skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nice, one file of vanilla JavaScript, an HTML file, and a Readme. I know that in some contexts there are advantages to having a bunch of separate JavaScript modules each in its own file, tests, build steps, frameworks, etc. but I like how this project does not add any of that sort of complexity given that it is not needed.

Just a note: when you are copying one canvas' data to another's, I think you can use a TypedArray method like "set" to do the whole thing in one go. Not sure if the performance would be better, but it might be worth trying. In any case, there is no need to do a nested iteration over the width and the height, you can just iterate over the entire data array in one go.
It's still pretty early for a significant ecosystem to exist, but in general interfacing with C (or C++ `extern "C"` stuff) in either direction - calling C from Zig or Zig from C - is extremely simple. You can tell Zig functions / structs to use the C ABI with the `extern` keyword, and you can use C headers (structs, prototypes, enums, #define's, etc) via `@cImport` or `translate-c`
> Employees have started to think that who they work for should reflect their values. And why not?

Because employees don’t all have the same values.
Eventually we probably need to figure out how to make the content robust even under vote manipulation. We're still far from that but I think it's...at least not out of the question. We're still at the very early stage of learning what's possible through community and culture (online, I mean).
This matches my experience
This patch was pretty easy to apply too. Didnt even need a reboot IIRC
"Another factor is the human tendency to adopt the culture of their profession; those who sell assault rifles or homeopathic medicines eventually come to believe they are doing good work."

Right, and this is why surveying people on whether they think their jobs are meaningful is an inadequate means of determining if the jobs are actually meaningful to society. This should not be a subjective determination.

No doubt people in finance feel like they are the most necessary jobs on the planet because they touch so much of the world's money.

But it is not their money. Someone has to earn it first before the financial sector can touch it.

Also, the question is not whether it is "good work" but whether it is "necessary work".
Why? Dental work is not covered by the government here in Canada, and even private insurance caps usually have a very low amount that they cover (1-2k$ per year no matter how bad your teeth are, and a single root can treatment can put you over that limit very quickly). So it really has nothing to do with it being American and I think dentistry in general can have a problem when it comes to treatment necessity, over diagnosis and fixing things that may not need fixing.

Now that I think about it, I've actually rarely heard anything about single payer dental coverage, which is weird considering just how important dental health to life quality. Is dental work free in countries like Germany, the NL, Sweden etc?
the debt book taught me more about life and society than any other book i’ve read. it also turns out to be a really great help reading people as well, by gauging their response.
To be clear, the algorithm is proposer-optimal only when compared to other stable matchings. It is still possible that there exists some other matching that would make all proposers happier. It just won't be stable: there will be some pair of proposer and proposee that could switch to immediately increase their happiness, BUT it would set off a chain reaction of further swaps that leave everyone less happy in the end. This was a bit surprising to me.

There's a variant where you run the deferred acceptance algorithm, but then only the proposees who never rejected anyone finalize their decision. All other proposees and their matched proposers split up, and the whole algorithm is run again with the unmatched participants. This time, you end up with a Pareto-optimal matching for the proposers, with respect to their stated preferences. That is, there's no possible way to make anyone happier without making someone else less happy. But it's not stable, and the algorithm is no longer strategy-proof. (In fact, one can prove that no strategy-proof algorithm can guarantee a Pareto-optimal matching!)
ScAmazon.
Most of our global economic activity is governed by markets. We also happen to have the largest, wealthiest, and healthiest human population in history right now. So I agree with you, but also not sure where you’re disagreeing.
About 9 hours ago when I first saw this I noticed the same thing on bing images (no tank man).

Now I see tank man when I search it on bing images....
> Walmart has some weird cultural issues that make store operations hard to adapt. It’s a pretty miserable place to work. They hire anyone, turn them out quickly, and have weird work rules for things like gathering in a group.

Is any company in retail any different? Except for the "hire anyone", most people would probably say that describes Amazon.
I mean, I think it’s stupid, the corporation’s purpose is to deliver product to customers. But I think you’d be in a lot of hot water if you actually suggested cancelling a race workshop for a live site.
> The approval by Denmark's parliament paves the way for the 1 sq mile (2.6 sq km) project to begin later this year.

That's not a giant island.
I don’t think it’s a Great Man Fallacy but more Nazis had the institutional knowledge that the US and USSR lacked at the end of WWII.
> We can only analyze the efficacy of markets by comparing them against their alternative.

No, it can also be done theoretically, by actually computing the costs of production (required to sustain certain level of consumption) from something like Leontief matrix. And then comparing with reality. It hasn't been done, mostly because the required data are private, but it is possible to do in principle, and I would argue that it would be very instructional for any society to do such a calculation (and make the result publicly available).

> What’s the fairyland alternative to “markets”?

