skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It would mostly be for primaries, where the field is wider, but don't discount how ranked choice voting could lead to more than 2 viable parties.
If this achieves widespread in the US I could see regional libertarian and green candidates picking up spots in certain areas in US.
If you say you didn't mean to start a flamewar, I believe you, but it's such a classic flamewar topic and has been so done to death for so many years, that other users can't be blamed for thinking otherwise. The effect was to troll the thread even if was unintentional.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Statistically, in the US a 3rd party has a 0% chance of winning because a third party has never won.

Maybe within the first 100 years; history isn’t my strongest subject.
Brave can't get the site from Google index (well they can but that would get them sued out of existence). You add to Bing to get a site on DDG and Brave search.
When you have billions of rows the performance savings can be nice.
Advertising cryptocurrency as a "hedge against the imminent inflation" helps the holders of a given cryptocurrency to increase the value of their holding.
Two reasons: Arrow’s impossibility theorem and the fact that people are not perfect logicians.

I honestly thought that after learning Arrow’s impossibility theorem that Condorcet is not especially important. Since we can’t have a perfect voting system, we have to pick an imperfect one, and among the alternatives, it’s important to capture information from voters. Instant runoff captures a lot of information.

Approval voting I think is much too tactical and, strictly speaking, worse than IRV. No contest.

IRV lets people express their preferences in a fairly understandable way. The strategy I see people talking about is “rank all the front-runners, and use the leftover spots to rank the people you want to win, even if they’re not likely to win.”

So if A B C and D are front-runners, and E and F are the two other candidates you like, you come up with a ranking for those six and put the top five on your ballot.

The idea that people who like this system are “dangerously misinformed” or “dishonest” is needlessly inflammatory.
Based on the past this is just moving the deck chairs (and dropping a couple of extras in for good measure).

Given where they are need someone focused on core execution (process & design) not markets.
that doesn't change the fact that there are no trackers and the fact that it uses Google results
I don't see Europe getting "fucked over" by the US military and they're definitely experiencing massive brain drain, been going on for over 20 years now.
They don't? One is a row in table (R^n) (order matters) and the other is a set of points (R^nxd).

If you consider the whole table, any dataSET is like point clouds.
Interestingly, PressTV appears to retain control of its Twitter account:

https://twitter.com/PressTV

Did the DoJ choose not to pursue it, or did Twitter's lawyers successfully challenge their warrant (while DNS registrars rolled over)? If that's the case, would Twitter likely be under a gag order about it, as CNN was?
May be he's an asshole. Isn't it what tolerance is about?

Having nothing against gays is not tolerance. This way people are also tolerant to microwaves, ceiling fans and aluminum foil: they have nothing agains all these things.

Tolerance is hating gays passionately, but still tolerating them and serving them in your store. Thinking that women should not be in the workspace, but still treating them equally and professionally.

That's what true tolerance is.
IIRC, H extension was set aside because much of the desiderata for H could be achieved more simply by reusing the S (supervisor mode) extension.
> some legislatures are so concerned that they've started passing laws prohibiting propaganda. Example is the recent HB3979 bill:

> https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/id/2339637

If you are aware of that bill, you know that it's potentially a product of the conservative reactionary movement, which demonizes anything liberal and attacks with everything they've got.

That doesn't mean propaganda doesn't exist in education, but isn't it a bit disingenuous to present the bill only as a product of 'concern' and omit political movement with which it's widely associated? Isn't that disninformation?

I'm asking a genuine question, given the context.
16:9 is a compromise resolution. It's the geometric mean of 1.33 and 2.85 (TV vs Panavision).

> So we lost vertical screen space for what? Nothing, that's what. Slightly less black bars on the top and bottom when we watch a Marvel movie on our desktop computer or laptop.

It's not "nothing" that we lost; on a X" display with Y total pixels, the marvel movie will be larger and higher resolution on a 16:9 than it will be on a 4:3. This is true for any of the post 1960ish popular ratios for films: 15:9, 1.85, and 2.35.

Similarly, 4:3(1.33) content will use more pixels than it would on a 1.85 or 2.35 ratio screen.
I have a strong preference of cardinal over ordinal systems, but I won't say all ordinal systems are flawed. I rather like condorcet methods but I think their complexity is too much of a barrier. I've started to come around to Election Science's similar decision of pushing for Approval over STAR because of this and I will gladly argue how STAR is far less complex than IRV (STAR has a max of 2 rounds and IRV will almost always have significantly more. The only time it has two rounds is if there are strictly 3 candidates).
That's why the Amazons of Greek mythology supposedly removed their right breasts: so they wouldn't interfere with their bows and arrows.
Of course Russia isn't democracy, the entire point was to prove to you who is rigging undemocratic elections.
Pentagon Launches New AI Data Initiative
They cost less.
Okay. Did You have to provide meta-data for it to show up in the macOS App Store, or did Apple make it available auto magically because you publishes an iPad version?
Wasn't jgrahamc largely responsible for the apology?
Softbank has served as the intermediary of a few major tech asset transfers the past decade - Sprint->TMobile, ARM->Nvidia,BD->Hyundai. Pretty impressive stuff given the geopolitical/regulatory implications. Who knew Softbank had such clout? The more you read about Softbank, the "curiouser" it gets.
The USA is a two-party state because of the voting system. If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties.

