skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Except you are not the only one paying taxes (and lobbying) and now the government needs to come up with solutions that satisfy everyone, with the current approach seemingly being that regulation is a slippery slope to socialism and eating bark off of trees. In order for the government to limit outsourcing (which IMO would increasingly happen if you ban immigration), you'd have to impose limits on what private companies can do with their own assets - I don't think this'll fly.
Merchant ARM server is mostly dead unfortunately. Hyperscalers like AWS are making their own SoCs in house however. Amazona acquired Annapurna labs for that purpose.

Personally I see there being more market overlap between ARM and the P550 core however. Samsung, Qualcomm, Renesas are all planning to bring RISC-V cores to market. With performance between A75 and A76, I could see the P550 being a pretty major disruptor. We already know some RISC-V chips are gaining traction in embedded, IoT, RF, micro-controllers, etc. Automotive looks like the next big market for RISC-V to me.
yeah, same with WordPad, but see Word would give you some squiggles :)
Employment is far from a binary for an individual. Gig workers might work variable hours, and service workers might have multiple jobs held simultaneously. The idea that the employment rate is binary for an individual is overly reductive.
Tesla cannot go into LIDAR without huge destruction of the company valuation and pissing off large base of customers. They've been selling a car ready for FSD for almost 5 years now, for a huge extra margin. LIDAR retrofit is impossible, and admitting that they need it means there's huge amount of customers who paid for product that will never exists. Refunds will not only put a huge dent on finance, but it'll also further damage brand of Tesla as a player in that space, and Elon as a god-like visionary.

Is LIDAR required for self driving? Probably, but it's not certain. But one thing is certain - Tesla is in the corner, and they have to deliver solution without it, using few years old inference HW and 5 years old+ cameras. Selling HW for a problem that doesn't even have a theoretical solution in software, so you don't even know what HW you need, is a bold, bold move.
I always find Feser thought-provoking. Haven't read anything of his for a while though, so this was refreshing. Will probably spend more time browsing his posts from the past few months now.

In regard to the subject matter, I do wonder how it may relate to the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of keeping it a secret, at least for a time, for the purposes of using it to start a business with a competitive advantage.

I wonder, because this is precisely what I'm doing. Startups are obviously a great place for unhealthy / disordered desires for wealth, power, fame, etc., to easily take root, and I wonder how the pursuit of knowledge may play into that, or how one can guard against it.
Implementation is actually a lot simpler. With approval voting, there is no change to the physical paper ballot; you just allow the voter to punch multiple holes on a single ballot, to represent the candidates she "approves" of.
I didn't. But if these are determined to be solid objects performing 100G then it's very, very unlikely humans have developed this technology, particularly if the world's militaries explicitly deny it.

Saying humans didn't create it is a lot different than saying anything about where it came from.
French had massive mail voting fraud in 1975, after which they banned it.

The entire point of elections is proving your government is trustable, you can't trust your government with it because then it's like a self signed certificate, circular trust problem.

Who rigs elections in Russia? The government. Who is most likely to rig elections? The government.

You can't trust government with elections, and just because the government shows you documents doesn't mean anything. Governments fabricate documents all the time. If all you require from corrupt politicians to remain in control is a bunch of mailed documents, you can be sure they'll get those documents mailed. I'm just completely dumbfounded people living within countries with these elections think they are democracies.
Oh, yes, instant runoff is not the way to count, I agree.
People on the West coast never strongly dislike a particular candidate and want to make sure they don't win?
One of my favorite CSNY factoids is that Jerry Garcia played the amazing pedal steel guitar part on "Teach your Children"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_Your_Children
Wouldn't we be able to look at societies that ate certain foods to see if they lived longer/more healthy lives? I think that'd be a smoking gun for which foods have the most beneficial ingredients.
> They're fallible like everyone else, and therefore might be wrong.

I think this is the misunderstanding. The Christian position is that God is infallible, therefore the Bible is infallible, since God is its ultimate author.

Since that's the case, we want to understand it as well as we can. Any position I hold that contradicts Scripture is by definition wrong, therefore I want my views to match what is taught in Scripture exactly. I'll never get there perfectly because I'm a fallible sinner, but the closer the better.
Here's my obligatory plug for approval voting. Approval is the "checkboxes instead of radio buttons" voting method. Select any, instead of select one. Vote for whoever you want and the candidate with the most votes wins. It gets rid of a lot of the drawbacks of FPTP while retaining its simplicity, unlike IRV.

