skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You might never hear about opportunities paying only 10% more than your current one but that you would prefer for $REASON beyond the salary. Saying a number first is also something you may want to avoid (but it's been discussed ad nauseam already so I'm not going to rehash the arguments here).
> For example, the utility of running into a burning building to save a stranger; or the utility of telling the truth when a lie would serve better.

How would a utility theory fail to cover either of these cases?
If anyone is having this problem, just use the tutorial series' on Observable. They really are great and provide a nice environment for learning. Later, when you want to productionize it or create self-contained applications, nothing's stopping you. A quick google will show you how to build your D3 chart as a React component. You're not learning any non-transferable skills by learning on Observable.

If I'm already writing a comment, I'd like to say that D3 is so awesome and magical! It's surprisingly easy to create nice-looking animated visualizations.

After going through the Observable tutorials for fun I quickly found ways to use it at my employer[0] and create various useful and well-looking animations, you can see one here: https://youtu.be/N9haFA_MwdM

FWIW the tutorial series I used myself was https://observablehq.com/collection/@sxywu/introduction-to-d... , I recommend it very much.

[0]:https://spacelift.io
And Toyota has (had?) the requirement that all employees, no matter how privileged, should regularly spend time on the factory floor doing the core business of the company: assembling cars.

I think that sort of idea makes a lot of sense to avoid losing touch.
Why is lumber so expensive right now?
Are there other numbers like this?
It doesn't work like that. Landlords already charge the highest possible rent. If they didn't, you wouldn't be allowed to complain about high rents because current rent prices are artificially held down by landlords.

The tax is cutting into profits of landlords that were derived from the value of the land. They still end up charging the same rent.
Hardware acquisition has gone from something that took multiple year planning cycles to push button.

I largely agree that we are still solving many of the old problems but by enumerating only three things that have improved you do us a bit of a disservice.
When Rust 1.0 was released, the stated stability commitment had three documented caveats:

«
We reserve the right to fix compiler bugs, patch safety holes, and change type inference in ways that may occasionally require new type annotations.
»

See https://blog.rust-lang.org/2014/10/30/Stability.html
They might, but the piece will be less credible.

Or - Fagoomazon might censor it.
You can achieve that by just using incognito mode. Though the extension would surely be more flexible.

Still, I haven't used a browser extension in years, partly because of extensions like this that require access to all browsing data, even if they're open source like in this case (though the author of "I don't care about cookies" has a strange concept of distribution[1]). The inconvenience of wiping cookies and clicking through cookie consent forms is much more tolerable than allowing random extensions access to all my browsing data.

[1]: https://teddit.net/r/privacy/comments/bru6wd/p/eohtox3/
See also this

https://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/
Which is another way of saying part of the problem is the search engines we use to discover the web. IMO, another piece is that Wordpress and similar engines homogenized design-- it's superior but always unsurprising.
Entry-Level Lawyers Are Now Making $200k a Year
> Except these aren’t meaningless issues

Has anyone said they are, or are you just tilting at windmills?

> It’s not group A’s job to police group B

At the moment, that is (obviously, judging from your comment) how most people see it. What I'm saying is it should be their job.

> and they are definitely not talking to you.

Oh? Funny, here I thought groups with a political agenda are actually talking to everybody, in an effort to get wide-spread support for their agenda (environmental or whatever it may be). And if they're not talking to me, then whom are they talking to? If not me, as one of the general electorate, then apparently not to anybody else in that general group either, but only to some rarefied few? The particular "stakeholders" in each particular issue, perhaps? Then WTF is the use of making their letter to those administrators an "open" letter, for everyone else to see?

But OK, great, if they're not talking to us, the great unwashed public, then we are of course free to ignore whatever they have to say. It's not us they're talking to, after all. (Are you quite sure you had thought that through all the way to its logical conclusion, and that you're speaking for them all in this?)
We already do all of this in drug discovery research before putting things into animals. We try computer modeling (very inaccurate but a good pre filter) then cell culture, and only after that do we use animals. Not only is it ethically the right thing, it’s the economical thing. Animal studies are crazy expensive (each mouse costs a couple dollars per day just to keep alive and you need a lot of them) compared to cell culture and modeling.

The problem is that in your scenario, many many more humans would be harmed. While animal models are flawed, there are no cell culture tools that even come close to recapitulating the system wide effects you get in a whole organism. Without animal tests, all the drugs that hurt a mouse (and there are very many that fail in mouse tests for this reason) would instead do it to humans.

You can ban animal research, but if you do, know that virtually none of the medicines you take would exist. It really is that stark.
I must admit that I didn't like the Smart/Real/Free/Whatever category names. In fact, when discussing the article with someone who had read it, neither of us could remember all four category names. And even now, I can only remember the three you mentioned in your comment!

