skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So I would disagree with both of those points.

For part 2) it says they 'must teach those foundational concepts and supporting documents' (i.e. Constitution) but it doesn't say how. I'm not sure if that counts as 'must teach propaganda'.

For part 1) The Boards are prohibited from requiring teachers to teach current events via an ideological nature, but it does not prohibit teachers from teaching anything - rather they must teach the subject from a variety of viewpoints without taking sides.

"(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;"

And prohibiting things like giving credit for activist projects etc.. If parents want to get their kids involved in activism, that's perfectly fine but I don't think that's the school's job.

Honestly, I don't like that we feel such a document needs to exist, but I think it's pretty fair, neutral and civic.

As a parent, I would be happy if this were already the 'policy' at my school board.
Your last paragraph shows a lack of depth in understanding American history and politics.

-- an Australian/American living in the US.
That reminds me of a fairly common place observation about combat pilots in world war II. Flight experience was necessary but not sufficient - the most successful fighter pilots were so good that flying was largely an after thought but there were a large number of very good pilots who - whatever they wanted to happen - would use their flying abilities to stay out of trouble and not much else.

There were also a number of bad pilots who functioned as targets; taking so much time and concentration to merely keep the plane in the air that they didn't realize there was a killer behind them.
The system allows ppl to vote a third party without „wasting“ their vote. It favors consensus candidates — that’s great when a single representative is needed (like a major).

For parliaments, however, the system favors the two main parties, since a candidate needs those 50% support. This means parliament, which _should_ reflect the pluralism of society, will not actually reflect that pluralism.

In effect, this ranked ballot business is a way to appear to engage in voting reform without actually wanting to change anything about the outdated 2-party system.

In Canada, the liberals promised election reform. Until it turned out that ranked ballot was not going to be recommended by the electoral reform commission. Since that was the system the Liberals wanted in order to improve their chances in future elections, and they had little interest in actually representative voting systems, they scuttled the process and reneged on their promise that this would be the last election using the first past the post system.
One girl she dated revealed afterwards that she had referred to Ned as "my gay boyfriend".

I'm not sure what difference you see between "rejecting someone for not being masculine enough" and "questioning whether they are, in fact, a man".
And most of the worlds biggest atrocities has also been done on "the shining path to the better future".
Personally I don't see much benefit for this system, opposed to approval voting.
I see your point. If we make technological improvements that reduce consumption, Earth can sustain more people. If those improvements increase consumption we sustain fewer.

As I said increasing technology and life comforts genrally reduce population growth, let's hope for other technology miracles as well. This is a reasonable position. I spent the weekend in the Pennsylvania wilderness in an area that in the mid-1800s had been stripped bare by logging and was now a preserved and expansive wilderness. Humanity can and will adapt. Believing so helps me sleep at night.
Off-topic to most of the points the article is making, but I'm happy to finally have some mathematical basis to my observation that saturating IO on a Linux system slows it down exponentially (or at least very non-linearly).
> Why is operating outside of the paradigm of liberal feminism automatically equivalent to vilifying women? There seems to be an insatiable need for liberalism to 'other' those outside of it...

Because if your goal is to advance liberal feminism, you can help achieve that by "discouraging" opposition to it, leaving your slide to dominate the conversation. That discouragement often takes the form of various ways of increasing the personal cost for an individual to express an opposing opinion (e.g. through boycotts, vilification, harassment, marginalization, etc). As a tactic, it works, at least in the short to medium term (and it feels good, too).

This article is pretty interesting and related: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/05/opinion/gay-marriage-boyc.... tl;dr: Gay marriage activists succeeded in part by personally targeting wealthy gay marriage opponents, causing them to avoid making donations to opponent organizations, leading to funding disparities that helped the advocates prevail.
Why is it only available on Brave? Doesn't make any sense.
I know San Francisco State has something called Open University: https://cel.sfsu.edu/openuniversity/ so you might look for something similar at other places but even so there probably aren't many places with classes outside of normal working hours. In that case your best bet may be a community or city college like https://www.ccsf.edu
The BBC's World Service and non-UK coverage is generally pretty fantastic, but unfortunately they can no longer be trusted for anything related to the UK, speaking as a Brit.

By nature of their primary funding source (a "tax" levied on those who watch TV in the UK through the government, which thus controls their purse strings), they tend to be very soft on whoever the governing party is, especially at present. For one, Laura Kuenssberg, their political editor, has had a lot of allegations of bias against the current opposition party, some of which have been upheld in enquiries. She's also ended up serving as an unofficial mouthpiece for leaks from the conservative party on a number of occasions, parroting party talking points uncritically.
> The middle class family that halted saving for a home to pay for rent is not harmed here?

