skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So have the world's biggest advances, from the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, or the advent of liberal democracies in the past ~200 years.
I do a little thing with languages where the data is something like "shake ${his} resolve" or "conspire against ${him}" where the feminine for both are the same word. But for his/hers, we use ${hers} because the masculine conflicts with his/her.

English is an interesting language. It doesn't get this confusing with most of the other languages I know.
People with average IQ can't learn algebra properly, I don't think you will find many such programmers. Even the median college student struggles with basic Algebra, the median person doesn't have much chance at all.
“Things worthwhile generally don’t just happen. Luck is a fact, but should not be a factor. Good luck is what is left over after intelligence and effort have combined at their best. Negligence or indifference are usually reviewed from an unlucky seat. The law of cause and effect and causality both work the same with inexorable exactitudes. Luck is the residue of design.”

Branch Rickey
I feel like the author didn't read https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2003/10/08/the-absolute-minim...
Can we please stop suggesting that anti-LGBTQ "viewpoints" are worth exploring and that people are just to "embattled" on the issue of basic human decency?
The problem with ADHD is that it applies to everything in your life, not just work. You're equally unable to do chores, hobbies, have fun, or even finish watching a TV series. Actually, they're even harder to do than work because there's no pressure on you to keep up with it.
Yes, figured that went without saying. From my comment:

"Of course, it wouldn't necessarily work to combine too broadly differing speeds on the same roads."
Sounds perfect for a Dr. House mystery.
> Their privacy is miles ahead of the other options.

If by "other options" you're purely referring to "the 5 most popular browsers", you're mostly right. Brave still uses much more telemetry than UnGoogled Chromium and Vivaldi, so make of that what you will.
> Most importantly, IRV will not break us out of the two-party system, which is the root of many problems in American politics.

I want to expand on why this claim is true, since IRV is frequently propositioned as a way to solve spoilers. Most importantly IRV does not pass the Favorite Betrayer Criterion[0] which states

> voters should have no incentive to vote someone else over their favorite

IRV only handles weak spoilers (e.g. Jo Jorgensen spoiling Trump) and not strong spoilers (e.g. Sanders spoiling Biden).[1] We're not actually concerned about Jorgensen spoiling Trump or Stein spoiling Biden. We're concerned with Sanders spoiling Biden (or vise versa). This is where the favorite betrayer criterion comes in.

IRV isn't even the best ordinal (i.e. ranking candidates) system because it fails the monotonicity criterion[2], which states

> A ranked voting system is monotonic if it is neither possible to prevent the election of a candidate by ranking them higher on some of the ballots, nor possible to elect an otherwise unelected candidate by ranking them lower on some of the ballots (while nothing else is altered on any ballot).

This is an extremely undesirable property and will continue to promote tactical voting. I can go into it more but maybe just check out Clay's works or ask him yourself since he's here in the thread. He's far more informed on this stuff than I am since he's an actual expert.

[0] https://electowiki.org/wiki/Favorite_betrayal_criterion

[1] https://electionscience.org/library/the-spoiler-effect/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonicity_criterion
If I'm reading the scatter plots correctly, it looks like the differences in the means between the two populations is much smaller than the one-sigma variation within each population. So while the correlations may technically be statistically significant, they aren't necessarily impactful.
I think it is the other way around. You know nothing better then work your ass off just to make sure that you have bigger car/yacht/jet than that neighbor of yours. Some people (myself including) do not give rat's ass about it. So while the world "competes extremely" I do what I want.
At face value, hijacking/seizing DNS for websites because they spread disinformation is kind of horrifying. Is this precedent less scary than it seems?
> Well the example you gave is bad feedback

> the feedback that sparked this discussion does seem like useful feedback

The former was a summary of the latter. The "feedback" we're talking about gave no actual information about what the person thinks is wrong with TFA, it just said that TFA's author is ignorant and maybe look at XYZ.
The one thing I’ve noticed of all successful people is they used some form of arbitrage at some point, and this can often be mistaken for luck. This is what makes the difference from a person that has merely worked hard.
Fox is known for the "People are saying" propaganda that makes something seem like it's everywhere to build consensus.
Yep. All the people who paid all of their savings are stuck without savings, while all of the people who just stopped paying intentionally (others stopped paying without a choice due to lack of income) are given a free ride.
We're discussing 2 distinctly different ad models:

1) Forced upon the user, rewards them in no way for their attention, harvests their data, auctions them off to a sea of third-parties, and may in fact be dropping malicious scripts onto their machine for client-site execution.

and

2) An opt-in model which harvests no user data, rewards users with 70% of the revenue for the ads they choose to view (the user controls frequency caps), and gives everybody (not just the wealthy or well-off) a way to support content creators.