There are many alternatives, but you have to understand that almost nobody wants to replace markets as a whole. So the replacement is always partial.

Socialism supporters oppose capitalism, which is defined by two characteristics - (1) labour markets and (2) capital mostly privately owned. (Let's now put aside that free market and property ownership are actually completely orthogonal concepts.)

You can have a system which mostly gets rid of either one or both of these. For example, you replace (1) with worker cooperatives based on democratic control and replace (2) with a national investment fund that is again under shared ownership of the citizens. Both of these have been tried and work..

Does such a system replace all markets? No, but it replaces the chunk (labour market) that is considered the most contentious.
Better SEO 2.0
I think there's a difference between "university" libraries and "public" libraries in that university libraries are private for students who've paid their tuition (and faculty/staff), while public libraries are for the general public. I don't mean to be snarky, please let me know if you disagree with how the terminology works.

Edit: I also think it may be for safety reasons, they want only those authorized to be there to have access. This is most seen in closed universities where most/all buildings require IDs.
Where’d he do that? Honestly don’t see it.

He said he understand the realities of how bad covid is the that area and the areas around it because he lives there.

Then that it was within the guidelines for anyone from around the area to be able to get vaccinated at the site.

While some days there was less people than vaccinates ready to be used along with days where it was busier.

People in my city went to different neighborhoods where vaccines were available for them too. To put it perspective say there was a vaccine site in west Harlem with plenty of vaccines while the surrounding areas didn’t. People from west Harlem, Washington heights, all the ones surrounding that, the neighborhoods below 125th, the one that encompasses Columbia, etc... to try to get vaccinated as soon as they can. Pretty much everyone who’s working class in the city saw how bad covid hit here and in other major cities . Those who want a vaccine should get it as soon as they can, period.
“They” are speaking out about it

Their comments are greyed out, at the very bottom of all the threads, invisible, collapsed, flagged and otherwise censored

And this is also one of those moments, so just add it to your generalizations so that you don't come to the same broad conclusion
Untapped potential in Rust's type system
>The aforementioned "allies" are dangerous like bear-traps. Ostensibly they exist to deal with the bears. But they lay hidden in the brush ready to take off the foot of anybody who missteps, bear or otherwise. And you probably won't notice one is around until somebody steps on it.

This is an apt analogy.
Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and every other stooge who provided rhetorical cover for the BLM riots last year are still enjoying their Facebook accounts, so it doesn't look like the policy is getting applied evenly as you suggest it ought.
Loved the plot twist at the end.
Invalidating credentials should be a one-stop-shop action. There shouldn’t be “invalidate their email, invalidate their VPN, invalidate their corporate login...”
I'm obviously not the expert, my point is we should try to seek the solution to the problem that arise when the information is public instead of trying to hide the information.

Here is another example: some people argue for privacy because the information can be used to criminalized gay people.

Well then fix the criminalization of gay people instead of trying to hide the fact that they are gay.
> The issues I see are: [snip] Working class shoppers. Sure, it’s elitist, but people like shopping alongside people in their own stratum.

When I was very young, I liked talking to my dad about possible business ideas and how to make millions of dollars so I could buy a castle for our family to live in when I grew up (yeah, yeah, I was a kid). One evening, after proposing yet another crazy idea (I can't for the life of me remember what it was), my dad sat me down and asked me which kind of customer I thought Walmart would prefer to have: 1 customer that spends $100 or 100 customers that spend $1. I naively answered "The $100 customer, because it's a guaranteed higher amount!" He corrected me, saying that they'd prefer 100x $1 customers for two reasons: 1) there will always be a market for them and 2) it's less detrimental to lose a customer when each one pays $1 than it is to lose your only customer.

I don't think attracting the average Joe instead of the elitist is a bug, it's a feature.
They're not confused, they are maliciously spreading FUD. The WSJ does nothing but simp for central banks.
I spoke with an electrician after the new campus opened. He said Apple was desperate to get the campus open on time, there weren’t enough local electricians. They were able to get more from out of state to come and finish it up for a hefty price. So I’m sure part of the push is to get value out of their investment.
https://twitter.com/Prafulfillment/status/140093960124245606...

"Also I never showed people how to skip a line given the rules for federal vaccination clinics were 18+ and the president announced it the same night as this rant."

The entirety of his reasoning that he didn't show people how to skip a line is based on the false premise that all adults qualified for a vaccine in March. In march, we had a tremendous shortage of vaccines for the 50+.

His tweets in march were super smug memes about what he did - "It is what it is". This simply doesn't jive with his story here that vaguely implies getting left over shots after waiting for hours. A completely different attitude from what he presents here. There is no verifiable history here, but I simply cant take the founder on his word.
But all the major market instabilities have been solved by government bailouts even in the current way of things. So they are provenly unstable and require government propping them up constantly with public money.

