skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I disagree that cardinal voting is understandable. It’s how we rate restaurants and review products on Amazon, and I don’t think it translates to an election with multiple options.

The issue here is not just how logical humans “homo economicus” behaves, but how actual voters behave.

Not really interested in engaging with the rest of this comment right now, but suffice it to say that I don’t think you’re accounting for human behavior in practice, which is messy and illogical. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that I’m appealing to Arrow’s impossibility theorem as a cop-out—I’m saying that since we don’t have a game theoretic solution the the problem, we should look at the actual behavior of imperfect, irrational humans as the deciding factor.
You'd be very surprised at how many people believe this.
> not worst possible voting method

Since you mention it, let me offer a candidate for "worst possible voting method (that has actually been used in a democracy)", namely "plurality-At-Large".[0]

It basically takes the worst properties of FPTP and extends them to an entire governing body, allowing a party with less than 50% support to win 100% of the seats (by design).

Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions.

[0] https://www.nonprofitvote.org/the-bias-of-at-large-elections...
> right place at the right time

Curious. What was this time and place.
> I would consider Sanders to be a pretty legitimate third party candidate -

While he identifies as a socialist by ideology and has some association with the Vermont Progressive Party, AFAIK he has always run for federal legislative office as an independent, not third-party, candidate.

> VT democrats have coalesced around him recently but his initial bid for Senate was pretty spectacular.

IIRC, his original House campaign was spectacular, but Democrats in VT coalesced around him in his 8 terms in VT’s sole House seat.
Those who can, do. Those who can't try to change the system to favor them.
continuing this chain of thought, there's the whole idea of no mind that comes to mind here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushin_(mental_state)

A popular culture reference shows up in this clip that's pretty good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbecIBvR3mE

I've always thought that this phenomenon is what is being referred to when athletes talk about being in the zone.
Why not self-imposed prisoners... like at a rehab-type facility. You can leave whenever you want but you don't get paid...then pay them like $5k for 1 month, or 5k/month for however long the study goes... Then it's not prison -- it's controlled but "at will"
> "Your résumé and work ethic are the best I've seen... but I went to college with the dude behind you. Better luck next time!"

I think the quip in the image is funny as a joke, but essentially disingenuous, as it doesn't think critically enough about most hiring cases and why someone would choose that

Of course, there are situations where people completely unfit for the job apply and get it due to connections, but that doesn't match the majority in hiring.

Usually you might find yourself comparing a person who looks stellar on paper and in the interview process—which, by the way, based on the number of articles on Hacker News about how bad the tech interviewing process is, isn't a great indicator either—versus a person who you might already have familiarity with and have a history of working together, and seems decent for the role, just not perfect. When doing hiring for a role, BigN companies always talk about how costly it is for false positives, so they might be willing to take someone whose actual job skills have been vetted to an extent

A lot of hiring people would choose decent familiarity over seemingly-great unfamiliarity
Luckily most of the world isn't in the US. I can't even remember a single business that use it around here so easy to avoid.
Note the (Unix) part of the Wikipedia URL. This is an entirely different context.
That's the problem that division into genders is supposed to address. Currently we have n = 2. Results favoring one of the two genders is addressed by having separate categories with separate results: women's records, men's records.
Indolence when you get don't get more out of extra work is a logical response.
Is it "Reading too much science" or is it just that human characteristic of confirming ones own biases (ie anchoring bias, confirmation bias or whatever they're called)? Personally, I think its a lack of Baloney detection skills: https://www.openculture.com/2016/04/carl-sagan-presents-his-...
Don't just leave it to the experts!

Also, I'm not sure you can say that "Most published research is false". There are many degrees between true and false. In the physical sciences, with which I'm familiar, the papers are demonstrably 'mostly true'. For example, as a bi-product of an experiment last week we observed an Ekman spiral (first published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_spiral).
Born to rich parents, and the right age and location to cash in on the original dot com boom.
I feel like with this issue at some point we are bound to reach a breaking point. It's just a question of how far along things will go before we get there. People are more and more open about being transgender and there is more and more support for transgender individuals having the chance to live life as their correct gender. This is a great thing!

However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, particularly in sports where strength differences are a large determiner of performance differences. If, as it is said in some circles, a full .5% of the human population is transgender, we are going to continue to see huge increases in openly transgender people competing in sport. In sports where long term exposure to male hormones enhance performance, it's hard to see how life-long XX bodies will be able to compete. Which seems like a bad outcome since the whole point of the existence of women's sport is to allow women to have space to compete without facing insurmountable built-in disadvantages.