It's even reflected in the language, like how people task about being "bi-partizan" instead of "non-partizan".
Why would the two parties allow something which would disrupt their duopoly?

That's why it's IRV.
Sure, but if you are reading this that isn't hard. Even if stuck on minimum wage it is possible for a couple, not easy mind you, but possible.
You're last name doesn't have to be Arrow to know that there's a potential for a non-compromise candidate to win, indeed for the candidate that a majority don't want in office to win.
Thanks. My oldest kid is at the second grade now, so I don't see those stuff directly. But I am very very concerned.
Dunno about that but --with-colons certainly works to show the key length of a key.
Nope! This is a problem with high-cardinality ordinal voting methods. Since factorial is a very fast growing function, you can easily encode a pattern in down-ballot candidates and buy and verify a specific ballot.

Commonly what's done is that we truncate the ballot and only allow people to express, say, 5 preferences.
I do the same thing!
Google, Amazon accuse lawmakers of harming small businesses
> Statistically, in the US a 3rd party has a 0% chance of winning because a third party has never won.

Not recently for President, but third parties have won at every other level of government including Governors, Representatives, and Senators.
Sadly, you didn't read my comment. I said 'have a nice day', and here you are attacking someone. That will never make you feel good. Really, do something positive and constructive. Go help an elderly person across the street.

Genuinely, I hope you have a nice day. I've gotta go do something creative and constructive myself.
https://archive.is/2020.11.04-041023/https://www.wsj.com/art...

The WSJ editorial board’s argument is very weak, and seems very partisan. They cherry picked a few very strange, rare scenarios that would still not be any different with the current first past the post system.

Ranking things in order of preference is something we do all the time. “They’re out of my favorite fruit, but I’ll get this other one instead.” “You don’t have that chair in this color? Okay, I’ll take that other color.” etc

The WSJ editorial board says, “Major parties could be weakened to the benefit of more extreme candidates.” That already happens with first past the post. The 2016 GOP primary season for President is an example of this: the eventual GOP candidate did not win 50% of the vote in the majority of 2016 primaries. Instead, more GOP voters wanted a more moderate candidate, but the many moderate candidates split the vote. Thankfully the WSJ article points this out, but totally undersells it, and doesn’t make a strong case to at least use it in those situations.

RCV reduces the chances of an extreme point of view getting elected, because they have to be able to get approval from at least 50% of everyone voting, rather than relying on their opponents to split the vote.

Get more people running, so we have more options to vote for, and we can express more accurately who and what we support. RCV, or one of the many other alternatives to FPTP, is the best shot at doing this, and in my opinion one of the few ways to truly improve the US’s democracy without a bunch of massive changes that are even less popular with politicians (limiting donations, lobbying, etc).
If you return a result that came from Bing and law enforcement want it gone (because it is illegal for whatever reason) do Brave remove it from the results or do Bing? Both have problems but I'd like to know which route Brave take.
> I honestly cannot stand online dating. In all my years real-life dating, online dating had substantially worse experiences.

I’ve talked about this recently, but I feel like the culture around dating apps has a way of stripping everyone down the the most generic, basic image of themselves. I really can’t imagine connecting with someone based off a few pictures and text snippets and developing any sort of mutual attraction via a brief period of text messaging.

Unfortunately it’s the only way it seems for me to meet people. I go out and all, but I’m often the youngest person in any place I’m at by at least a decade. I’m also very boring when sober, at least superficially and stupid while drunk (although the latter can at least lead to a fun night). I can’t see anyone being remotely interested in or attracted to me without at least months of getting to know me.

Most of my peers I know in a relationship, got it from being in an institution where they were forcibly around their peer group. Think high school, college, military, or even casual groups where shared interests were common (unfortunately I’ve failed to find one of these myself). I really haven’t had any of these. Was kinda a loser through most of school, around high school really put my focus in other things that totally failed, never went to college and ended up directly in the workforce. I’m still kinda a loser, not anything you can see explicitly, but a few important facts can reveal that. I don’t think I’m terribly unattractive, well besides being underweight and not photogenic (for some reasons 90% of photographs taken of me don’t look right, particularly but other people), but I’ve seen much worse make it.
> When it's done right, it seems to work well.

