skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
These types of businesses are building wealth for the owner, sure; but no one is "getting rich" from owning a couple apartments. Maybe we have different definitions of rich.

I would rather give ~$500 a month in profit to a member of my community, than a national chain. I think it's odd to be against "the rich staying rich" while shrugging your shoulders at corporations throwing their weight around in the rental market.
Yeah, the idea of "increases existing divides" is extremely bad faith.

It lets similar candidates make a case for their small differences, but allows:
* voters to not waste their vote on one of 10 different similar candidates, hoping they picked the one with the most backing so they don't get a split vote
* more than just two or three candidates to run and have a reasonable chance of winning

The more people running, the better. Sure, there's some level where it gets a little over the top, but there are safeguards in place for that like minimum number of signatures from verified residents of a city/county/state, so there's currently extremely little risk of RCV being enacted and 100 candidates showing up on ballots.

And even if that did happen, so what? Look up a few of the candidates and pick the one that seems to represent you best.
Disney destroys everything it touches.

All that traditional literature that Disney has 'adapted' is no longer anything like the original stories. People grow up on Disney and discover that the story they believe is accurate is completely different when (if?) they manage to read or see the originals.

Even classical music has been bastardised. Watch 'Fantasia' and your appreciation of those works will be ruined as 'dancing pink hippos' intrude into your mind.
Certain groups have made RCV==IRV in an Orwellian fashion. It's now how it is used.
Currently advising a friend who is building a business and my approach was for them to go totally no-code. None of the employees at the startup have tech-experience so I've proposed Airtable as the core of the product. It is essentially disability support. Anyone do something similar or have any advice?
Also: for better or for worse, IRV tends to harm moderate candidates (who might be everyone's second choice, but nobody's first choice). Approval voting, on the other hand, tends to favor moderates (since they get one vote from a large percentage of the population, even if they're not on the top of anyone's list).
The table is the point cloud the row is the point. The symmetry is permutations of rows or permutations of points.
Agreed. In my experience with yoga and book clubs the females tend to outnumber - sometimes significantly - the males.

I'm sure there are others.
> there's a potential for a non-compromise candidate to win

Agree IRV isn't the perfect system. But we have the downsides of being broadly explicable (Condorcet method's weakness), continuous with existing civic culture (approval voting's weakness), squeezing the centre (RCV/IRV's weakness) and being better than autocracy (plurality's weakness).

With some irony, the game of reforming voting systems is itself a plurality mechanism. IRV, re-branded as RCV, has taken off. It has precedence. The distance between each of RCV's competitors and it is dwarfed by the distance between each of them and FPTP. Given that, unifying around the winning "candidate" makes sense.

Put another way, bringing up approval voting in an IRV vs. FPTP discussion favors FPTP. If one wants a world in which approval voting reigns, I think it would be easier to get there with IRV as an in-between.
How Big Tech created a data ‘treasure trove’ for police in Rhode Island
> Arrow’s impossibility theorem

First off, Arrow's doesn't apply to all systems. You'll need to look into both Gibbard's and Gibbard-Satterthwaite's theorems.

Second off, just because you can't find a global optimization in a highly dimensional space doesn't mean there aren't local optimizations along criteria we care more about. Appealing to Arrow's is a cop-out.

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

You're going to have to back this up with some strong evidence. Approval has higher VSE, is simpler, is more resistant to spoilers and tactical voting.

> IRV lets people express their preferences in a fairly understandable way.

Actually your argument holds true for any ordinal or cardinal system. Cardinal even having more flexibility since you can give two candidates the same score. And in cardinal if you want to rank your candidates, no problem. Better yet, you have better encoding opportunities because you can specify the distance between your ranking instead of the uniform spacing that ordinal systems force upon you. (BTW, given what the person above you wrote, I would assume that they know how ranked voting works and explaining how it is going to come off as you calling them dumb).
Both are miles beyond first past the post, and both scare many people just because it's something new and different.

Hopefully you can support any change locally that gets us off of first past the post. Once we get some voting changes, hopefully that makes future changes even easier to make... though I know that's wishful thinking.
Does this vary in different parts of the US? Where I live many municipal elections are nonpartisan (no D or R next to someone's name). In some cases (e.g. jungle primary) there may be multiple viable candidates from the same party
Yes. We call it "Zereshk Polo". I didn't know it's also popular in eastern Europe. Interesting!
I want to address the note about "biting off more than you can chew".

This would have required ~1 year of reserves, full on, for every unit. Thats a lot to ask if we want a real estate market that is diverse and not feudalistic in nature.
> 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.

If your humor is subservient to your social/political beliefs, you don't have a sense of humor.
This is actually on my list of "neat utilities to write": an iterator that encapsulates this "offset" for vector.