It may take a couple more decades but I don't see a stable equilibrium where MTF athletes are competing with cis-women in high level sport, especially if they made their transition during adulthood.

I would be fascinated to hear about different models for how this plays out. I've read the occasional news article about it but I'm not really very familiar with the thinking on the other side of this issue, particularly when it comes to the physical advantages trans women have over cis women in sport.
That's an objective statement about reality though.
It isn't the thought of not being lucky that makes this sting.

It is the connotation among the wealthy that people in poverty aren't working hard enough. It creates an environment where the job creators create jobs with nowhere to go, all the while toting this idea that they create huge opportunity for others.

When it isn't true, it causes damage.
Don't think that'll be doable. Luck plays a huge role, even the birth lottery - not just your parents, but your location. Which country you're born into can largely decide your fate as Immigration has been getting harder by the years.
Thanks for the nice mention of my blog. I was wondering if anyone remembered my old bitcoin article :-)
True, but this is also the case if you have heart surgery to save your life.

There’s tradeoffs to everything.
I see you too are familiar with Microsoft AD/B2C
Sorry, I responded to an exaggeration with one of my own. Mea culpa.

Of course every medication has risks. You should evaluate them for yourself, with a physician.

However, generalizing that to “medication is dangerous and can cause psychosis, or death, and thus you shouldn’t take it because it can have side effects, even if it could otherwise help you” is garbage advice.

Also, the dosages at which stimulants and such are used for ADHD as a therapy (as opposed to abused) are generally quite small, fwiw.
There's of course a ton of luck involved but you won't get struck by lightning by sitting at home.

I've tried to increase my "luck" by forcing myself to do things that have an asymmetric payoff: meeting new people, writing blog posts, saying yes to things, etc

It's worked pretty well so far!
If I remember rightly, that was one of his first votes and he wisened up after that. There was an interview early in his term where he admitted he was unfamiliar with the term "balance of power", but he seemed to learn quickly.
At least 3 talks for ever conf were about rails performance.

The rails team itself did a lot of work to improve performance.

Rails core teams even spent considerable time working on MRI to improve performance.

Thousands of libraries devoted to this very topic just for Rails.
Getting rich off paypal doesn't directly translate into the success of SpaceX and Tesla. Both of those were massive gambles with a lot of minute details that needed to go right.
Might want to look at which carbs... Greasy carbs give the runs more, esp. if you have a gallbladder issue. Also protein drinks...but I think that's because of milk, and I'm lactose intolerant.
This is a classic conflation; comparing real life success (where you would hopefully not choose to place yourself into a highly competitive business environment, unless you had a unique ability to win) versus a contrived scenario like the Olympics, where success is literally pitting two highly talented people in a competition where both cannot win.

In business, you can open a restaurant and be just as successful (or as unsuccessful) as your counterpart on a different street, or even right next door. There is no first and second place medalist in that scenario.

Life is not a competition unless you choose to make it one. There can be only one President at a time; only one gold medalist at a time in any event, but there can be many Elon Musks or Kanye Wests. Ultra-performing people work hard to get to the top, and then the same habits that put them there expand their "lead", but Elon Musk isn't in direct competition with anyone else at being the best Elon Musk he can be.
I wouldn't choose to use the word "dishonest" but I sympathize - in nearly all news media explanations of "ranked choice voting", the description solely explains instant runoff, and makes no mention whatsoever that there is a choice of algorithm that comes with the choice to use ranked ballots, such as Condorcet. The words "instant runoff" are almost never mentioned.

Choice of language matters, and "ranked choice voting" (to solely mean "instant runoff voting") is a conceptually misleading term meant to load the debate. It dis-educates rather than educates on how voting systems work.

Advocates of other voting systems have to first start out by explaining this misdirection and unpacking the wrong mental model, then get to the merits of one voting system vs. another - because people have been told that "ranked choice voting" works a certain way and only a certain way.
His implementation is missing Taproot :)
You can do powerbi and a dashboard or probably similar in google spreadsheets I'd figure with external data source.

You should also include a general net worth, daily net gain, weekly net gain on 7 day lag, and monthly/quarterly to see how you're really doing. Just the number and a basic chart can do so much more to clear it up.

Etsy and BTC, congrats, same here too.

What I did was create a general dashboard, of my daily net worth and also gone as far as see my daily spend - I setup email alerts on my credit card, withdrawls and used O365 flow to capture the number and append it to a spreadsheet which then is pushed to the dashboard on a hourly cadence.