I think this is the most interesting truism of leadership. Which leads risk averse companies to minimize the harm a bad leader can have, and utilitarian companies to maximize the expected value - even when that results in tolerating terrible managers. I don't honestly know which strategy I prefer.

> ...is that it keeps a company from hemorhaging technical experts who have little interest in people managing.

In our defense, it's not quite that simple. I personally can and will write code in any product in my scope, often at the behest of an ongoing incident where the team in question lacks the necessary experience to get themselves out of the situation they find themselves in. E.g. breakdown of some communication protocol, backend knocked offline by a firehose of retries, corrupt database. But even more, my job is to _prevent_ incidents, whatever that takes. Over the last ~year I've concluded that a lack of sufficient staffing prevents any good long term future, and so my main (self imposed) project is evangelizing leadership for headcount. Primarily through the lens of technical arguments - I can tell you which systems will hit fundamental scalability limits first (that aren't being invested in!), and also the individuals across the org that are at highest burnout risk from toil.

Am I an architect? Sometimes. More often I'm a janitor. But most of all, I spend an inordinate amount of time understanding the technical product of hundreds of engineers, to be able to speak to any part of it.

And what does that qualify me for in terms of organizational responsibility? I have no clue :).
Do you have something US-specific to indicate that this would be the case? Neither empirics nor theory support your claim. https://rangevoting.org/TarrIrvSumm.html
Yeah, I didn't even go to latency. One of my co-workers clearly had a lot of variance in latency to his home and it was noticeable. It might not matter much in an hour-long meeting where one or two people are doing most of the talking, but in a short meeting between 2-3 people working together it can really disrupt things and turn what could have been a 10-15 minute meeting of minds into a frustrating 20-30 minutes of "say again, you dropped out" and "I didn't get that, my stream froze for a second".
Well the example you gave is bad feedback, and would be bad feedback from anyone. But that's not really the point of the discussion at hand, as I understood it. The discussion is about useful feedback that is delivered in a manner that may not be the most kind, but being unkind doesn't make useful feedback and less useful. After all, the feedback that sparked this discussion does seem like useful feedback even if it came across as a bit dismissive.
Yes it is ? Quoting the standard:

> If the placeholder-type-specifier is of the form type-constraint auto, the deduced type T' replacing T is determined using the rules for template argument deduction.

https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.spec.auto

Now if you program in C++ regularly and don't know that in

template<typename T>
void f(T t) { }
f(something);

does a copy of something, I don't know what to say - I have never met any professional c++ programmer not knowing the language works that way
Gotta register a 501c3 to help save poor C++ programmers from the many footguns. Donate today!
Try changing medication, although they're nearly all slightly different forms of amph, the differences are significant. For me, ritalin is just headaches, modafinil is less effective but wonderfully free of most side-effects, and dex is the most useful thing I can legally get.

Unfortunately modafinil is almost 10x the price of dex in Australia if you don't have narcolepsy, and the drug that I suspect would benefit me the most (adderall, a mix of dex and meth) is simply illegal.
Given the wording in the article I'm almost certain that underfilling the selection wouldn't result in a spoiled ballot. People can continue to just pick their favorite dude and go one with their lives. From a survey mentioned in the article apparently only a quarter of potential voters choose to only make a single choice[1].

1. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WNBC...
A succinct version (others have linked more detailed, largely outcome-oriented analyses, which are also valid and important) is that, of seriously-considered ranked-ballots methods, it both throws out the most information from the ballots and uses information rather unequally across ballots, attempting to simulate FPTP elections with narrower candidate pools until you get a majority winner.
As I'm guessing you know (but for the benefit of others), although the WSJ news section is rated quite middle of the road, their editorial board is rated as right-leaning as "The American Conservative", "Newsmax," and Fox News online news.

https://www.allsides.com/blog/new-allsides-media-bias-chart-...
You forgot to mention they put the former Chief People Officer in charge of Datacenter & AI... where are the engineers?
What exactly makes you think that all local landlords are getting rich? It is how some people chose to invest their money, just like how you might have chose to invest into the corporate landlords that you think are so much better.
The more surprising/interesting thing to me is that it uses React. I'd be curious to see a performance breakdown (how much headroom is left for a more complex game?)

I am also curious how Clojure(Script)'s persistent data structures work out for data structures that update 30 or 60 times per second. That's a lot of allocation and deallocation
This is from PubMed - public index of medical research, not an official stance of NIH.
thank you for taking time out of your day to provide perspective and introduce new content

cheers
Ah yes, the double negative was unintentional.