No, the middle class family benefits because there isn’t an army of homeless people in their city.

If landlords find their speculation doesn’t pay off, I’m not harmed. If millions of people are evicted, we are all harmed.
Yes, sorry, "horrible" was a bit strong and I edited that out of my comment immediately after posting it, heh...

I do appreciate the progress, but I worry that people will regard this incarnation of ranked choice voting as "more complicated" when the entire point is that it's less complicated for the individual voter...
Yes the XPS 13 has been one of my best work laptops. Feel like it's in close competition with Macbook pro in most metrics. Might be slightly over budget though.
I have a good sense of humor. Making fun of a group that is persecuted is not funny to me because I don't find anything amusing about taunting the disenfranchised.

So tell me so good trans jokes and change my mind, eh?
Yes, approval voting is a simpler system that also tends to reward moderate or "compromise" candidates.
I think the answer is: it depends.

A weird take on the U.S. constitution: it actually established 4 "branches" of government. Citizen oversight was one of 4 powers designed to keep government in check. It's hard to look at today's America and feel like citizens have much oversight of government. Our "branch" has been systematically eroded. The current first-past-the-post system has been gamed heavily by two parties to reduce the impact citizens have on the outcome of elections.

RCV helps restore civilian oversight (many forms of voter suppression, i.e. gerrymandering, are less effective under RCV). My current thinking: feeling this will result in more "left" or "right" leaning governing bodies is a reflection of how citizen's want their government run. If the "silent majority" is right leaning, this will result in right leaning politics; left would yield left. But the "leaning" of the politics is less important to me as an outcome. The most important outcome is that citizens are restored to their rightful role in government: acting as a proper "check and balance" to the other 3 branches.
It's ADHD when it seriously negatively affects your quality of life.
You should get into C#, that lets you declare as many properties as you like.
I read somewhere that Neil could write a hit song almost everyday. Is there anywhere to hear these tracks that he released? I'm old, it's been so long since I've tried to buy music.
Possibly naive question here but in my limited exposure to articles about RCV it seems to be popular in more historically liberal areas. Is that true and why might that be the case?
> The person who owns the land makes it available by deciding to rent to people.

No, the state makes it possible for the landlord to charge money for the land, by preventing squatting. The land is already available. It is the ownership that renders it unavailable.

As for the factual side of your argument (maintenance expenses as a motivator, etc), I can't comment. It's starkly different from my experience. I imagine it's actually starkly different from yours - you're just using it to rationalise the inequity.

Obviously, there can be incidental work in the maintenance of a monopoly. If somebody tomorrow gave me exclusive right to the fishing in the north sea, then I rented that out to fishing companies, there would be work involved. But fundamentally, renting out exclusive rights is not primarily about exchanging services for money. When you own land, you have just such an exclusive right, and it is just as predicated on the willingness of the state to back it, and is therefore an entirely political decision whether or not this is actually a good idea.

In the case of California, the state with a crazy unemployment problem, and sky-high property values, it's unarguable that the current system is not working. So questions of what is and is not a legitimate or useful monopoly over resources (land, in this case) should be totally on the table.
The full context to that second quote is:

> When a function is called, each parameter ([dcl.fct]) shall be initialized ([dcl.init], [class.copy], [class.ctor]) with its corresponding argument. [ Note: Such initializations are indeterminately sequenced with respect to each other ([intro.execution]) — end note ]

So it's only about initialisation of parameters from arguments, not to the evaluation of arguments. (For example if foo() takes a std::string parameter, and bar() returns a const char*, then in the expression foo(bar()) the above quote refers to the call to the string constructor, not to the call to bar().)

The more relevant part is 5.2.2/8:

> [ Note: The evaluations of the postfix expression and of the argument expressions are all unsequenced relative to one another. All side effects of argument expression evaluations are sequenced before the function is entered (see [intro.execution]). — end note ]
This sounds too simplistic (idealistic?). Maybe computers at their core are indeed pure, neutral information, but internet is definitely more than just that. It also amplifies all kinds of adverse mass psychology effects, rewards herd behavior, enables propaganda wars, provides means to monitor and control population at unprecedented scale, etc. I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but I think you might be willing to see only the brighter side of it.
nobody has proved the conjecture "things are only influenced by things nearby" this is one of the largest ongoing arguments in QM

This is a much more nuanced matter. Non-locality as in global wave function collapse or Bohmian mechanics has not the same consequences as classical non-locality, there is no causal influence from things you do to an entangled particle at the other end of the universe. Also to entangle particles they have to first interact locally before they can be separated.