Bank accounts value
Stocks
Crypto
Housing equity (this one is static, just took value and apply a custom appreciation rate, low, but figue if 3% annual is correct, just divide by 12, and do it monthly)
Gross Revenue/Paycheck income.
Daily Spend
Daily spend average.

But I admit it is different from just tracking investments, hopefully this post makes sense, I feel like I went off quite a bit.
We're going to spend the next years, or decade, dealing with the fallout of these lockdowns.

It seems like politicians in some countries are keeping the charade going, just because they don't want to start dealing with the post-COVID era.

The data is very clear that countries which didn't lockdown had very modest increases in deaths (eg. Sweden and Ukraine, +6% deaths YoY) and are now able to recover and resume normality much faster.

Whereas countries which did lockdown, faced much higher per-capita COVID deaths anyway, and now have all of these social problems to untangle: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...

If a family kept their child inside and out of school for a year, they would be arrested. Instead, we have willingly forced this on every child. We (in lockdown countries, who didn't protest or agitate against this tyranny) should be ashamed of ourselves.
Can you elaborate on how you feel "Brave has a culture of user-hostile UX"? You're not talking about the first version of the User Tipping feature from 2018 (where Brave gave BAT to its users and asked them to give mark which creator(s) they'd like to support) are you?
In this case there is no undefined behavior, the order is just unspecified.
Yes it does. Do you think non-rich people get billions of dollars of government handouts?
Agree. This is a property of the normal distribution, and can be seen in a lot of places. You can see it e.g. in this list of tallest people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
Doesn't it depends? I mean you cant expect everyone to be within 3-degrees from the CEO if you are at Apple or Intel. The organisation is way too large.

Google thought all management sucks only to find themselves in complete chaos once they grow to certain size.

I mean everything is a balancing Act. But Silicon Valley, and technology somehow has some embedded extremism within it. And I dont understand why.
I've been riding the dating app carousel for a few years now. I've had some good experiences and met some really great women, so I can't complain too much, but I do agree that it's a pretty rough numbers game for men. It can be depressing at times.

I kind of wonder if the app makers just viciously slashed the number of likes men can give out, if things would get better. You often see men just blasting swipes to the right through hundreds of women just trying for any scrap of match they can get. I think that really messes with things. As a result of this, women get inundated with literally hundreds of matches, and then proceed to ignore the vast majority of those matches because there's so many they're all virtually meaningless. And then men swipe more and more and more because they've realized it's really just sending out the dating app equivalent of a Nigerian prince spam email looking for any sign of life at all.

If you only give men say 5 swipes a day, maybe women would value the matches they get, conversations would actually happen, and people would actually meet. Just a theory.
What is the argument in favor of allowing transgenders to compete in female sports? Does anyone actually defend this decision?
It's a good way to get the game to reward you even less, and then to blame the game for doing so. That might comfort people, but it doesn't help them very much...
Oh excuse me yes - I'd forgotten he initially stepped into congress as a house rep.
When lots of the reef have been destroyed and bleached by warmer waters, it's being deliberately obtuse to state that the Reef is 'not in danger'.

The conservative government is too beholden to the mining and coal corporations to state the real truth.

I live in Cairns, it's whole tourism sector is soon to collapse as tourists who once came for the sights of the Reef will soon have no reason to arrive.
Dang, I might take one for a spin if I get the chance.

I talked to a mkVII GTI owner today at work, I asked him about his DSG. He said he liked it a lot, but mentioned that he found the shifting too fast and got a DSG tune and either paid or on his own was able to modify the shifting, but I didn't have time to ask him what he meant or for more details about the tune.

He's a chemistry PhD, and is into German stuff. Hes also got a w124 e320 that he's un-rusting (!) so I'd say he has pretty good taste.
As long as you're fine with excluding people who were born with the physical characteristics historically associated with the word "woman" from all sports, that will work. I don't think that can be the woke position, though.

Women's sports are generally a carve-out. Women can't compete with men in most sports. Because of that, I don't think that women should be excluded from men's sports. "Men's sports" are just sports, and shouldn't be restrictive. Women's sports are a subset of sports where men have been excluded in order to give women a chance. If a woman is good enough to compete in "men's sports" she should (if she wants.) The opposite is not true. This is not a symmetrical situation. If transwomen are allowed to compete in women's sports, they will dominate women's sports.
You need to continue reading that paragraph to the very end and note the exception for when an initializer list is used. The following are not equivalent nor do they apply the same rules:

template<typename T>
void f(T) {}

f({1, 2, 3});
auto x = {1, 2, 3};

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

I program in C++ daily and no, I didn't know that a copy is made. What I do know, as an actual professional C++ programmer, is that whether a copy is performed is incredibly complex and depends on numerous factors such as whether a move constructor exists and "something" is an lvalue but not an rvalue reference, or if "something" is an rvalue (which is not the same as an rvalue reference) and T defines a move constructor.