I shouldn’t be allowed on HN until I’ve had my morning coffee.
Thanks for fighting the urge to delete and posting this. I appreciate the nuance of your perspective, and I think it brings a lot of value to this discussion. I don’t particularly want to express an opinion about the broader topic under discussion, but I do think that regardless of the cause, introspection of our “hot takes” as to whether they’re worth taking public or not is a valuable thing, and something it seems like not enough people do.
Yeah of course, that's why I said it's a very good plan :-) in your example it makes perfect sense.
I was a freight forwarder/customs broker for a few years after highschool. They all hire remote though probably for terrible salary but it's still a salary, look at Flexjobs website I know Livingston hires remote brokers and forwarders, usually called 'specialist' or 'analyst' like this: https://jobs.livingstonintl.com/job/Client-Import-Analyst-FL... it says "Home Office Florida" but does that mean once a month going there for some meeting or just being US citizen, who knows apply and find out. You could also quit and just go around to established brokers and offer your services as a home contractor.

Here's another 'import specialist' type remote job https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsr/default/mdf/recruitment/... notice the preference for bachelor degree, you should go back to school. However also notice 'equivalent business experience' so apply anyway. If you're wondering how I find these, a simple bot that scrapes "careers" pages into a sqlite dbms I query for select remote and various freight forwarding keywords. I made it when I needed a new developer job and turned out to be useless as some recruiter found me anyway.

However since this pandemic is ending surely there is some kind of student loans or business startup funds being floated around, if there are take them and go to school so you have a skill. If you can create a business think about your own job what the pain points are and how you can be a contractor. There was a woman running her own business when I worked there in highschool driving around the intl airport just collecting documents and standing in line at customs offices because some clearences required it. Brokers didn't want to do it so paid her, she in turned hired a bunch of other people to do the work, just managed everything with a cellphone and got paid.
OberonStation, an Oberon RISC Workstation (Archived)
Those are some great insults.
As the wiki article for STV helpfully states, "Another name for STV is multi-winner ranked-choice voting". Also, "Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV".

So ranked choice voting is a super-set with many flavours within.
I thought they meant pheromones.
A California surfer helped bring Bitcoin to El Salvador
Most RCV systems in practice use IRV (including, IIUC, the New York system under discussion), and I believe I was correct in what I attributed to IRV vs RCV more generally.
Felt pretty pissed at this. I am both a landlord and tenant. I worked with my tenants to help them pay, reduced the rent etc. Now I feel pretty stupid. I lost money just for being nice to my tenants. As a tenant I paid my bills regularly as I could, feel pretty shitty that I did.

Sorry California this is simply unacceptable.
Related discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10474653
I interpreted it more as a symptom of Agile planning. Marketing wants it right now, but it might actually go into the backlog because we're already in our sprint. Then 2 weeks later you might have more important things to deal with so it gets lower in the JIRA pile. etc etc
Inclusion of apocryphal books would be cool—Gospel of Philip/Thomas/Mary Magdalene in particular would be a welcome sight for me.
Because there are more men than women using the service:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/975925/us-tinder-user-ra...

But if there are proportionally less women than men, why would men look for them there ?
It looks like the author simply linked to the wrong paper. The linked note is The Single Server Queue in Heavy Traffic by Kingman (1960). However, Kingsman's formula was actually defined in On Queues in Heavy Traffic by Kingman (1962)[0]. I cannot find a copy of the latter but based on the preview they appear to be different (but related) works.

[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2984229

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman%27s_formula
The rouge experiment theory is that the virus is the product of intentional mutations to make it more dangerous to humans. What this paper is saying is that this looks increasingly like a perfectly ordinary bat coronavirus, and what initially looked like unusual mutations actually happened well outside of any lab environment.
What you say is true if general elections in the US, but often not the primary elections where a party determines who its candidate will be. At that stage it's pretty common to have a wider field of candidates.

Also, ranking could change the US dynamic of only have 2 choices. Being able to vote 3rd party and then then choose someone from one of the two main parties might drive a lot more people to vote 3rd party because they wouldn't feel it's hurting the chance of having a candidate that represents at least some of their views. This may not change national elections much, but for Senate, and especially House members it could make a difference. Enough to force more coalitions and compromise between parties instead of winner take all. Sure, that outcome isn't guaranteed, but it seems more likely to produce that sort of result than what we have now.
Well, even for absolute uncontroversial truths - such is how to take a derivative of the function - it may take years to explain what, why and how.

But for way more complicated social issues people are supposed to turn their opinion around on the spot after a couple of comments.
You don't get a lot of chances to change the voting system. Tacoma, WA changed to IRV for a while, but it didn't make any difference in who got elected, then they threw it out a few years later. Good luck getting a better system in place now.
Yes, if they asked for permission (and pay if asked). Otherwise it is the same as what Google was sued over. I wonder if they did ask first.
Physics is real, and verifiable.

AI is a black box you whack with a stick until you like the results.