I'm not planning to risk anything on the accuracy of the analysis. I'm just inquisitive; and increasingly mystified by the weird stuff going on over the pond. The article helped me to think more clearly about it.
The ships headed to Russia were Russian flagged. They were the reason US submarines had to be very careful in their target selection in certain waters. Thunder Below has a lot of commentary on the subject.
That's an important one I hadn't thought of! One reason is personal bias: I work in a place that still orders physical hardware for the most part.

Another reason is that the early software engineering papers and articles I've read haven't brought up hardware acquisition as a problem. Maybe they just didn't know it was a problem, or software is flexible enough to make it okay with slower hardware cycles?
There's a bunch of videos (some better than others), that's why i didn't link to one or another.

The goal of this exercise is to control your emotions and behavior. Easier said than done. I can see how the author above had a problem being logical about the situation. I still have those issues myself even knowing what needs to be done, things just happen. Tough skills and even tougher for a "natural born assertive".
Very simple, the Chrome and ChromeOS code bases mostly predate Rust becoming a thing. It's a complex code base. Replacing any of it is a big task. It took Mozilla many years to develop Rust and use it in their own browser, which is likely to be ongoing work for many years to come. Additionally, developers familiar with the Chrome/ChromeOS code base are probably very hard core C++ developers. Switching to Rust is not going to happen just like that. They'd have to want it and agree on doing it. And then they'd have to learn it and get productive with it.

Fuchsia development has been ongoing for quite long as well but most of the code base is from more recent times. When they first announced Fuchsia, they did not talk about Rust at all. But obviously they managed to attract some Rust developers since then and perhaps made a conscious choice to not use C++ for new development and try to contain what they had already as much as they could where it was already there.

It's one of those high level technology choices that kind of became an obvious one a few years ago. If your goal is to develop fast and secure software, Rust seems the preferable language. Google has the track record to prove that C & C++ are inherently risky since despite decades of trying to prevent issues, they regularly have to deal with them still. Including in new code. I imagine somebody at a high level just drew a line in the sand and put a stop to most new C++ development on Fuchsia. Do it right the first time. Or something like that.
> Decision-making isn't on the table.

Like half the content of the article is an example of someone making a decision about being vegan. The author’s stated topic is less relevant than what he actually chooses to cover.

> The example isn't espousing black-and-white thinking, or anything about veganism. It's an example

Did you read the article? I don’t understand how you can say this. I’m also not sure why you’re so interested in the fact that it’s an example. That happens to be the prosaic style of the article - that doesn’t exempt it from judgement.
>One advantage of Gemini is that it is easier to attract new users to the cause: even if a particular user is being helped by the collective you describe, he or she probably won't realize (because most users are oblivious to many/most of the effects of UI and architectural design decisions). He or she will ascribe the good experience provided by the collective to the web.

I don't buy this argument.

Even if "he/she ascribes the good experience (...) to the web":

(a) the subset of users that could fell into one of the "participating sites" would be much larger than the subset of users that would install something like Gemini. The subset is open with no barrier at all to every web user. They just need to visit a page. The second subset requires them to have heard about Gemini, to care enough about it, and to actively download a client.

(b) For this reason, even the subset of (a) that could tell "Ahh, this site is fast and nice because it's simple web code" would be much larger than the subset that would install something like Gemini.

(c) If the subset that recognizes the benefits from the simple web design designs to join the movement, they just need to code simple html and deliver to everybody (an easy sell, no new tools needed). For the subset that discovered and likes Gemini, they'd need to find a host and install a Gemini server (much fewer options, no turnkey-host that supports it, unknown code quantity/quality), and then their potential audience is severely limited to Gemini client users (a much harder sell).
It is exactly what is happening.
This sentiment of missing an older internet is one reason like like Hacker News. Slash dot was great in the day. Digg was so great in the day. Then the early days of Reddit were great. I’ve been her for over ten years and Hacker News is still good.

So thank you to the team that runs Hacker News and everyone who comments for making it a good place to come to.
The whole country was much more dangerous in the 70s-80s than it was in the 2000s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-h... NYC's peak-to-trough was bigger than the rest of the country, but it's not obvious that Giuliani was the cause, as opposed to a general trend having a more pronounced effect in the city (possibly because whatever malaise was causing the murders was more concentrated in the city). This is consistent with e.g. the lead-crime hypothesis, but there are a number of other ways that might explain the amplification of crime in the city.

