skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Props to the author for taking the time to share their PKMS. I respect anybody who goes this in-depth to discuss how they go about learning.

What didn't resonate with me from this article is the need to retain a large amount of information beyond the main points of a book or article. Isn't that what the point of the PKMS is?

I like to think of reading as creating indices to core concepts. If I'm working on a problem, and it reminds me of a concept I read in a book, then that's a win. Add tags and there is no reason why you can't quickly rediscover any concept you've previously come across

Usually my notes are the parts that distilled the book to the main, useful points.

My mental storage is limited. I'll let the technology worry about storing knowledge, so I can worry about executing on it.
It's a spectrum. On one end you can just find someone to teach and validate all your existing beliefs. On the other, you can blindly follow religious leaders verbatim; all the way into a cult, Southern Baptist approval of slavery, or Catholic indulgences.
This example has less than 20 components in total and the max depth is 3. (The whole arena is a single object). And it's still using 10% of cpu. Production games have a lot more components in comparison:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuzRQ1IJkaI
For me the salvation currently lies in 3. Whenever I suffer from loss of motivation I think about what I actually want to code, and usually there is something. Dig deep in memory and ask why you choose to become a dev. For me it was the tiny code projects where some interesting phenomenon could be explored. There are always new things to learn and fun ideas to try. Doing it during work hours is ok under the pretext of "training".
It matters when it comes to voting for policies. If you believe that luck is the predominant factor to becoming rich, then you'd likely support policies that redistribute wealth, and vice versa.
I've been thinking about this technical space a bit lately. I don't personally like mixing text with other media, but I do agree that many of the bigger bible websites are severely lacking in the UX department.

Best site I've found personally is yallversion.com . It replaces "you" in any translation with "y'all" (or other 2nd person plurals) based on the original koine greek. I've been studying koine, so the side-by-side view works and highlighting words between different versions is what makes it so useful to me, but the "y'all" stuff is honestly amazing in it's own right.
archive link

https://web.archive.org/web/20210622225435if_/https://www.wa...
Two of those “businesses” only exist because they are funded by taxpayers. It’s a form of regulatory capture Musk spun up off the back of his PayPal money.
Government handouts do not guarantee successful aerospace and automotive startups. Those industries are notoriously hard to break into. Any business that had gotten to that point in those industries would have gotten those same subsidies.
Google is a Search Engine. Further, it displays content from sites directly in its results. This includes recipes, show times, sporting event details, and more. It has been argued that Google is stealing this data from smaller sites. Brave is (optionally, if you enable the feature) merely using Google (a more mature apparatus) as a means of learning to deliver better results to the user. The only way somebody is going to "build a better Google" is by training their data on what makes Google so popular to begin with. Brave is able to do this is a secure and private manner.
So processors wear out but it takes longer than a lifetime and longer than any processor has exited for it to happen?

Where is the evidence that AMD is more 'more reliable' than Intel?
You are right or close-to-right about this (and your comment is what prompted me to look up some stats about which I did have wrong assumptions, so thank you), but the combative tone (and hyperbole and dissing of journalists) you are using is a disservice to the facts you want to share with us.
Who cares if they're fine. Last time I checked, we don't check if parasites are fine.
Google talks about implementing the 3rd party cookie blocking that every other company already implemented or committed to, TO PROTECT USERS, and the EU flips it's shit and launches an anti-trust probe.

100% true that protecting users against third party tracking will, in the end, boost Google's 1st party tracking. But this is widely, hugely agreed to as a massive improvement for the security of the web. As being vital. It's already the rules of the road, and Google didn't lead this charge.

What a way to make yourself look like a bunch of wanker clowns, regulators. Sending incredibly bad signals, & an incredibly shitty way to hop in the hater-train.
Those are also in DDG.
That's an interesting way to visualize it. As usual, every phenomena is more complex the more you dig into it.
IRV is only better than FPTP in a limited set of circumstances, and can often be worse at selecting the winner.

Most importantly, IRV will not break us out of the two-party system, which is the root of many problems in American politics.

Are you aware that IRV significantly increases spoiled ballot rates, and disproportionately in low-income areas? It's actively harmful, roughly equivalent to knocking a couple percent off of the Black vote.

https://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html

https://www.yes2repeal.org/spoiled-ballots

Please reconsider your support for it. I am sure you have good intentions; my guess is that most IRV supporters probably aren't aware of the harm they're doing. I also thought IRV was an okay system (not perfect but better than plurality etc.) until I learned this information relatively recently.
I don't know the history of all sports, but the few tidbits I know all point to sex/gender separation as being initially based on beliefs that women were inferior to men. From physical sports to mental ones like chess, sex separation was due to women not being seen as equal to men.