If anyone is looking to write a custom iterator, I definitely recommend Boost's new stl interfaces: https://github.com/boostorg/stl_interfaces
Neither, most people are born into whatever church their parents went to ;)

But seriously, it really is a mix. A church can most certainly shape its members beliefs, but many people will also leave a church over issues like these.
Primaries mostly exist due to the FPTP voting system - dropping that would remove a pretty big reason to have them at all which could lead to cheaper elections... campaign fundraising was ever reigned in - rather, the elections will probably be cheaper but it's unlikely you'd notice due to the insane campaign budgets that are common.
From the paper:

"The fact that such an informative data set was deleted has implications beyond those gleaned directly from the recovered sequences.

Samples from early outpatients in Wuhan are a gold mine for anyone seeking to understand spread of the virus.

Even my analysis of the partial sequences is revealing, and it clearly would have been more scientifically informative to fully sequence the samples rather than surreptitiously delete the partial sequences.

There is no plausible scientific reason for the deletion: the sequences are perfectly concordant with the samples described in \citet{wang2020medRxiv,wang2020small}, there are no corrections to the paper, the paper states human subjects approval was obtained, and the sequencing shows no evidence of plasmid or sample-to-sample contamination.

It therefore seems likely the sequences were deleted to obscure their existence.

Particularly in light of the directive that labs destroy early samples~\citep{pinghui2020SCMP} and multiple orders requiring approval of publications on COVID-19~\citep{chinacdc2020, Kang2020}, this suggests a less than wholehearted effort to trace early spread of the epidemic.

Another important implication is that genomic epidemiology studies of early SARS-CoV-2 need to pay as much attention to the provenance and annotation of the underlying sequences as technical considerations.

There has been substantial scientific effort expended on topics such as phylogenetic rooting~\citep{pipes2021assessing, morel2021phylogenetic}, novel algorithms~\citep{kumar2021evolutionary}, and correction of sequencing errors~\citep{turakhia2020stability}.

Future studies should devote equal effort to going beyond the annotations in GISAID to carefully trace the location of patient infection and sample sequencing.

The potential importance of such work is revealed by the observation that many of the sequences closest to SARS-CoV-2's bat coronavirus relatives are from early patients who were infected in Wuhan, but then sequenced in and attributed to Guangdong."
Well here is my though process: Choosing not to have kids (for reasons you point out) == not having faith that things will work out, both for the child and yourself.

Religion provides this faith.

It also cures loneliness:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386462

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/A-Loneliness-...
"But deriving it"

It was a while back but I think we derived it in school aged 16-17 in first year A level Physics (UK.) Is that roughly "junior year in college" elsewhere?
Indian food uses a lot of saffron

Biryani - a rice dish with meat, spices and saffron

Kheer - a rice pudding with milk + cardamom + saffron + sugar

Since saffron is expensive, the right way to use it is to drop a few strings in a glass of water or milk and let it sit for a couple hrs. It really brings out the flavor. Then you can use it whatever dish you are cooking.
I'm not going to do this concept justice because it takes a while to get into this mindset but I'll try to share what I can.

Something people get out of religion is that not everything can be understood. I believe this to be intellectually true - whether because creation cannot understand the more complex creator, or because we simply evolved to understand what we need to survive but there's no reason to think we can see objective truth (see Kant's Critique of Pure reason)

Religion embodies this humility (recognition that I can't understand it all) To use your example, we follow kosher laws not because they make sense to us but because they are commandments of a higher power which we are too humble to know better than. The fact that some of these commandments also "make practical sense" almost undermines that point. Ie - just because pork is now USDA-inspected doesn't empower is to decide "oh we know better than G-d"

I have grown from an atheist to someone who tried to embody the above, but it works even if you treat it as a pure metaphor for recognizing that some things are beyond us.
I might be missing the question - are you asking if the point of the tests was to check that it would work when we upgrade a version of NodeJS?

The point of our tests was to document a requirement we had - in this case, how some data sorted. That test was able to eliminate questions of the "how" - whether the sort was done in our database layer or our NodeJS layer - and let us focus on the important outcome: are the things sorted in the right way?

We didn't write them because of the NodeJS 12 upgrade. We wrote them 5 years ago. We added them because writing them captured a requirement. And when an unexpected reason caused that functionality to break, we avoided shipping a bug in our software.

Regression tests are certainly useful, and every time we ship a bug, we attempt to write an automated regression test. But I wouldn't argue they're one of the most useful - equally useful is any test that captures a requirement.
So apparently Norah Vincent disguised herself and lied to women for the sake of writing a book. That seems really creepy and unethical.
> Free speech includes calling your employer and telling them what you said online.