Edit: Although, upon looking at this more, in NYC the decline was really pronounced at the beginning of Giuliani's tenure. I am politically predisposed to discredit Giuliani because of his more recent antics, but it's also true that bad people can sometimes accomplish good things. I looked for evidence on this topic and it does seem that the increased enforcement of crimes during Giuliani's mayorship probably had some significant effects on crime. I regret the implication that it did not, since it seems I was likely incorrect.
First thing that comes to mind is the approach that Jurassic javascript [1] does using .Net IL generation, run that on a .Net based OS like Singularity [2].

1. https://github.com/paulbartrum/jurassic

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(operating_system)
I suppose you can't check for backup data integrity inside Glacier.
> It's a given that Files is downloaded much more often than Dropbox

I doubt it, given that it ships with iOS.
So you think sexual harassment at work, child porn, libel and death threats should be legal? You think platforms should take no action against spam, doxxing or revenge porn? Those are all examples of censorship.
I don't see why some see the need to clump people together by what they don't believe in. Atheism isn't about "interest" or "feelings", so your comparison doesn't hold either. Different people arrive at the same conclusions via completely different paths, many not even rationally. It's really arrogant to assume atheists are superior in this regard (and I'm not saying you said that but it's not too hard to infer), and I say that as an atheist myself.
> Google etc... can obviously not keep up filtering out that bullshit. We drown in bullshit.

It's worse than that. They are shoveling bullshit. They turned on the bullshit magnet and lit up the bullshit bat signal. They created a bullshit attention economy and sold bullshit tickets to bullshit artists. Literally everthing about Google and Facebook is creating one opportunity after another to jab you in the eyeballs with ads and/or trap you in a never-ending cycle of "engagement" that has few paths out. It's a trap to monetize every aspect of your interactions with the digital world, to monetize your very attention span. Once you are in, you are at the mercy of a metric assload of computation designed to trap your little rat ass so your eyeballs can be strapped open and ads sold to the highest bidder piped right into your brain. And there are basically zero financial incentives for them to stop or slow down.
The FBI could set up a website where you can check whether your Bitcoins were involved in some crime.

This would set up an interesting experiment. Would you accept a $20 dollar bill in the supermarket if you knew it was used in some ransom case? And what if suddenly you knew you owned such a $20 dollar bill? Would you try to get rid of it as quickly as possible?
That's trivial to do in participating "minimal web code" group too.

You could e.g. color the links to other participating sites to highlight them (and still have the option to link to a conventional bloated website).
I think it's written on the Google Careers website that they don't use any external recruiters and don't accept such leads.

It could be that the guy you talked to had some agreement with somebody working there to share the referral bonus in case of hire, but I don't know how shady that would be considered.
I had a Déjà vu reading this BBC article because it is so close to the original Twitter thread, which appeared on my timeline a few days ago, that in my opinion it is borderline plagiarism. At least the BBC had the decency to link to the original source which most other newspapers never do nowadays.

To save you the detour to the BBC website here is the original:

https://twitter.com/4t9ner/status/1401458601462403077?s=21
> the web is a giant network of interlinked computer programs, none of which can be trusted

Agreed, but Gemini does address the problem of surveillance.

All metadata are still leaked: IP addresses, DNS queries, FQDNs in the TLS session opening. Also timing attacks.

Furthermore, there's nothing that Gemini can do to prevent unofficial extensions, e.g. browsers detecting and loading HTML/CSS/javascript found on a Gemini page.
Bentley's coding challenge: k most frequent words
Amazon's marketplace provides fast, free shipping for a lot of products. That's definitely a competitive advantage they have invested heavily in. I don't see the point of condemning Amazon because people who aren't in their marketplace can't provide the same fast, free shipping. Of course they can't, they didn't build a distribution network. Is the point of this article that Amazon is to blame because people who try really, really, really hard to do the thing Amazon does can't do it as well as they do?

If you're trying to sell things to people, and it turns out what they care most about is the level of fast, free shipping Amazon marketplace offers, then you have several options: join Amazon marketplace and pay their toll, or create your own marketplace and compete with Amazon, or compete on some other aspect of your product and hope that customers care about that more than shipping.
Yes, but 2592 is the only number that has 4 digits

https://erich-friedman.github.io/mathmagic/0601.html
> if you are protecting yourself from something that can access /proc (i.e. root)

on Linux and all other Unix-like systems I know of, all users are allowed to list running processes and their command lines.

> Protecting yourself from a rogue process that can monitor `ps` is also already a lost battle.

ps is not a privileged command on most systems. POSIX says "On some implementations, especially multi-level secure systems, ps may be severely restricted and produce information only about child processes owned by the user."; "severely restricted" implies that this is not a common behavior.

furthermore, the article explains clearly how to hide secret arguments from ps. that's the main point of the article.
> I am willing to sacrifice an insane amount of animal lives in order to save anyone human.