I think its time to do away with separations on sex, and go with ones based on ability and size. Boxing does it with weight classes, why can't we do it with everything?
The data shows it’s the opposite in basically every human endeavor. The greatest are far ahead of the merely great, it’s a law of the normal distribution
Most of us reading this can afford to survive in expensive coastal cities; drawing conclusions about the affordability of middle American cities based on the experience of the top quintile is a very bad way to reason about these things. A much more fruitful way is to use actual numbers. So let’s do that.

The minimum down payment for most mortgages is 3.5%, which yields a mortgage payment of $635 at today’s rates, according to Zillow. This includes P&I, PMI, taxes, and insurance. So far so good.

The maximum recommended amount of your monthly take home your mortgage should be is 28%. If we follow this recommendation then our hypothetical family needs to bring home $2,267 after tax to guarantee that their mortgage is no more than 28% of their monthly budget.

$2,267 works out to $13.07 per hour for one person fully employed, or $6.53 for two people.

So yes, it’s technically possible at most minimum wages, but boy are those margins slim. I think the biggest issue here is that assuming that both members of the household can maintain perfect full time employment forever in an area where houses are that cheap is a really dangerous assumption to make.
I don’t believe this for a second
The non-monotonicity tactical voting possibility is overblown: it only really works in the toy "which is the favourite pizza of these 30 students" examples.

In real world elections, the conditions where it is even theoretically possible arise only rarely (A > B > C with three choices, but B > A and A > C with two choices, and A's lead over B significantly greater than B's lead over C in the three choice scenario, and A's lead over C in the two choice scenario more than twice B's lead over C in the three choice scenario) and more importantly, they're not predictable enough beforehand. Advocating this kind of tactical vote stands at least as much chance of hurting your candidate as helping them, so nobody does it.

When you analyse real-world large scale IRV elections, you find that cases where the IRV winner isn't the Condorcet winner are rare, and this balances against the very real benefit of having a counting method that is easy to explain and understand.
>Sooner or later an AI

One of the key takeaways from Mr. Andrew Ng's course on AI was that AI is not some kind of magic. There's always someone who attributes magical abilities to "lie detectors" and such wonders of technology. I think he was cautioning against such thinking. AI cannot do things a human expert is not capable of, for example predicting the stock market with 100% accuracy. It can only make predictions approximately as good as human experts.

In other words, if someone wanted to match your writings with linguistic analysis, and that were possible with AI, then they can do that today with human experts. The fact that you don't see it happen, and if anyone even tried they'd be met with great skepticism, means what you imagine probably isn't possible.
Is it really offline when one device could be listening to the entire thing?
Because authentication is coupled to authorization and authorization is coupled to business rules and data access. If your program does not deal with business rules and data access then it is probably a single-user program (that does not need authentication).

I'm over-simplifying of course, but these things sound simple until you ask all the "but-then" and "what-if". If someone actually makes them simple in a way that still lets me cover those cases I'll be the first to stop writing authN/authZ code.
Jean-Pierre Petit
What would I do with time off?

Thanks to questioning things and generally being a blunt person I no longer have anyone willing to speak to me outside of work colleagues who must do so for work.

Family and partner all gone before covid. I've been here in a room by myself wfh doing nothing else, seeing noone, since marchc 2020 and there is now noone to see.

Time off MEANS NOTHING now.

No-one can give me back my life from 2019, and no-one who supportes the anti covid measures that stripped away everything else is likely to consider it a loss.

I have nothing but work left. I also do not like my job and seriously struggle to focus for more than a minute as it's all so FUCKING MEANINGLESS.
"Sixty percent of cat owners sleep with their cats, which may enhance their sense of security and improve their quality of sleep"

Maybe, but now only between the hours of 10pm - 5:30am, for me anyway.
Tracking isn't a necessary component of a subscription service. You can have a model with premium features and/or offerings which doesn't harvest user data, such as searches and more.
I don't think you'd actually hear someone saying something like this today, despite the fact that the theological divide between protestant and Roman Catholic remains what it has been.

I'm a non-denominational protestant, but my family is good friends with a Roman Catholic family down the street... we do have so much in common with them, despite our disagreement as to whether justification and righteousness before God is conferred on the basis of faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
If you're into box sets, I am absolutely in love with these two sets. I love Neil Young and both of these box sets have more than enough gems to make me very happy. His work with the Squires is particularly interesting (to me) as I'm from Regina, SK so about 6.5 hours west of where he recorded those tracks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archives_Vol._1_1963%E2%80...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Young_Archives_Volume_II:...

Edit - If you're interested in a listen without such a big investment, both are available on Apple Music. I'm not sure about other platforms as I'm just an Apple Music user. Something something spatial audio grumble grumble...
I agree that Arrow's Theorem is often misread (as it doesn't apply to score-based voting systems, or single-winner elections) but it's perhaps more important to mention the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem here, which is similarly misrepresented.