And finally if something is the same type as T and T has a copy constructor, then the final question is whether copy elision will be performed, which the standard specifies is a valid optimization even if said optimization would change the observable behavior of the program.

That's what I... as a professional C++ programmer know but I fully admit that C++ is such a complex beast of a language that I am almost definitely missing a few corner cases.
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Their attitude towards advertisement and cryptocurrency is the reddest flag imaginable.
You can also partner with a ‘lucky’ person.

Combining your grit and smarts with their luck (family money, connections, whatever) may take you both to the next level.
Tea gatekeeping is pretty lame.
> Fortunately it has been mostly abandoned in the US thanks to the Voting Rights Act and subsequent SCOTUS decisions.

A close variant (vote for up to N, top N win, at large) is used in a lot of local elections still; all multimember district methods are banned in House elections specifically to prevent plurality at large from being used there. (Though the Senate uses temporally-segregated two-seat plurality at large in every state.)
Honest question, have you?

>humans are generally biased towards protecting females.

>These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics

>This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.

>Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

I think the disconnect here is that the author is couching his claims with strawmen 'women prefer' and links to small-n surveys that you find sufficient (but most do not). Maybe if we refactored some of what he said, it would make sense:

> people who excel at math are generally biased toward being short and unfriendly.

>These two differences in part explain why STEM students relatively prefer working long-hours and avoiding meaningful human connection. More liberal arts students may like socializing because it requires EQ and even within startups, comparatively more PMs and SDRs have significant others.

>This leads to engineers generally having a harder time receiving criticism, asking for help, staying out of others business, and collaborating.

>Engineers on average look for peer praise while SDRs have a higher drive for wealth accumulation.
Your footguns.org file legitimately sounds like something that other C++ programmers would find useful. I for one, being a rank novice at the language (despite attempting to use it for the last ten years!), would certainly appreciate a reference like that.
I’ve seen that engineering manager / pm split work like magic before. Usually there’s also an amazing tech lead in there making it work. It’s rocket fuel for the product (assuming market fit, big assumption) and the career growth for the team.

It doesn’t happen often because most companies don’t want to grow their people that much. Consider the frequent HN comment about finding it easier to get a promotion/raise by finding a new job.

That outcome usually comes from some carefully crafted policies at the company level. Stack ranking is an example, though it is more popular recently to talk about in terms of bell curves (of 4-7 people, hah). Caps on raises, onerous documentation processes, and explicit and implicit limits on the number of promotions a manager can request at a time are all popular. There’s a lot of creativity going into crafting policies that limit career growth without saying they are limiting career growth.

Managers that care about people eventually figure this game out, realize how career limiting it is to push too hard on it, and either leave management or switch to caring about org/product stuff more. This has been consistent in my unscientific study of a dozen friends.

That said, I agree with you. I’d like to see that experiment done with a lot of intentionality and care.
DeepUI Vector – Automated Vector Drawing (Prototype Demo v0.1)
> widows, orphans, those living in poverty or on a fixed income have no way to save

This has got to be the laziest rebuttal - think of the orphans!

Those living in poverty, definitionally, have less money than the not-impoverished. A deflationary currency gives value proportional to whomever is holding it. There is no incentive to loan money, as holding this deflationary currency is risk free growth.

Certainly, the government printing fiat could direct those funds in undesirable or corrupt ways, but this is possible whether the fiat currency is deflating or inflating. A currency that is always deflating will be subject to the tyranny of wealth holders, who now have no incentive to put any of that wealth back into the economy, absent a wealth tax or something.

Fiat already has momentum, it can purchase goods and services, which can be used to create value. It can pay taxes. It does not also need to be self-compounding through deflation.
I think you just invented VCs.
Sorry Snowden your suffering is insignificant because you're just one guy. :(
> Brave has a culture of user-hostile UX

Yep. The missteps that they've made over the past few years do not give me any confidence in the future of the project.
Ground Temperatures Hit 118 Degrees in the Arctic Circle
I tired some programmers searches and some that has caused controversy in other search engines (like "easiest way to suicide") and I'm sorry to say I get 100% the same results as I do from Bing. At most there are widgets (like DDG) and maybe swapped a place or two in the top 5 results as a difference. I can't see any indication of their own indexing at all.
Exactly! Focus on the things you can control in life and forget about the rest.