I've always wanted to get people to vote on voting systems with a variety of voting methods and see what wins by what method. I'd vote this:

[ ] FPTP

[x] Approval

[x] IRV

Approval > IRV > FPTP

As an aside: It's a pet peeve when people call instant runoff voting (IRV) "ranked choice voting (RCV)." There are many kinds of RCV, and IRV is just one, and it has some pretty undesirable properties (a condorcet winner doesn't always win, so there can be a losing candidate that the majority prefers over the winner).
so where did it come from and how did it spread? It's frustrating how after 1.5 years of intense interest and research, our best hunches are either it came from the lab or market (or from the lab to the market), which is the same as it was in January 2020, so after nearly a year and a half, no further progress has been made.
> Every voting system has strategies to use it effectively and most voters are not used to the tactics necessary for ranked choice voting.

Just to respond to this one small point, but I think the most common mathematical definition of "fairness" in market designs (including voting mechanisms) is that your utility-maximizing action should be identical to your true ranked preferences (this is called "strategy-proof"). In the case of voting, Gibbard-Satterthwaite says that there's no strictly strategy-proof mechanism (under a few restrictions) but I think the instant-runoff voting which NYC is using is mostly strategy proof (i.e. strategies only exist in rare circumstances).

Fwiw the burden of learning about all these candidates seems high to me, but apparently New Yorkers don't ind.
That's still being dishonest by omission about relative danger. I meant like the "lead paint is harmful" example that klyrs gave. Getting people to check for lead in their homes is also manipulation, but it's positive.
This is what happened in Burlington, VT that prompted them to repeal IRV/RCV: https://electionscience.org/library/irv-and-core-support/
The underlying pointer to a unique_ptr won't be invalidated but the iterator might. Consider if you had a vector of unique_ptrs and inserted into it within a for loop. Depending on the implementation of the iterator this may not be sound (if it's an index, you're probably ok, if it's a pointer, you're screwed).

If you wanted to do the same in Rust it would be Vec<Box<T>>. Mutating the collection won't invalidate the pointers.
10 lines might be what it takes for some sites, but there are surely plenty of sites out there where it would take significantly more than that.
And I'd say it was common, at least before the pandemic. Our remote-first company rarely hired very junior engineers, partially after a little trial and error, including finding that hiring someone who already had remote experience would typically have a higher chance of succeeding. Not that it was required, but it was a better guarantee that things would generally go pretty well.

On the flip side: we've also had one experience with an absolutely fantastic junior contributor, who we got as an intern. Unfortunately, this person wanted an on-site experience, and we couldn't give it since we are fully distributed.

Having better techniques and approaches to help get junior developers more engaged, trained, and leveling up is good, but there are a lot of intangibles - including the social aspect - that simply don't work great for many young people fresh out of college or other training.
A lot of nitpicking here, as is typical on HN, but the Australian experience is instructive. We can vote for the Greens without "throwing our left-of-centre" vote away and still preferring Labor to Liberal. Ranking only up to 5 is reasonable - if you want the simplicity of the old system, and don't want to research beyond 3 candidates, don't!

I can't see the weird complaining about having to learn more about candidates - there's usually only a few viable well-known candidates. You don't have to go research the Natural Law Party or Animal Justice or whoever.

The only cautionary tale is the whole horse-trading element of preferences does lead to some weird candidates making it in at the margins. We had someone who was semi-famous for engaging in a Kangaroo poo fight get in this way:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-was-people-play-w...

But this "preference whispering" is more of a big deal when preferences were allocated by parties - we had an option where you could vote a single '1' for a given party and it was their preferences that wound up being automatically applied (if you didn't go through hand-numbering all the preferences). So minor party deals became a huge deal. It's not going to be so big if you only have to number 5 and don't even have to keep numbering.
> I’m not really offended by profanity or blasphemy, but many are.

> it seems funny that other offensive speech is deemed acceptable. For example, HN allows profanity and blasphemy ...

I'm interested to know what your experiences are with this? I don't recall seeing a complaint about blasphemy in an Internet forum. However, I haven't quite yet read the entire Internet ...

What blasphemy is on HN? I could imagine statements that unknowingly violate a theological tenant - for example, to some using the word beginning G... for the monotheistic deity is blasphemous [edit: to some religions] (which, given the circumstances, I'll avoid). But I am not aware of any knowing blasphemy - there is so little religion here that it's not even an issue.

Hate speech directed at a religion would (or should) be outside the guidelines, but that's regardless of the blasphemy of it.
In theory that could happen in the short term yes, but the rate of gold used in electronics isn’t fixed. Crater the price and usage skyrockets which could eat up the supply within a lifetime. At which point the price increases again.

Which means gold is a long term store of value, which prevents extreme cratering of it’s value. Thus preventing the situation described.
Then object to the policy details and not the messaging.
Rival weightlifter speaks out on transgender Hubbard's Olympic place
> Americans can’t tell the difference between objective honesty and malicious insults.

Sometimes it is both when you are speaking with the Dutch.
Yes, it happens in every thread about Brave. Full-on damage control at the smallest mention, which says a lot.
Stinky tofu smells a little funky, but once you take a bite, it’s juicy and savory. Taiwanese stuff definitely stinks more, but the mainland Chinese varieties don’t really stink at all and retain a savory taste.

