

3. These apparently low priority discussions are how you really solve the root causes of issues. Its by figurng out how to support the un supported that all of society is elevated.
Thanks, this is really interesting.

What about the SARS-CoV-2 virus being a chimera of 2 other viruses? Is that wrong, or not unusual, or irrelevant? Sorry if I’m barking up a wrong tree...
> What about running a freely query-able database [link to Wikidata]

When someone goes to Wikipedia and feels "this was awesome; I want to support this... and OMG, they say they might fail if they don't get money from people like me!" it is absolutely unethical to take their money and spend it on Wikidata, a product this user might have no clue exists and may or may not care at all about. Maybe Wikidata is a great thing, but then the pitch should be "we are glad you enjoyed Wikipedia! don't worry: Wikipedia is safe, as we have more than enough money to fund it! however, we have other projects we think might make a similarly positive impact on the world... maybe you would want to donate to one of them?".
> Is someone out there really thinking “ah man, if only advertisements were more relevant!” ???

honestly, yes. adverts pay for most if not all of the free content on the internet. if adverts were more targeted they would become more profitable and therefore pay for better content.

very well target ads will suggest things to you that you would genuinely like or would be useful to you but have not yet heard about.
The budget will expand to consume the additional funds. It did before.

This will make it more financially tenuous, not more.

Added to which, once the insitution is addicted to money it becomes that much easier to corrupt.
"Nossa Senhora" is more usually "Our Lady", but if you want to say "Santa Mãe" here, there's only one L in "holy". :-)

"Holly" with two Ls is a plant (azevinho).
I think the point is that it's not the design of it you (or I) hate, it's the infantilization. And like GP said, before that it was stock photos of three wonderful, beautiful people in front of a computer pointing and smiling and being happy and all, surely because of the crapware being sold by whatever you're looking at. It's just as infantilizing. IMO corporate memphis is just a new style and tbh, I find it a bit more honest than stock photos at least.
Organisations creep until they are stopped when left untended. They can stop growing because of money shortage, political decisions, lack of manpower, pressure from stakeholders, etc., but there's a strong tendency in all organisations to grow and expand influence. There's no reason why this should not hold for spying and policing agencies. It's not inevitable, but there certainly is a non-negligible probability.
But "cookie consent" isn't only about cookies, it's about tracking, data collection and data sharing in general. Why do people miss that?

Cookies are only one of the ways to track users, and they can be blocked. Your browser can't know everything used to fingerprint and track you on each and every site, and it can't know who that data is shared with. Those are the things that only the website owners know and only they can provide the users with choice.
Project Obvious Idioms ended in utter failure when the haystacks were lost, creating a conundrum of Biblical proportions.

Who thought it would be a great, timeless idea to dump a bunch of copper wire strands at 3.5 Mm? Oh, it was that pinhead: Walter E. Morrow. Thanks for that military-industrial complex contribution to littering. Let's stick a Tesla, Lego, and some dead people in space while we're at it. We did that already too? Why don't you tell me these things? Throw me a frickin bone here, people. Maybe we should think carefully about permanent space garbage or space sunshades before rolling with what seems like a brilliant technical solution?
The price of the paintings is mostly a reflection that some billionaires have absurd amounts of money and need store it somewhere.

The millions made by cat videos are a reflection that millions of people enjoy them and advertising companies are getting lots of money out of it.
> Has anyone ever bought anything because they saw an ad?

Yes. Advertising works. It's usually not that an advertisement immediately turns into a purchase. However, once you've seen the ad, you're more likely to purchase product if you encounter it again.

> I have stopped buying certain products because whenever I see them in the store I'm reminded of their stupid ads and all I feel is resentment.

Maybe that is true, but that's because you're a curmudgeon. Most consumers are not like that. If they were, the economy would collapse under its misanthropy.

> Being a consumer sucks.

You know what sucks even more? Being a producer.
> but it is quite likely that certain black and gray market would be created.

I see your point. But, on the other hand, having so few organs available is what makes black market actually work. In Germany we already had a scandal where people bought their way up the waiting list.

Both situations are horrible, but I think that the opt-out solution is probably the better choice for avoiding/reducing black markets.
> And it's fine tbh, it's not like poor people are the apex of humanity and the only ones who should have a say in what desires should be satisfied by taxes they mostly are not the ones paying.

In a flawed, private-property based economy, taxes can be one of two things. Either they're an expropriation to benefit a tiny elite (as in feudal regimes), or they're a wealth-redistribution mechanism to fund free healthcare, schooling, roads.. In a democracy, the latter is supposed to be true, although we all know it's a scam and money is redirected to the elite and to their watchdogs keeping their privileges safe (police/military).

Money concerns aside, poor people are those negatively affected by Olympics, so it's only fair they get a say. Whose housing and neighborhood green spaces are being torn down to make place for swimming pools and other useless pieces of junk? Poor people's! Whose rents are driving up like crazy because Olympics are a useful piece in the sick game of gentrification? Poor people's!