I think you are the one espousing fairyland. Without the private gain public loss “market” we have now, half the market would have died in 2008 and the other half would have died last year…
I've seen blatant cases as well. There was a github repo where someone was sharing their notes on performance engineering, and there were tickets from people thanking them for their amazing work. Except these notes were literally copy-n-pasted pages from my systems performance book. It's weird to find all these messages from people thanking someone else for the work I did.

When I contacted them to ask how they thought it was ok to republish my work like this (I was giving them a chance to explain), they just took it all down.
You’re just describing how Target and Walmart have different business models, same as CostCo does. There’s a continuum there. Walmart has lower profit margins, lower prices, stocks many more items, has many more options for size rather than all bulk and will hire far lower quality workers. CostCo is at the other end on all of those and Target is intermediate. People really, really care about price.
Dang changed according to the > decade old rules.

He also added ~"there's 2 sides of a story". I don't see why Dang wouldn't be allowed to add a comment regarding this topic.

Every post about a company has an employee/CEO stating an opinion and often even stating their side.

Even if you would think Dang's opinion is subjective ( which i didn't interpret as such). Why would that suddenly be a problem?

I said chill for example because of this:

> Down weight? So you guys internally pick and choose topics to weight down? I thought HN was purely community driven with only comments being moderated.

You seemed ignorant to the basic fact that every half decent forum is moderated. And you "attack" them on something that is known by ( almost appearantly) everyone and the very thing that makes+keeps this community interesting.

Good moderation is too much undervalued from my POV. You only notice it when it's gone.

If I'm free to give my opinion, you seem to frustrated because people don't agree with you. I understand, it's normal and human behavior. You are not above it.

As an example your most recent comment

(first line)

> Any post that challenges dang will likely get voted down.

Ugh.

(Last line)

> Still it's sorta good that this post wasn't outright deleted.

Full of human behavior ( as you like to mention), because it doesn't fit your endgoal. Downplaying that the post isn't deleted, while admitting that the moderation was fair.

To be honest. Dang could have just moderated this thread. Reactions such as ours are the reason why and don't have any meaningful content.

But he choose not to. Even though he probably knew it would lead to content as this.

Useless content :)
This might be an ill-formed question given not knowing the specifics of the source code, but do you think Phoenix LiveView can be used to manage state through websockets vs the JSON payloads described in the article?
Note, the American postal service got it's reputation for reliability among the citizenry (which has been soiled by hostile management and politics in recent years) in part because the U.S. government was willing to back it with men with guns. The Marines were tasked seeing that mail was delivered, or dying in the process. This was incredibly effective at the time to the point that even today, no one even considers attacking the post a realistic option despite the withdrawal of armed forces from active involvement.

The Internet has a two-fold issue.

A) It's fundamental ideation was an interconnected network of trusted nodes, with a self-healing capability to facilitate C&C continuity in case of nuclear attack. All protocols have underneath them that starting assumption.

There is an entirely unexplored depth of "authorization/security first" computer networking practice out there waiting to be enumerated, instead of trying to bolt-on security mechanisms to what is already built without an ideation of distrust built in from the get-go.

It's just so wildly impractical to implement, and undesirable to at least the Western philosophical foundation to free by default expression that it's not a natural thing to wrap one's head around.

B ) What are you gonna do to me? I'm behind 7000 proxies in different jurisdictions that work fundamentally different from yours and are unlikely to cooperate with your projection of power!

In short, it's a people problem, not a technical one. To the degree it is a technical one, the middle-boxes hold everything back <shakes fist>.
i recommend everyone read the book referenced here. ignore the haters in the comments, it will change your life. it will at the very least make you consider how to spend the actual time that we’re alive. it’s up to you to comprehend and therefore benefit, since, in this world, it’s dangerous information.
I think most rational people can agree that intelligence is mostly luck. There are even studies that say that the amount of grit and conscientiousness are something you are born with (Prime example is people with ADHD who seems to lack these no matter how hard they try, so it is reasonable to believe that you need some measure of brain physiology and not just beliefs and behaviors).

But it does not make for a good society if you let unintelligent/not hard working people become the top of society all in the name of egalitarian ideals. I think the best thing is to encourage people to try their best with their given abilities, and to have a culture in society where those who reach the top of society have some measure of responsibility to those who did not inherit any gifts.
USA Today resists FBI subpoena seeking IP addresses of readers of a story
Who is ‘the rich’?
Sphinxnotes-Any: A Sphinx-Doc Domain for Describing Anything
> And we will get there faster with more people, more people working on these issues.

I thought you were arguing against forcibly shrinking the population (which I don't think anyone was advocating btw), but are you actually arguing to grow the population as a way to improve things environmentally?