That theorem effectively says that all sensible voting systems will in certain conditions allow a voter to gain a better outcome by voting insincerely (i.e. tactically). However, it doesn't say how easy it is for a voter to determine the correct tactical vote to make, so potentially a voter would need perfect information about all the other votes cast in order for their tactic to succeed.
I increased my luck by making five year goals, thinking about what behaviours I'd need to adopt to reach these goals and then making those activities a priority. I'm incredibly successful by my own metrics now and I'm very happy with how my life is turning out.

Doing what you need to do and not what is easy pays huge dividends.
> As soon as the call began they asked if I felt like I had ADHD. I said maybe and they stopped and said that they only diagnose anxiety.

What they really meant is that their business is optimized for prescribing certain medications with the same diagnosis and same spiel given to every patent conversation.
Then offer them training and experience. Give your best worker a fancy title in lieu of a raise to pad their resume. Enabling someone to grow doesn't mean you get to keep them forever. Unless, of course, you truly are giving people jobs in the hopes that they will have nowhere better to go. Which is also extremely common.

I recall a woman who owned a hair salon who asked Bernie Sanders about providing health insurance to her workers. Her point was that she is about to grow her business, but if laws are passed that force her to provide insurance for her employees she won't be able to expand.

Bernie let her off easy, but if she had asked me I would have told her that her business obviously isn't providing the kind of value to society that it needs to in order to grow larger. What's the point? To enslave more people that you never intend to provide a living wage too? If you go out of businesses maybe a salon will open that can afford to provide a decent wage to the same employees you take for granted.
Yeah yeah.

Let me put it this way:
if it's an opensource search engine you'll have me for sure.

If it's not 100% opensource then I can't be sure you don't track me and we end up in the google cage again.
I despise you.
> $30k growing up, to around $400k solo now.

how about someone who went from $30k to only $40k. Winning the birth lottery to be smart enough to get the lucrative programming or dev job, is also luck.
In my case, it demolishes any chance of restful sleep. She literally walks all over me. She'll meow at the door if I shut the door. So it's either meows or walking. It's a ... nightmare.
It's Reddit. There is no way to gauge user competencies and most of them suffer from acute Dunning–Kruger effect. I wouldn't trust anything read there as more than mere theories. It can be convenient to find serious resources (books, papers) but most of the content is garbage.
"We should encourage people to express their views, but also normalize lynching them if we disagree with those."
Could you clarify which part of that was confusing/unclear/you disagree with? Happy to expand on it.

n-tit-for-tat behavior is the family of game-theoretic strategies where you respond to a defection by defecting one or more times, but if the other participants don't defect then neither do you. Most societies encode this kind of behavior as some system of honor and propriety, where you don't transgress against another person unless they transgress against you, and then you are free to engage in various degrees of retaliation.

tit-for-tat would be proportional response, and then you have a whole continuum of disproportionate response up to grim trigger (infinity-tit-for-tat), which would correspond to a blood feud or something.

ntft strategies are known to be highly performant or even optimal in many settings, and are very easy to compute.

As testosterone levels decrease, the viable societal distribution of n goes down, at some point drifting into sub-1, which pushes you into a sub-optimal strategy domain.
Using Michael Phelps as an example, because his talent is extremly quantifiable.

According to wikipedia, his career best 200m short course freestyle time is 1:42.78 [0].

In contrast the cobsideration time for 2019-2020 high school boys 200m freestyle is 1:51.05 (I think this is the same event, but Phelp's short and long course time are close enough that the point holds even if there is a slight difference in the event definition).

In quantitative terms, the best swimmer humanity has to offer is about 7.4% better than a bunch of highschoolers.

In objective terms, both in absolute time and percentage improvement an increase at skill in swimming has a much larger effect on less skilled swimmers. And this result holds true for almost all skills.

Looking at world records, of the 39 world records he has set, 35 have been beaten by others. [0]

Sports like swimming are designed specifically to amplify marginal differences. That is why so much effort goes into accuratly timing them: the difference in their times is marginal.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Phelps

[1] https://swimswam.com/nisca-releases-2019-20-all-america-time...
Impossible, we'll never agree on the target function.

Eg, "minimize people below poverty level" -- this isn't universally wanted. Some people believe in fact that it's fundamentally impossible and that if anybody is brought up, that can only happen by bringing somebody down, and at best this is achievable by averaging everything to mediocrity, and they hate the idea of that.
Clubs are closed. What clubs? not everyone lives in America.
And worse: it suppresses the Black vote, as if we didn't have enough of that already.

https://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html

https://www.yes2repeal.org/spoiled-ballots

IRV means much higher rates of spoiled ballots, disproportionately in low-income neighbourhoods. It's actively harmful.
> Approval voting I think is much too tactical and, strictly speaking, worse than IRV.