That is insane, and psychopathic. But it is shared by many (most?) humans. The result will be that there will be no animals left, and soon afterwards, no humans left either.

Another question is, how many humans are you willing to sacrifice to save your wife? Your child? Is your child worth a specific number of human lives, in your eyes? And what is that number?
Counterpoint. It is disappointing to me that most of the "web sites" people interact with now transfer more data on a single page load than an entire operating system and applications from 25 years ago, when you could get "on the internet" with a PC running Windows 3.11 and Trumpet winsock, or Slackware. And, yeah, a lot of that is because of much higher quality media, but a lot of it is advertising and tracking, too. If we did NOT have high bandwidth now, the internet would simply be unusable. And for what? I'm not any better informed these days. Slashdot was the HN of the day, and it's about the same vibe. Videos and podcasts are jokes, taking 100x longer to make the point than simple text. Social media brought everyone to the publishing "party," and that's worked out just as well as you'd think. In fact, I can't think of any way that the internet is fundamentally improved over the past 25 years. In additional fact, I think a lot of what's developed in that time is harming society.
For what it's worth, I'm an in vivo pharma researcher, and the standard is to not euthanize unless we need tissue. Unfortunately, I'd guess that 99% of the time, we need to collect blood, spleens, livers, etc. and doing so reduces the number of animals needed in that study as well as the number of studies we run with animals. There are already a lot of pressures to keep animal numbers low, not least of which being that each of the cheapest mice is somewhere around $28 (you can see the prices yourself on their website, but I think my company gets some discount on those prices). Also, my time is valuable, and adding mice increases the amount of my time is spent working on that study.

I'm also on the IACUC for my company, and I can assure you that we do care about animal life. We go to great lengths to ensure that research is being done in ways that maximize animal welfare to the extent that is possible. The FDA requires animal studies for safety and efficacy, and we can debate the morality of testing in mice, then NHPs before humans, but the system as it exists prioritizes de-risking first human doses as much as possible. Given that system, it is the job of the IACUC to oversee and approve every procedure done to an animal in the facility or in our company's name at other facilities. It's a big job that, at least at my place, is taken very seriously by researchers and up the chain of management.
I'm saying this half in jest, but what about just mounting the antenna on a really long pole? Or on the roof.
Thank your for this great content. It has really improved my insight.

Buy Viagra ONLINE NOW !! Best viagra sildenafil pills medication 100% safe reliable online shop.

Edit: I guess this ironic post may be indistinguishable from actual spam
You do not cut out animal research but you push for a clearer path to safely start research in humans. Instead of repeated and overlapping pre-clinical studies, focus on designing studies to move as rapidly into humans as possible while retaining a reasonable risk profile. The longer people do work on animals the more they optimize for and are invested in the animal solution.
For some reason when there is a bailout for everyone from the poorest grandma to the richest investors on the planet, people worry about grandma the most. We can always arrange a bailout for vulnerable people, that's not the problem but everyone who can afford the taxes insists that they should get low property taxes because grandma cant afford them.
> It doesn't seem necessary for an article about moral decision making to contain anything about utility theory.

It’s only necessary if you want to teach people how to make good decisions. If he’s just writing a fluff piece for clueless midwits who want to LARP as having a functional explicit decision-making procedure, it’s not necessary.

> Because it's an article on the Internet aimed at a popular audience

This doesn’t render it immune to criticism.
Rust is just too young and moves to fast to be used for software projects you want other people to be able to compile. In addition to the backwards compatibility problems it suffers even more serious forwards compatibility problems due to the type of dev culture currently associated with it. They always use $latest and what is in $latest changes so fast even if your rustc is 4 months old it already can't compile code written in $latest. If you're only shipping binaries it's okay. And in the future I bet Rust will be pretty nice. But right now it's painful and full of pitfalls.
Unpopular opinion but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that the reduction of suffering is something that we should strive for.

Edit, looking at the replies I'm disappointed in hn, expected better.
Different quality, support, tradeoffs, maturity levels, focuses, and add-ons?

Might as well ask "what good is competing webservers".
Sadly, it’s the people.

The old internet had a filtering function where, because it was harder to use, people had to have some interest or skill to use it. So as a result, I think the proportion of people “online” had similar interest so more content was relevant and made by similar people.

Now everyone is online with more diverse interests and capabilities.
Roman Catholics monks often being "real people who have real conversation" is largely the result of certain monastic orders being created with laxer rules on interacting with the secular world. Historically, and still today within stricter Catholics orders and in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, monks and nuns are encouraged to limit conversation on secular themes. Definitely one can go and interact with the monks or nuns, but that interaction is best limited to conversation on spiritual themes, discussion of work that has to be done, or just enjoying the silence together.