Fuck the Olympics. Let's just not do that. From Rio to Beijing to Athens to London, they've only made everything worse for most people, while allowing a corrupt elite to divert public money right into their pockets. How could anyone defend THIS?
"spaceproof" would sound much cooler, to be honest.
كلمات اغنية غزيل فلة سمر
aphextron is that you alex come post at rubycalaber we havent heard from you in a while
Most people are willing to pay the same for a cat video and the typical song.

Nothing.

But the cat video has far more universal appeal and can make the money up in micro value per user.
Is this true? That would be great.
Why use proprietary software?
As a sidenote; Leefbaar Nederland and later Lijst Pim Fortuyn (the political parties he was with) were barely right wing compared to the utter crap we've got now though. Unless openly thinking about the problem of improving the integration process so immigrants have a better chance at a good job and happier lives (as opposed to "welcoming" them with neglect - I'd guess having mostly cheap labor in mind - under the guise of multiculturalism) is right wing. I was a bit too young to understand the political context back then, though in hindsight, AFAIK I think he really meant to help these people as opposed to the hateful unproductive stuff spouted today by PVV and the like, mainly appealing to a part of the voterbase that's into that, and furthering segregation and polarization. I guess openly addressing religious fundamentalism was considered quite right wing at the time though. Specifically the Lagerhuis broadcast with Marcel van Dam comes to mind.

(I might be misclassifying him though; I don't recall his actual policy proposals regarding these topics, but the Guardian article claiming he was a fiercely anti-immigration libertarian does not rhyme with my admittedly ill-informed recollection of his politics)
The argument of traditional stock being worthless isn’t just that they could dilute, which they could in any number of ways, but they could end sharing anytime, change the % share, or do any number of the squeezes for-profit VC companies end up doing like ”introducing” prioritized white-labeled content. Again, the trust is what matters.

> Google2 is not going to pay people $30 an hour (crypto or USD) to upvote comments or submit useful content. I know this because Google1 barely pays YouTubers (outside of the top x% who make real money, and even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google)

Google pays tons of content people, they also have 130 billion in cash.

Google2 may make the mistake of being greedy, but GoogleN may not because they have a team that realizes less greed = users paid more = more incentive. Forking is a feature not a bug.

Success being correlated with fairness in equity distribution, users having stake and say in the platforms they use, creators having contracts with how they earn their living that can’t be changed on a whim, and if they ever do change, it’s by a democratic process, and creators then being able to vote with their feet to fork.

Seems like a good thing.

> even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google

> That's a very clear indicator of 'money on the table' - money that the owners chose not to return to the people performing labor for the company, whether volunteer or employee.

These are arguments for crypto.

> https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/18843/how-does-a-p...

GoogleN can design the coin/share pool however they want, so I don’t see what the argument is.

Looking at the current front page, seems like a Wikipedia2 would work too https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...

To be clear, I think these companies need to be non-profit but still pay their team well (a fixed rate to some sort of inflation basket that tracks competitive engineer salaries, for example).
Same. I just ignore everything, and with really stupid ads (that don't even mention their product/brand, or maybe I can't see it; same result) I wonder who tf is getting paid for that.

Sometimes I make a special note to avoid the company, because 2-5 minutes of bullshit is not an ad and you deserve to fail.

But having worked in affiliate marketing, I can tell that people do buy A LOT of stuff based on ads. I was running mostly targeted campaigns with relevant products on relevant websites/forums and relevant keywords on Google/Yahoo/Bing, but even on untargeted ads work.

AdSense used to work (probably still does, I hated it from the first try), and I can't fathom who clicks on those ads and even makes a purchase.
Never heard or seen that here. They still have their pickers (and butcher), they just don't have an intermediary come take it at prenegotiated prices which then sells it to some grocer, they just sell it direct in their own shop. Meat is frozen, the rest fresh and on shelves.
I'm guessing they're thinking about regaining stamina with food. Even if it's not death, it stops you from doing actual work during the day. Might feel like starving?
> the pandemic is their once in a generation opportunity to push change in indoor air quality

in the recent years many offices, especially new and deeply remodeled got "green" certified, and decreased ventilation flow has been among the ways to achieve the energy saving for the certification. I don't hope they would turn the ventilation/AC back on to good levels - instead i think there would spring a cottage industry of "virus filters" to be installed on top of those "green" systems.

Additionally these new/remodeled offices have those hip open ceilings with no noise blocking what classic office ceiling provided - as a result any meaningful flow increase causes very uncomfortable low frequency noise from those uncovered ventilation ducts.
Oh no my hard drive failed/ my computer was hacked/ my house burned down. Now my entire life savings is physically inaccessible.

These things happen every day. I will happily pay a sub .1% fee for a centeralized bank account that's protected by regulations and federally insured.
Reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/1664/
It's also in bed with the US, a huge flaw for us in China.

I mean, there are dark forces at the top here, which probably will misuse any kind of dominant position, but it's not like the US has our best interests at heart either.

As for Apple, now they have to play nice with a 300+ M people direct market in the US + all the allies they can sort of bully into segregation against us, vs a 1.3bn (and trending down) direct market in China + very few allies who'd be rich enough to afford Apple products.

I wouldn't blame Apple for cutting itself in half to work with both side of this artificial competition both our rulers decided they should have to defend our respective precious "national security" (which I'd rather call national distraction but heh).