And you feel the second one is the "disturbing" model?
Hard not to read defensiveness into the piece. DFW failed at becoming a tennis pro and he's covering that territory from his intellectual sanctuary. He's watching from the bleachers here.

People who do, don't need fancy words or justifications, the proof is already in the pudding. Fetishizing language is the province of the thinker, the ponderer, the stay-at-home-and-read-er. Just like a seasoned pornography enthusiast, the shine of the base experience wears off.

"I immediately knew what I had done, which was to win the US Open, and I was thrilled."
“Browsers decode() images differently”?
Philosophy and sociology should be moved earlier in the curriculum. I gained much from studying Descartes and Bertrand Russell, and learning propositional logic. The school system did not teach me those things until after I graduated high school. Had those teachings come earlier I may not have been as susceptible to propaganda at such a young age as I was.
Everyone's relative chromosome string should be determined, like XXY and that should be the category, devoid of any loaded words like "man" or "woman". If you're XY, you don't get to got against XX athletes, regardless of the identity of anyone involved.
> Or did they just not have the "luck" of having the genetics/life scenarios that are most conducive to winning their respective competition?

Most likely they did minimal errors or had slightly unfortunate conditions; when it comes down to fractions of a second, minimal performance differences most likely don't matter to much.

But all of these people still were at the Olympics. And you bet everyone making it there worked their ass off to get there. Going back to the Fortunes, this might be the equivalent of the "unlucky" exit at a few hundred million, instead of making it to the billions. Which is actually a nice parallel: You might need a bit of luck, but you also need the work.
Try Lincity-NG.
Like Svelte, Clojurescript can "compile" to reactive code (one advantage of being lispy) via Mr. Clean [1]. No VDOM, no library overhead.

[1] https://bitbucket.org/sonwh98/mr-clean
EU investigates Google’s conduct in digital ad tech sector
> "Sixty percent of cat owners sleep with their cats, which may enhance their sense of security and improve their quality of sleep"

I regularly open my eyes in the middle of the night and my cat's face is about 5 inches away from mine, just sitting there perfectly still, staring at me.
There isn't any methamphetamine in Adderall! As far as I know the IR version isn't much more effective than dexedrine.

Vyvanse is the form that works best for me, but the crash can ruin any of my evening plans since I lose all motivation or sometimes just need a nap.

Strattera also works very well for some people and is easy to get.
Sure. There is a form of argument that I call "proof by aphorism" or proof-by-catchy-slogan. One of the best and ultimately most effective examples of this was Johnny Chochran's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" during the OJ Simpson trial. That argument was more effective because it rhymed despite the fact that this is clearly a logical fallacy.

"Those who can do..." is similar. It's catchy, and because it's catchy people are more likely to believe it, particularly those who are fortunate enough to enjoy the survivorship bias of success. But like Cochran's slogan, it is not true.

But proof-by-aphorism is hard to counter with actual logic. I mean, look at the argument I am presenting right now. Don't you think it's starting to get a little tedious? Do you not find yourself tempted to tune out? Don't you think a lot of people probably already have?

The sad fact of the matter is that the most effective counter to proof-by-aphorism is often another aphorism. If the counter-aphorism is not entirely true, well, that is just part of the point. And the other sad fact of the matter is that many people achieve success not by "doing" but by gaming the system. Not all, but a lot. So I think it's very disingenuous of anyone to get up on a high horse about less successful people trying to similarly tilt the odds in their favor.
What's the point of this? If/when those things would hypothetically be found, we'd have to come to terms with it. However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
Footguns might keep you prepared for the zombie apocalypse, but they'll inevitably make it difficult to walk. I'm glad I don't currently use C++ in production, but that may change soon. ):
Scholasticists were careful though not to overstep the dogmata and say heresy. Discussing heresies was very much allowed, as long as they were considered heresies and thus wrong by definition.

Different churches at different times and places were more lenient or more strict, but always kept the One True Faith which could be discussed but not put to doubt. At least, this is how it looks to me after some superficial reading about the topic.
> APT would maintain a list of allowed public primary keys.

You've blatantly forgotten the implication of TOFU regarding new debian keys. Without a way to certify debian's keys, there's no way to verify that installation media is correct any more. With PGP, there was the web of trust. Now there is TLS at best, no?

It seems the proposed specification lacks a crucial addition of keysigning.
What is the average reward you expect businesses to pay out? Flat fee of 10 dollars means the reward itself has to be pretty high (>50 dollars). I’m curious which companies spend that much for user acquisition.
Same here. I was on Lexapro for quite some time, and Prozac a few years later. Both (alongside therapy) reduced my anxiety, and helped greatly with my depression. I've since moved off both, and I've been in a quite good place mentally for over a year now.