We also don't know for sure the "constants" are constant throughout the universe (spatially and temporally) This is assumed for now, and seems almost certainly true.

This does not really change the argument, even if, for example, the fine-structure constant is not constant after all, then there will most likely be a hand full of other constants that describe how it varies over space and time. This is very different from every electron having a unique electric charge that is not governed by anything and the only way to figure it out is to measure it for each electron.

It would also probably make a difference how values are distributed, are the charges of the electrons nicely distributed and vary by a factor of two or ten? Some statistical theory could probably deal with that. But what if there is no nice distribution, if values vary by hundreds of orders of magnitude, if the expectation value or the variance of the charge is infinite? I am certainly unqualified to make any definitive statements but I can imagine physics to be weird to the point that it becomes mathematically intractable or at least only produces useless answers because of the amount of uncertainty that enters the equations.

In any case, we know that the universe is simple to a very good approximation, even if fundamentally everything depends on everything and the electron charges are all random, those effects are small and we can have a good approximation with simple theories.
At a high level:

The core idea behind a RCT is that the characteristics of a "unit" (a patient) can't affect which treatment is selected. On average, people who got treatment A are statistically the same as those who got treatment B. So you can assume any difference in outcome is a result of the treatment.

One of the simpler ways to do causal inference is by pairwise matching:

You try to identify what variables make patients different. Then find pairs of units which are "the same" but received different treatments. After the pairing process, your treatment and control groups should ("should" is doing some heavy lifting here) now be statistically "the same" by construction. Recall, that this is what we were going for in an RCT. If you did everything right, you can now apply all the normal statistical machinery that you would apply to an RCT.

The challenge is:

1. Identifying all the variables that make units alike.

2. You tend to throw away a lot of data, which reduces your statistical power. Even when the treatment classes are balanced, a given unit in class A may not pair up well with any unit from class B.

3. (Related to 2) Finding globally-optimal pairs of closest matches can be hard.

4. (Also related to 2) You need at least some people in each group. Sometimes the treatment and control are just so different that nobody pairs up very well.

In some sense, the pairing process is just a re-weighting of your data. People who are similar to someone in the other group have a large weight. People who are unlike the other group have a low weight.

You can generalize that idea a bit and reinvent what's called Inverse Propensity Score Weighting. In this case, you try to model a unit's propensity to receive a treatment, and then use 1/propensity as that unit's weight.

The intuition is: If the model says you were likely to receive treatment B (you have a low propensity for A) and you actually received treatment A, then you are likely to pair up with someone who actually received B. So we should up-weight you.
It does indicate that those other sites want Google to scrape them, while Google does not want others to scrape their results, which is an important distinction ocdtrekkie ignored for whether the scrapee will want to take legal action.
Commenting on smell tends to not be socially acceptable and people are often not consciously aware of it. Hairiness is definitely a gender difference and helps people sort the boys from the girls, so to speak.
Hey, we do live in a Democracy* after all!
I place most of the blame of the terrible state of online dating squarely on Match Group.

OKCupid was a serviceable platform until they took step after step to monetize it, on top of making everything a series of 'swipes'. It reinforces the idea that people are able to be just discarded, which is a real shame.

Frankly, I would love if somebody could get a hold of the old OKCupid codebase, back when matches were based on hashtag type matching, Didn't allow photos in chat (eliminates certain types of harassment,) and perhaps added a 'one-time-verify' fee. i.e. Pay 10$ to get yourself verified with a photo-ID, and perhaps have some sort of 'review fee' for reporting; if you report someone and it was found fradulent, -you- have to pay 10$. If the report was valid, the other person gets banhammered.

So simple, but it doesn't make money.
Then is actually only available on iPhones and iPads.

Macbooks with M1 can run those due to M1 magic, but to enable it on Intel-based Macs, the app actually has to be built for the MacOS unfortunately.
This article misses the two most important bits of info in understanding propaganda, and how people work.

1. Most effective communication is "propaganda"

As outlined in "Thinking Fast and Slow" (and in numerous other places), there are two ways of thinking: the quick instinctive "gut," and the slow, considered, logical mind. People, especially the kind of people that read HN, tend to deify the latter and villainize the former, but the truth is both have value. Furthermore, the "gut" actually has MORE value overall, since being able to sit down and carefully consider every aspect of a situation or concept is a luxury that is often impractical.