Sure, and quoting things out of context is of course also free speech /s
Do you happen to have a link to this discussion? I couldn't find anything associated with the spec commits on [1].

One of the aspects folks were looking forward to seeing is the specification of the 2-stage IOMMU, which S-mode or other parts of the spec don't address per the lengthy discussion on [2]. Thanks.

[1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-isa-manual/commits/master/src...
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.14951.pdf
You sort of need top down after a certain point. Buttons up fails pretty badly when there are multiple sites and nobody can agree on the right way to do anything so there are no common tools or processes even though the sites may be making very similar products
That tells you about PC USA. Which is a historical mainline liberal presbytery in the US. It doesn't tell you in the last 5 years a good number of individual congregations have left because of this very issue and emigrated to the EPC or other slightly 'less' liberal denominations. Or that PCUSA has been hemmoraging numbers for a long time. Or the PCUSA has often been thought of as a big umbrella denoms that has in the past allowed individual prebyterys (regionally) to have differing rules.

Or that presbyteries are not like catholic churches or anglican ones! There are no priests or higher authorities! Each presby congregation is made up of members, who elect elders, who then visit their local presbytery (the regional org) to vote on matters.

Most importantly, it misses the fact, that Presbyterian is an anagram for Britney Spears
I spent quite some time researching this a few years ago. Then I finally programmed and generated my own fully working address. It's quite a satisfying journey. But I have to say, Python makes this somewhat less painful than it is in JavaScript (yes, I tried that too...) xD
That was the premise of literate programming: interweave the docs with the code, and developers would find it frictionless to keep the docs updated.

The challenge I ran into is scaling it up. There isn’t an “aspect-oriented, single source multiple output literate programming” implementation yet. So if you were a developer, you see the code and code docs. If you were new to the codebase, then you could switch to an “architecture” aspect or “design” aspect, and see different docs that still link back to relevant code blocks. If you were a technical writer maintaining user docs, you would switch to a “user manual aspect” that still linked back to relevant code blocks. Same for operations manager, support team member, and so on.

We do this linking back all by hand today, and the mental model people build up in their heads and across a Net-mediated consensus to establish the link mostly evaporates when the issue at hand is addressed. I wouldn’t B&D require linkage, but it sure would be nice to have memorialize linkages for specific issues, discussions, and so on.

We express most of the metadata today, there isn’t a system I’ve found yet that captures it in a low-friction manner.
IMO if all it takes is a few simple substitutions like “physics” -> “known laws of physics” to make the article or title make sense, then it’s unfair to say that the author has missed the point. C.f. Reading the strongest possible interpretation and all that.
Not the person you're arguing with, but you're on the wrong side of this one. It's a shortage if there's an artificial constraint on price such that raising or lowering prices can't affect the supply.

Say I'm shopping for breakfast. I go to the store and see the price of avocadoes, they're $5 per avocado. I say, "Damn, the price of avocodoes has gone WAY up! There must be a shortage of avocadoes." That's fine to say in a colloquial sense, meaning that, for whatever reason, avocadoes are more expensive, and you're figuring demand hasn't gone up, so that something must be going on with supply. It's not a shortage in the technical sense, though. It's just the market working to supply avocadoes, which may be cheap or expensive depending on supply and demand.

Now, imagine congress passes a law that says all avocadoes must be sold at $3. What follows this is likely to be a shortage in the technical sense, because the market can't incease prices to encourage more people to farm avocadoes, increasing supply. There will be people out there that would pay more for avocadoes, and they won't have avocadoes to buy.

SO yeah, we're not in a labor shortage. Companies just don't want to pay for labor at new prices because they're so used to paying much lower prices. Once companies start paying higher wages, more actors will move to take advantage (people coming out of retirement, people starting bootcamps, people switching careers, w/e), which will exert stabilizing or downward pressure on wages. This is all just the normal action of the market. A decrease in supply is not a shortage, it's a decrease in supply.
Giving 5s to your preferred candidates and 1s to your disliked candidates is not necessarily a problem, as others have pointed out, that's just approval voting and a good technique in its own right.

If you want to avoid that, the runoff at the end of a STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) is explicitly designed to incentivize voters to provide more differentiation between candidates.
Approval voting is much simpler than IRV, and is also better at electing good compromise candidates.
I would mention that everyone's favorite example in this category (Bernie Sanders) does secure the democratic primary nomination for senate each election - he just refuses to leverage it in the general election. But failing to do that would lead to a much harder general election since the Dems would likely put up a competing candidate and split the vote three ways.
Ok, so why are there less women on dating apps? There’s a roughly equal number of men and women in the general population.
>This solution is completely independent.