Natto literally has the smell and slimy, sticky texture of, well, semen. It’s easy to wonder whether someone left a bunch of used tissues out or if they simply forgot to toss out their used natto package.
We here in NZ would also like some kind of ranked choice in conjunction with MMP - as it stands, people are still reluctant to vote for smaller parties that may not reach the 5% vote threshold required.

Edit: I may have confused RCV with STV. Regardless, it would be nice to know that if my first option didn't make it into Parliament that I could prefer a second party, and so on.
Thanks so much for taking the time to write a detailed answer. I was going to do this after work, but you’ve completely outdone what I would have said.

What project are you working on?
Honestly IRV is _even worse than plurality_. It doesn't solve the problems it sets out to solve (it entrenches two-party domination [1]), it has ridiculous monotonicity violations [2], all for a lot more complication in counting the votes (you can't distribute the counting well without transmitting the contents of all of the ballots) and possibly wrecking the secret ballot (you can encode and buy specific down-ballot rankings).

Seriously, it's all of the disadvantages and very limited upside.

[1] https://rangevoting.org/TarrIrvSumm.html
[2] http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
There are some banking apps that use their own NFC implementation instead of Google Pay -- my bank used to do this before they caved and switched to Google Pay.

As an alternative, you may get a Curve card (https://www.curve.com/) to regain some of that convenience -- it can connect to several physical cards just like Google Pay does, but itself is a physical card.
Actual results from the last Australian Federal Election showing how the count proceeded in each electorate/division:

https://results.aec.gov.au/24310/Website/Downloads/HouseDopB...

(The count continues even after a candidate gets over 50% just in order to get a notional "two candidate preferred" count between the last two remaining).
Simple...because it's being used in a significant (and growing) number of places. Approval and STAR are great methods as well. But they're not what's in use in Maine. Or NYC. Or will be in use in Alaska.

So, in the spirit of focusing where I can have the most impact, I've chosen to most directly support RCV.

First past the post is the enemy here. Not RCV, STAR, or Approval.
*frontrunners, yes

I wasn't aware you could rank candidates equally, that makes it simpler indeed.
Too many degrees of freedom to be useful in practice, although people have tried this in the past. Mediterranean diet notably had been suggested from these style studies.
First the US blocked the transfer of US Dollars and the world is moving away from the use of the US Dollar as a reserve currency.

Now the US is blocking the use of foreign-country official websites.

That's yet another case of the US shooting itself in the foot. It makes a lie of "Freedom of Speech". The US is losing (has lost??) its whole credibility.

Second, the web is international, it is no longer a purely US construct. And US websites in turn will end up being fully restricted in turn by others.

As Julia Roberts once said "Big mistake. BIG! HUUUGE!"
lock up*
I imagine less. In primaries you attract voters that are more fanatical and extreme so they have a better chance of pushing through a candidate they see as ideologically pure. When the opposition party has no chance of winning it becomes the de facto election and you have a better chance of ending up with polarizing candidate.

NYC isn’t as super progressive as people think but there is certainly a progressive streak and they are louder than their numbers. They organize and they vote in primaries and that has been their strategy the last decade to assume outsized power. Because many moderate liberals won’t likely vote for a Republican in today’s climate it works. Hence BDB as mayor whom is despised by moderate liberals.

So this should redirect power to the Democratic machine in NYC and make it more difficult for far left progressives who really been hijacking the Democratic Party by virtue of the primary system.
Well the payout to repair the cars and pay medical bills or whatever maybe around 66% of the money customers in aggregate pay them, the other 33% mostly goes to pay the claims adjusters, hire lawyers to defend against fraud, and do a ton of other stuff. At the end of the day they’re going to have just a couple percent of profit directly from the actual premium payments if they are lucky. But then the investment returns gets them more profit.
> I don’t like tank choice voting because it can result in someone with fewer first place votes than the first or second candidate to win if the conditions are right.

Any system other than plurality allows a candidate with more first place votes to beat one with fewer. Any system other than plurality or majority/runoff allows a candidate with fewer first place votes than the second place.

But, much as I dislike IRV, I’m rather skeptical of the “winner should always be one of the top two by first-place vote count” criteria suggested.

OTOH, using any ranked ballots method, I can see an argument to do a wide open “primary” using the method and then if the winner is not also the majority first-place winner doing a separate “runoff” election using the same system of, say, 5 runoff candidates, determined as:

(1) the candidate that won using the ranked-ballots voting method selected

(2) any of the top two by first place votes not selected by (1)

(3) the first candidate elected by the selected ranked ballots method when the candidates admitted to the runoff by (1) and (2) are disregarded, plus enough candidates elected by the same method disregarding all previously-admitted candidates to complete the pool of 5 candidates.