On the contrary, approval voting gets better results than IRV with any measure of strategic or honest voters. See extensive computer simulation results by Harvard stats PhD and voting methods expert Jameson Quinn. Brown (50/50) is probably the most realistic setting.

https://rpubs.com/Jameson-Quinn/VSE5key

A simple example of IRV strategy is next year's Alaska senate race. Murkowski would beat either rival head-to-head but is likely to be eliminated based on first-place votes. So Democrats want to strategically rank Murkowski 1st in order to help her survive to beat Tshibaka (Trump Republican) so they at least get their lesser evil.

Here's a good comparison of approval voting vs. IRV by experts. Full disclosure, I was a CES co-founder and have written extensively on this topic for 15 years.

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-i...

> I honestly thought that after learning Arrow’s impossibility theorem that Condorcet is not especially important.

I've visited Kenneth Arrow at his home and co-founded a non-profit that interviewed him. His theorem only applies to social welfare functions, not voting methods, if properly understood. But if anything, the moral is to AVOID ranked voting methods and instead use rated voting methods.

https://www.rangevoting.org/ArrowThm
> But in any case, if you have one chip that decreases in performance 10% per year due to security mitigations

Why would this be true?
Frankly, I really wish there was a flag to remove all of the banners and other visual stuff PowerShell does when accessed over SSH. Its really bothersome to not be able to turn off all the visual clutter. Tell me if there is an error and stop blinking when there is not an error.

Also, I dearly wish it would stop inserting blank lines in output. Having to remove the blank lines from the output of every Format-Table is a pain in the butt.
Because physics is deductive whereas AI is (trying) to create a synthesis.
Great, so stick to the subset of providing a function that asks for a shared_ptr with a shared_ptr instead of introducing unique_ptr as an additional construct. This way you get the benefits of the optimization and don't need to add the overhead of thinking about how shared_ptr will take a unique_ptr and perform a conversion on it.

If something takes a foo, give it a foo.
> It sounds as though "just mean" is an obvious impeachment in your view, and if your position is that we shouldn't write and publish mean things, then...well, that's fair.

I was advancing it as a rebuttal to what I took to be the claim that "The author's primary allegiance seems to be to her family and friends" is entirely ironic, which you did not explicitly advance. If you were claiming only that the line was ironic in part (while also being a criticism of the author), then I suppose I can agree with that, but then this:

> Also, that line ("The author's primary allegiance seems to be to her family and friends") is unequivocally ironic. "Seems to be"? As though it's a surprise? DFW knew what he was doing. If anything the line is an indictment of his (and our) indignation at not getting access to Austin's consciousness and lived experience for the cost of a paperback.

doesn't seem like a rebuttal of my claim of savagery (on which I'm not sure we disagree, so that I'm not sure on what we are disagreeing—I didn't say it's not OK to be savage (though I personally find it unappealing here), just that this piece is savage).
Seinfeld currently has 2 routines, one is for the normie/mainstream crowd which is what you expect from his TV show. The other is his totally uncensored and cutting edge written material he only performs for younger audiences or in other words 'people not expecting TV Seinfeld' and it definitely would be blacklisted on any campus.
This has its own problems. Pointer stability limits the internal implementation so much that unordered_map is embarrassingly slow given what we know about modern hashmap design. There is a good reason why the swisstables that Google built dropped this behavior.
Ah, my apologies for any confusion. For what it's worth, the !sp bang is supported on Brave Search as well :)
Disclosure: the author of this comment appears to be a Senior Developer Relations Specialist at Brave.
You're being far more patronizing than is necessary here, especially because the parent poster was correct in iterators originating out of a being a generalization over pointers, although not in their latter statement. But, while implementation defined, a vector iterator must behave identically to a pointer, and your assertion fails in both Clang and GCC not for any interesting reason but more because they wrap the pointer into a class for what I understand to be better encapsulation and earlier detection of nonportable code, not because pointers are somehow unfit to do the job of std::vector<T>::iterator. It so happens that iterators have become a useful way to generically iterate over noncontiguous containers as well, but it is very clear that they are "logically" meant to mirror the usage of a pointer (down to the operators you use to work with them) and suggesting that holding this opinion is a sign of inadequacy is condescending.
> This is a classic conflation; comparing real life success (where you would hopefully not choose to place yourself into a highly competitive business environment, unless you had a unique ability to win)

Two people that are extremely talented interviewed for a position in which there is only 1 opening. One is selected, one isn't. Is this not a competition? Did the person that wasn't selected work less hard?

Working hard puts you in contention for lots of extremely competitive things in life. Often times, luck is the thing that decides which of the extremely talented, hard working individuals succeed and at what scale.