Having more people in the world does not lead to "more people are working on these issues". Well, maybe it could, but it would be one of the least efficient (and most indirect) ways to make it happen.

> Btw more population also usually results in more urbanization and more efficient energy use per person.

Problem: We've got a problem with too many humans being ineffecient.

Answer: increase the population to get more ubanization, which brings some efficiencies.

I'll just ignore the decrease in quality of life for everyone, and just say that this doesn't seem like an elegant solution.
I guess it’s a great system for those who get in, it isn’t universal suffrage, and there isn’t a system of checks and balances.

And then there is the justice system...
Agreed. There is this attempt at an “ah ha! I found a market failure!” and people extrapolate that to “capitalism is a failure and the source of all our problems”.

This of course ignores the incredible reduction in worldwide poverty over the past 50 years due to capitalism.
I think tech just scales that way. A little bit of competency paired with the inevitable accrual of expertise goes a long way.
I don't think it fits quite as tightly in that description. I've been to many many walmarts and exactly one hasn't felt sad.

They've installed these gates at the walmart nearest to me that essentially force you to walk through a checkout line even if you don't end up buying anything. Most necessities are locked in cases and I always struggle to find the single employee with the key to any particular case, who then has to follow me to the checkout and have me pay for the item immediately.

The H-E-B two miles down the road is significantly nicer in almost every capacity and only marginally more expensive. The time I save not waiting in checkout lines (I scan everything on my phone at H-E-B then bag it while I shop) and looking for keys quite literally makes up the price difference and then some.
The reputation this place has is well deserved.
Three people are dead over illegal images. Perhaps David Lee Huber believed that the possibility of dying in a shootout outweighed the punishment he would have received if he was convicted for collecting specific patterns of bits.

I'm not saying creation of child pornography should be legal, or even possession. But perhaps possession, without any involvement in production or distribution, should be downgraded to misdemeanor rather a life sentence on the sex offender list.
Baaaaaaarrrrrffff. What a horrible take. Rich people use their wealth to improve the opportunities of their offspring? How tragic. I suppose we’re all the victims of Jeff Bezos because his unfair, luck-derived, incredible intellect invented Amazon before we got around to it. If only we had more people from the bottom 60% going to Harvard (even though we know Ivy League schools predict little about performance) then some other person would have invented Amazon, and then we would be reading a similarly shit article where they use that person as evidence of whatever the point actually is here.

Tl;dr being poor isn’t as good as rich and luck matters more than zero.
I did reference looking up numbers for a regional chain - net profit was 2.3% - this is still > 4x higher than 0.5%. I don't doubt some operate (for a while) at a sub 1% profit, but have to imagine those end up closing down eventually. Per the article I linked to, there was reference to smaller operations that focus on 'upscale' services may be north of 5% net profits (but are likely doing less volume overall).

Lidl likely is 'winning' there (if indeed there's legacy union component to their pricing). They also scaled back their expansion plans. The one by us is moderately large, and newer ones (and future planned ones) are (and will be ) smaller.

Within a 3 mile radius, we have a Walmart, Lidl, Aldi, Target, Wegmans, Lowes, Food Lion, Harris Teeter, Lowes, and Harris Teeter (yes, 2 Lowes and 2 Harris Teeters). This is in North Carolina - some of these are regional chains. The Lowes and HT have historically been some of the consistently highest prices for anything, and I'm honestly baffled how people can afford to shop there regularly.

Yes, perhaps keeping a bit more money 'local' (vs that money going out of state) might be a 'good thing', somehow, but it's hard for me to justify it. Perhaps, if there's real benefit, they need to do some better PR. Or perhaps they have, and everyone else 'gets it', and I've just not heard it?

I wanted a bag of frozen cherries. Local HT - 'name brand' was $5.25. HT store brand was ~$4.25. Walmart store brand was ~$3. Target store brand was $1.89. (same sizes for all - all late 2019 prices from memory). I have a hard time justifying spending 100% more for generic brand stuff. Cheeses, milk, bread, cereals, eggs, meats - our local HT is almost always at least 50% more than the Lidl or Target or Walmart. Maybe these disparities aren't as great in other regions, and this will shake itself out eventually?

EDIT: found some HT numbers from a few years ago that indicated their net profit was closer to 3.6%. They also have a profit sharing program, which may account for aiming for a higher profit percent.
Hm, I didn't try disabling plugins. Good call, let me try that.
It's false equivalence to say that just because someone wants identity politics out of work, they also are against representation and discrimination.

Someone may support active efforts to address inequality in the workplace (eg better interviewing procedures, bias training, inclusive language in products), but be against anything that's political, such as supporting black lives matter or taking a position on middle east conflicts at work.

It doesn't mean they disagree with the latter. They just want it out of work, they might even support it.