The idea being to deal with the risk of “candidate was elected due to insufficient exposure and vetting” risk, without fundamentally compromising the desirable behavior of the selected ranked-ballots method.
Killer Negotiating Tactics (or, how I got $125,000 for nothing)
“Lots of people don't fill out all the choices” is an important downside. We’ve had Instant Runoff Voting in San Francisco since 2004, and people still don’t fill out all the choices, so their votes are discarded whereas the voters probably would have voted among the final two choices had there been a runoff election. For example, in June 2018 London Breed won the mayoral election against two candidates who were closer aligned politically (Jane Kim and Mark Leno, who were further left) https://dbaron.org/sf-elections-rcv/#%7B%22election%22%3A%22... and in Nov 2019 Chesa Boudin won the District Attorney race against 3 candidates who were more moderate https://dbaron.org/sf-elections-rcv/#%7B%22election%22%3A%22... . In both cases, the margin of victory was far more narrow than the number of votes that were exhausted in the final round of voting, so due to insufficient voter education I would consider vote splitting still a significant problem even with IRV. (Another possibility is that the ballots are exhausted by the 3 candidate limit in San Francisco.)
Care to elaborate? I fail to see how it "doesn't do anything it purports to do". It allows people to pick/rank multiple candidates, which neuters the whole "least of two evils" problem traditional elections have. It would also destroy the two party duopoly, If it were used more widely. That'd be great.
It’s hard to paint a coherent picture, because each of these regulations are put in place at different times for different reasons. The result is cumulative, but the motivations were fractured and complicated.
Because the way people understand it is that if candidate #1 doesn't win, then candidate #2 would win, maybe candidate #3, but not candidate #5. And people are often disappointed to learn that the first, second or third, 1st choice vote-getters are not the winners but rather the #1 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice vote getter can end up winning (again because people think they HAVE to cast all votes --which obviously they don't, but that enables the possibility of the throwaway candidate winning)
consider the problem of "online advertising"
This is basically an update on ways Intel is executing the strategy new CEO Pat Gelsinger layed out a few months ago [1]. "Focus and execution" are key priorities for Gelsinger, so creating business units with more limited scope, vs everything and the kitchen sink, and led by experts in those areas, makes sense.

[1]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26568598
Wow, that seems like a really strong set of guiding principles. I like that a lot.
I had never heard about this. Interesting. Sounds like the AI in A Fire Upon the Deep. Awesome hard SciFi by Vernor Vinge.
In this US, you would rarely need to do any additional research.

There are almost always only 2 choices - the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate.

Anyone voting for another candidate is simply saying that's who they /REALLY/ wish would win, but most people aren't willing to throw their vote in the garbage to virtue signal. That 3rd party candidate almost never has a chance at winning. Neither does the alternative from your own party.

Stacked ranking simply allows you to say "I hate both candidates from the major parties, and I'd rather have this other person in office, but since I have to pick one of the two of them, I guess I'll pick X."
I'm impressed. I've been using DDG for many years. Generally I don't need to revert back to Google; the last time I needed to was last year when looking for a particular GPX file for a walk I wanted to do called the Hebden 22.

The search query was 'hebden 22 gpx'. There are many pages out there with broken links, and I probably went through the top 20 or so on DDG with no success. When I tried Google, the 4th result returned a page with the GPX once you've registered for a free account.

That page appears at number one on Brave search!
> when you can get a house for less than $100k how much do you need?

Well, enough to afford the mortgage and down payment for $100,000 worth of house for starters.
Have you read about how it works?
I never knew Turing had his own Blue Tulip Rose Read.
MMP is a fantastic system, but it can face resistance if it relies on Closed Party Lists[0], which allow a party to put a potentially controversial candidate at the top of the list, almost guaranteeing them a seat and forcing party supporters to accept that as the cost of choosing the party.

Open lists are better, but I believe they still have the problem that they make it unclear where representatives' mandates come from, especially if a representative can resign and be automatically replaced by someone lower on the list without a by-election.

Other problems exist with list-based systems, such as treating independent candidates differently to candidates with established parties, and the possible use of "decoy lists"[1].

The best implementation I've seen of MMP, though, is that used in Baden-Württemberg, which avoids party lists by filling the proportional seats with the candidates who came closest to winning the elections in their local districts.[2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweitmandat
I read TFA, hence the reference to intuition. There is nothing in the article that makes a compelling case of physics being simple, other than rhetoric.

We forget at our peril the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, and if we forget these, we may assume now too that we have it all figured out.

Of course, active researchers in the subject, both theoretical and experimental, do not forget.
Thanks for clarifying.

I guess my real issue (which I forgot to mention previously) is: why is this something that the website needs to implement? Shouldn't a personal preference such as dark mode, like reader mode, be something browsers implement instead of the individual websites?