"Propaganda" is simply anything that speaks to this instinctive mind. Sales is propaganda. Dating/pursuing someone is propaganda. Trying to get a child to calm down when they're afraid or angry is propaganda. People sneer at making "emotional appeals" and appealing to "base instincts," but the reality is that humans spend most of their time living in world of emotion and instinct, not fact. Speaking to the instinctive mind is a more effective way to persuade someone, because the instinctive mind has more power in most people. That doesn't make it inherently bad. Talking directly to a person's "gut" is simple effective communication, which can be used for good or bad end.

2. Logic is a luxury, not a silver bullet

Almost every discussion of this topic inevitably frames it the same way: there are dark, sinister forces using "propaganda" to manipulate the vulnerable, and we must fight back by teaching people to think logically! Elevate yourself above base instinct, see everything with the cool remove of a Vulcan, and you will triumph, in yourself, and in winning arguments with others.

The reality is that the world, and people, don't work like this. Logic, reason and facts are not trump cards. Quite the opposite: they require a cool, friendly and reserved setting to work, and are thus mostly useless in any situation other than one between friends that mutually respect and understand each other.

The language of most of humanity, most of the time, is "propaganda," ie an appeal to instinct. Victory doesn't lie in trying to stomp this out like a Victorian trying to purge their sex drive, but rather in accepting it, understanding it, in yourself and others, and learning to speak in its language. Careful rational thinking is great, we wouldn't have all the advancements we do without it. But most people don't spend their free time reading research papers. They watch movies or TV, or play video games. Some even still read books.

Stop treating "propaganda" as a dark tool of the evil one. Bad guys use what works, and speaking to instinct works. If you want to fight them (and more importantly, to just lead a richer life) learn to do the same.
Yeah, when you name the spec after one particular implementation, you're gonna cause confusion. Anyway, I handle it by just using RCV to refer to how the ballot is filled out. The vote counting method is IRV.
Most Americans have some college education.[1] But not all of them start at 18, move away from home, or finish.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
Museum of classic PC sims (open source, runs on Linux under wine)
I wish them luck. More competition in search is welcome. I don't think I will use it very often though because accuracy in search results trumps any concern I have with privacy online that I get from using google or bing.
Probably! I don't remember the code exactly, this was back in 2014 and I think most of the code I had to consume was primarily written by a 24 year old out of college (smart of course, but C++ takes a long time to get good at).
I'm really glad to see that this is the top comment. This was my first reaction too, sounds a lot like ADHD.
> I'd take a non-reply over that sort of signal.

My understanding is that women get so many messages that they're overloaded and invest most of their time replying to top candidates while folks lower on the totem pole get dismissed curtly or ghosted.

And it makes sense, we all treat non-scarce resources pretty wastefully.

The question is are dating apps still worth it even though it makes you feel like a commodity?
But the thing is that's beside the point. Even if they do that, it still allows them to express approval of multiple candidates, instead of just one in plurality voting. And the fact that there's no weird elimination rounds means that:

- it's easier to teach people ("most votes wins")

- it's easy to double check the results ("most votes wins")

- it's incentive compatible (you never put someone you hope loses above someone you hope wins)

Even if you never use 2 – 4 on a 1 – 5 scale, it's still better because you're making the same decision for multiple candidates.

Only using the max and min scores in score voting / range voting has a name: approval voting. For each candidate, you're answering the question: "Would I be ok with this person being elected?"
> Prior to C++17 such an evaluation order would have violated the standard

Herb Sutter disagrees. [0] The C++ legalese you've quoted seems decisive, unfortunately Sutter's post doesn't mention it.

See also [1][2].

edit quietbritishjim beat me to it, and with a better informed comment to boot.

[0] https://herbsutter.com/2013/05/29/gotw-89-solution-smart-poi... (ctrl-f for known, and see also the comment thread at the bottom of the page)

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/a/48844115/

[2] https://stackoverflow.com/a/46472497/
As I said in my other comment[1], you might be interested in using !sp which gives you the same results without Google tracking

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27598042
In general learning computer programming and more specifically investing time on my own to learn about programming and different paradigms, which I did not learn about at university or school.
Thanks! I hadn't realized but Tierra and Avida are quite similar to SproutLife. I found this video that explains a bit about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF8wKxXWFQ&t=1050s

I wonder if they also encountered the issue where the genomes/programs get simpler over time. In some ways one would expect evolution to increase complexity, but what I found happening is that prioritizing reproduction means creating pressure to decrease complexity, thereby increasing the reproduction rate and decreasing the footprint for negative mutations. The way SproutLife counteracted this was to add a "competitive" metric where bigger organism win over smaller ones, kind of like big trees casting shade to block smaller shrubs.
It also gets rid of people who are too dumb to understand RCV. Hee hee. Intellectual filter on the voting population. :)