Neither helped with attention and focus though. I still get distracted by the next thing easily. Although I've never had a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD, I've suspected it for a while now, as it had been suggested off-handedly by a former therapist back in college. This article might be the push I need to get some confirmation.

It hasn't impacted my professional life, but my hobbies have certainly fallen by the wayside because of my difficulties with attention.
What about inherited mortgages when you're parents die of covid? and then a slow to rent unit due to covid. I know all about that. This wasn't my choice.
[Self-reply] I ended up getting the L size and am very happy with it. The XL was only a little taller (1cm), but wider.

Still getting used to it, but first impressions are that it's comfortable, helps give good posture, and the rocking & recline options are great to mix things up.

It's my first gamer-style chair vs a regular office chair. The side bolsters and head rest are a great addition. I have often felt more comfortable in my car than in my office, and this is a step towards that kind of setup.
The next logical step, at least per how it happened in USSR/China, will be asking students to fill out questionnaires about their attitude to BLM/CRT, recording the list of intellectual dissenters and talking to parents and their employers about the problematic behavior of their children. If we get that far, the step after that will be encouraging students to report their friends who've been noticed in insufficient support of the regime.
From what I've seen of scripture, people are perfectly happy to donate to the project. I'm in one open source group and we've had people request to donate even though there's nothing left to spend the money on. Often they choose pay for things like hosting, so I think a Patreon would be a good enough business model. Or just a premium app with advanced features.
Didn't the Linux kernel developers ban modules from displaying lengthy credits/license/begs/cute text because of how much of a mess it had become?
But that is futile, because ability necessary to the sport is what produces the results, i.e. rankings. So that amounts to just (1) everyone competing together as if there were one category, then (2) being ranked from winner to loser, and (3) we then declare that each rank is its own ability class, so everyone is a winner in their ability class!

Bob is the winner of the #1 division, Amy is the winner of the #2 division, and so on.

All the tuples of athletes who tied get to be in one class; e.g. if three people crossed the 10,000 meter finish at 29:13, they are in that ability class together, tying for that class' first place. :)

:)
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar hell. If you start calling names like "social signalling" and "progressive elites", you're somewhere between pouring fuel on the flames and starting new ones. Not cool—regardless of what your views are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The housing boom that never ends already wiped out all the short-sellers
Really cool design.

For anyone curious the table on the bill is the “normal form” m-configurations of a Turing machine (think table of state machine transition definitions).

You can read each entry like: for current state qi, if the machine head currently reads symbol Si, print symbol Sk and move (left|right|no move), then jump to state qm.

There are three normal forms N1, N2, N3, one for each direction to move after printing a symbol: left, right, no movement.

Any Turing machine can be encoded with those three forms.
Have used all of them services and at the end I gave it all up because of their lack of commitment to their products. Tired of so many features that eventually lead to nothing.
I can't quite grasp this. Candidates A B C i prefer in that order. I look at the polls and see A and B are close, but i much prefer them to C, so I approve of A and B. But the results come in and B won over A by 1 vote. Lets say me and 5 other people thought and acted that way. We're disappointed because we were not able to express our preference.

Lets say we 5 people do the opposite and only approve of A because we want to avoid the above, but it turns out C wins by 1 vote over B. We're disappointed we took a gamble to avoid the first situation and ended up with the second.

I understand RCV 1 2 3 may lead to weird situations downballot and horse trading, I know those examples but they seem infinitely harder to game out and vote defensively on compared to approval.

The explanations of approval all seem to rely on the falsehood that the voter approves of their choices equally.
> I just take issues with the idea that public schools original purpose was for equality.

I didn't say it was.

> For example, Catholic schools in native American reservations didn't seek to undo Indian culture.

Are you sure about that?

> Public schools leading to equality is today a 'fact' asserted with little empirical data

I know of no person who asserts that fact.
You're 100% wrong because the third party has won many times and both democrats and republicans started out as third parties.
What a pleasant surprise!
Yeah it is. Sorry that a germanism slipped.
This is exactly the intuition behind Cohen’s d — the standard unit of comparison for meta-analysis. You take the mean difference between the treatment group and the control group, and divide that number by the standard deviation of the dependent variable, and then assess that result in many studies to see which treatment, or class of treatments, moved the needle the most.
There's enough smoke there, that my vote is a 'no' on whether to get a cat or cats, especially if small children might be involved at some point.
Currently, I cannot read even one page of a book much less an entire book. I also get bored of people and interests easily.

Which type? I have ADHD-PI diag at 38, but it maybe a direct consequence of low testosterone.