It is not. It is Cliqz tailcat plus Bing. Censorship from Bing will end up at brave too.
> As an aside: It's a pet peeve when people call instant runoff voting (IRV) "ranked choice voting (RCV)."

Honestly I've just shifted to referring to ranked systems as "ordinal," which is also the proper term, though doesn't use layman language. I honestly believe that Fair Vote has pushed this terminology to create confusion. Their site has historically had many misleading errors, especially w.r.t. spoiler effects (ignoring the favorite betrayer criterion).
The difference is that even if you want to do something, often you simply cannot if the rest of your brain isn't playing along.
I think approval voting is both simpler and better at finding compromise, though it does have other weaknesses. There will always be tradeoffs, and perfect ... good ... etc, as you say. I just worry that IRV in particular might not actually be good.
After Lech v. City of Greenwood Village I don't have any faith in any litigation going well for the people suing the government.
Without MMP it's not going to change who gets in. The 49.9% of people opposed to Kshama Sawant get no voice (yes, that's city of Seattle, but easier example for non-locals) in IRV(RCV) nor FPTP.

Tacoma did this a few years ago and nothing came of it.
There was a post here not too long ago about how C/C++ compiler writers have consistently taken the wiggle room of "undefined behavior" to do terrible, terrible, damage to otherwise fine code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27221552
Physical sport competition shouldn’t be separated by n number of genders, but by weight class.
I think that it would be interesting to see this pizza example for comparing ranked voting against acceptance voting.

After all, in this example the plurality vote winner is still the clear, uncontested winner in ranked choice, so this example makes it look like ranked voting is just a way of complicating a process that "just works". I know this is not actually true, but this is how some people see alternative voting methods.

On the other hand, with acceptance voting you would probably get a different result as most meat eaters are indifferent towards mushrooms while many vegetarians would be passionately against pepperoni. So, I suspect that with acceptance voting the results could be switched, for better or for worse.
Fesenjan, Ghormeh sabzi, Muhamarra, the dill rice - I could eat Persian food every day!
Nice, I believe I friend of mine uses the heating feature of that mattress to wake up.
It's not fool-proof.

In Canada in 1952, the province of British Columbia switched to a ranked ballot and it nearly ended in disaster.

The ranked ballot was an attempt by the traditional Liberal and Conservative parties to keep a rising socialist party from gaining power, as they assumed no Liberal or Conservative voter would choose the socialists as their second choice.

But there was so much animosity between the parties that most voters chose a fringe right-wing party as their second choice, as a protest vote.

The two traditional parties were wiped out and the fringe right-wing party narrowly won, despite having no leader and little governing experience.

Fortunately, saner heads took over the fringe party and quickly steered it to the political center as a sort of big tent party for former Liberal and Conservative voters. But it could have gone very differently.

The ranked ballot idea was quickly dropped, but the event shaped British Columbia politics for the next 60+ years. That fringe party elected by accident became the province's natural governing party.

I suppose the moral of the story is that no voting system can prevent irrational voters from shooting themselves in the foot.
A Climate-Focused Index Fund Will Fight Skeptical CEOs
If we're comparing Approval and FPTP in terms of easily distributed counting, it's worth noting that a ballot paper with N candidates can be marked in N different ways with FPTP and 2^N ways with Approval.

That may not be a problem for computers, but if you want to avoid the potential failure modes of (and conspiracy theories related to) electronic voting machines, there is a big difference between an election official trying to place a ballot on one of 10 piles versus trying to find the correct one out of 1024 piles.

A system like MMP can avoid this problem by using FPTP counting of ballots and then topping up the number of seats for each party to make the distribution of winners match the distribution of total votes.
Ah, I see. Yes, it does. (Ditto for holders of gold, but that's nothing new.)
No amount of education will stop this I'm afraid. The pressure comes from corporations profits, so if they can skim on security and save money, they will.

If we had some laws/enforcement fining them for breaches (enough that it's too big of a risk), we'll stop seeing breaches as companies start actually protecting our data.
so you're saying it would be better then DDG just because u r paying money for it?
Please, rouge is red. You meant rogue.
People voting for the only candidate they want just doesn’t strike me as a failure. The failure comes when someone has to vote for someone who is not their preferred. That said, the 2016 Dem primary doesn’t seem like a useful example for testing the constraints of any voting system since there were really only two viable candidates. All methods work equally well under those conditions. Why would someone approve both of the only two candidates when only one of them could win?
> I think we'd need to know your geographical location?
I'm currently looking for jobs to relocate, so technically I can move anywhere. In fact, one of my goals is to move to a place with a good local college.

I agree with your point about degrees. You're right - rituals are important!
2009 Burlington Mayoral Election
‘Forgotten’ White working-class pupils let down by decades of neglect, MPs say