It's interesting that the major parts of my body are very masculine while others aren't as much as they were. And, it's not Klinefelter's or a karyotype issue. Attractive members of my preferred gender for adult activities are frequently "shouting" overt interest nonverbally that doesn't register to me as anything other than a potential threat. My instincts should be of curiosity, delight, and novelty.

Starting on clomid tomorrow because the memory, concentration, alertness, and fluid/crystalized intelligences became disabled to the point where I cannot work. I may also have to take hCG too. An endocrinologist has to research the primary cause because it could be an HPG tumor or something else, because the low T issue is absurd.
Not knowing something does not make you an idiot, there are tons of things I don't know about C++ and I make tons of mistakes. However, not knowing something and doubling down on that lack of knowledge by defending something that is wrong because you don't like the tone of the person correcting you about it is highly problematic and suggests you are prioritizing your own sensitivity on the issue and protecting your own ego instead of taking the opportunity to learn something new.

>Second of all, nobody is saying that pointers, arrays, references, and iterators are identical in general.

The comment I replied to said, and I quote:

"I mean, literally. The iterator of an std::vector<T> is a T*."

That is what I originally replied to before you felt it necessary to interject yourself into the conversation to police my tone.

>However, my point was that a vector iterator needs to behave like a pointer would and can in fact be implemented as a naked pointer.

No, you said it is required that they behave identically, which is false, once again, I quote you:

"a vector iterator must behave identically to a pointer"

There is no such requirement that they behave identically, and there is a demonstrable example of a compiler where they do not behave identically. Furthermore your talk about it being undefined behavior is false on the basis that in general, two pointers of type T* may compare with one another, for example the following is valid:

auto v1 = new int();
auto v2 = new int();
v1 == v2; // This is valid.

However, this is undefined behavior.

auto v1 = vector_a.begin();
auto v2 = vector_b.begin();
v1 == v2; // This is undefined behavior.

Only iterators to the same vector may be compared, which is not true of pointers.

>Believing this does not mean I have a poor understanding of the language.

I did not say you have a poor understanding of the language as a whole, I said if you believe that an iterator to a vector is identical to pointer as you have claimed, then you have a poor understanding of iterators.

I stand by that statement and I would suggest that you not be so sensitive about being wrong about a corner case of the language and instead simply accept this to be a fact, learn something new, and move on with your day. I learn new things about C++ all the time, sometimes from polite people, sometimes from jerks, it's all the same because what matters is the learning. Something doesn't become wrong just because the person who told it to you said it in a way you disapprove of.

Having said that, all the best to you Sir and thank you for engaging in this discussion. I have said all I think is appropriate given the topic.
> As a result, we propose regularizing plain Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) networks by searching for the optimal combination/cocktail of 13 regularization techniques for each dataset using a joint optimization over the decision on which regularizers to apply and their subsidiary hyperparameters.

Pardon? https://youtu.be/RXJKdh1KZ0w
Yes - over the past 2.5 years. We have built products for customers that handle 100s of millions of dollars in transactions using low-code tools along with RPA.
While its really great to get started..roadblocks tend be major when compared to opensource frameworks like rails or spring boot.

At some point the low-code became more-code than our usual spring boot/rails approach. Integrations with libraries that the platform does not contain functionality for is a major headache.

I think a sweet spot would be a low-code/no-code platform with minimal abstraction built on top of currently popular web frameworks.
This is something that comes up more with human/dog relationships but I think it’s worth mentioning here too: there’s nothing wrong with this as a training approach if, and because, the pet trusts you and baseline feels safe with you. If they feel unsafe or haven’t made that assessment it can be traumatic and even personality-altering.

I don’t want to discourage anyone from any kind of safe, instinct triggering corrective action. But I do recommend something similar to what people say about human child discipline: act consistently and with intent.

Don’t accept some instances of a bad behavior sometimes and correct others; if you’ve decided this is your approach stick with it unless you see harm in following through. Don’t overreact out of frustration; think through what you’re going to do, and be sure it’s safe and something you’re gonna be comfortable reflecting on when it’s over.
Would be nice if the people who got chewed up and spit out by working hard to no effect got to capture a little of that immense advantage.
> In many cases it's not.

It's never. I can move my desk from the right corner to the left 14 hours a day, 7 days a week - I think you could call that working hard. Yet it would bring me a complaint from my neighbors, at best.

You always need to work hard for the right thing. Identifying that is a big part of where luck comes in.
Propaganda is defeated by shedding light on it. It requires constant vigilance.

One of the problems with HN (don't hate me Dang) is that we aren't permitted to call out propaganda as this article suggests we do. It all happens behind the scenes and as a result, its inherently unseen. It needs to be seen. We almost needs a wall of shame for groups/orgs caught engaging in PR.