skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everything comes down to how you tweak the numbers. If I was to set up a UBI system I would first of all make it so that once you earn around $40-50k or so you're essentially paying back all your UBI in taxes. UBI will essentially be a benefit only for people earning below median wages. UBI will make it much harder to hire for low paying jobs and that is why you will have to rely on much higher levels of immigration from low wage countries to make up the difference. If you're not OK with that, then you probably shouldn't be supporting UBI.

For higher wage, higher quality jobs it might be slightly harder to attract foreign talent, but even with a 20-30% real wage decrease from todays levels the US will still pay more than just about any other country for high end jobs, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Come work for 10 years for an easy retirement. Especially if you can move back to your homecountry and keep earning UBI.

That is why I think it's important to tie UBI to residency rather than just citizenship. If you leave the US you lose UBI.
Yeah, I saw a lot of those. Evidently people still use them with new lenses. I've read that its focal plane shutter made race cars look like they have oval wheels, something that got picked up in cartoons to show speed.
The drop of "met in college" is the weirdest one to me. Isn't that where most people meet? Am I living in a weird bubble?
> What if Intel wanted to sandbag existing products to promote new ones?
IANAL, but I'd guess that this is maybe similar to Sony removing OtherOS in a firmware update, and that you could sue Intel for it. Or maybe not, since you can actually disable microcode updates.
Did DDG have a trademark ovet bangs? That's just a feature that users expect. Other small search engine frontends have those too.
Wuhan lab’s classified work complicates search for pandemic’s origins
LOL, disempowered women in 1976. The real student revolts took place in 1968-1970 and produced hippies, free love, another instance of feminism (second wave I believe).

It was probably a better time for being a woman in CS than now, with disingenuous bros paying lip service to SJW causes in order to keep their > 250,000 salaries while not having a clue.
This may just be more an artifact that foods are complex enough that a great many foods can be characterized as super-foods. Also probably none of them really have any profound effect on overall health. If you get old you will have seen many, many dietary miracles come and go where nothing much came of them.
Yes, but note that the word is being applied to more than the photos: having the same name and matching on a list of recorded physical attributes.
It's kind of done for the public good. If it didn't happen, there's a chance the rent/housing market would spiral out of control along with the economy, dragging down the landlords with it.
Point of information: Las Vegas is 5 hours from the middle of Los Angeles or Phoenix, by car.
Couldn’t those that are currently such landlords have been incentivised to purchase smaller homes, making more large ones available? Or alternatively, some large homes could be subdivided.

Why should tenants pay for the greed of landlords? They get paid for doing nothing, the least they could do is bear their own risks.
When teachers are taught those crazy stuff, I think concerned parents should be openly against it. And I totally agree those things should be banned from public education and teacher training. Simply put, I don't want any of those crap to get close to my kids.
I was taking berberine, it can wreck your stomach if you don’t take it with some food, I was advised that by my doctor and then realized why. I was only taking it once a day too.
Good idea to let him graduate from highschool before hiring him !
Why are the folks at Rocky Linux making up stories about AlmaLinux?
And just to defend top-down orgs a bit, the corollary is that because different teams might make different decisions, flat/bottom-up organizations tend to be less standardized - more flexible at the cost of some chaos. A tendency for launching and killing products in quick succession is one possible implication. For Valve launching different games that works, at Google launching/killing chat apps is starting to hurt their reputation.

An ideal company is a mix of both, but which policies are ‘imposed from above’ and which are allowed to ‘boil up from the bottom’ is usually an endless source of discussion - I wonder which way Intel is going
It would be wonderful if every person or family had a suitable home before we allowed surplus housing to be used as a commodity. However, we don't live in that world, at least not yet.

And while I am generally anti-rent-seeking, if we do not bail out landlords (whether or not they should be in their position not withstanding) then those homes will bought up by corporations and investment firms which absolutely should not own them.

Corporations foreclose at a much higher rate than individual landlords (look up "cash for keys") because they have the resources to do so. If we don't bail out landlords then we're looking at an acceleration of Corporate Feudalism.

Therefore, and it is tough for me to say, bailout landlords, then use tax credits to reward those who paid their rent on time, even if they were employed throughout the pandemic. Why? It is infinitely better to allow citizens to build their bank accounts rather than corporations and/or a generally ineffective government.
Better that than Soylent Green.
The concept behind this is reference stability, and if you need a collection that has stable references, you must introduce a level of indirection, that is, instead of a vector<T>, you use a vector<unique_ptr<T>> and then you can take references as follows:

auto& r = *some_vector[0];
Air Force Flightlines Are Under Threat from Drones and It Wants Your Ideas
That’s not true. A lot of people chose not to pay rent because they didn’t have to thanks to the eviction freeze.
Mars Mission Update: June 2021
While you are correct about movies not using that aspect ratio, I’d say 16:9 is a standard because of TV shows. With the advent of the glutton age of television we’re in now, people find value in a 16:9 display because of all the Netflix shows you can watch full screen on their laptop without bars.
The pesky antitrust action by the US govt is probably going to put a damper on those ambitions.
What is "bottom up" exactly if as you say there is no hierarchy?
> Schnorr signatures, a feature that been available on BCH for years now.

Not in a useful way: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/l8v8sa/heres_a_6of9_sc...
A similar thing happened with the Obamacare subsidy payback waiver. Those who underestimated their income and we’re overpaid in subsidies ended up able to keep it all.
Not sure if they updated it recently, but it pulls up all SO instant answer for me.
Along these lines I use ddg’s bangs for the same benefit. So many searches for Python help are filled with very shallow intros on tutorial sites of varying quality with the official docs rarely the first result.

Now I just prefix my query with !py and I’m immediately taken to the docs.
These high-tech strawberries cost $6 apiece. Here's what they taste & smell like
I don't understand why Damore is the hill people are always trying to die on. He didn't publish that in the marketplace of ideas. He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time. Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.

Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
I personally am entirely fine with queer people (some of my closest relatives and friends are queer), I think that racism is wrong due to many reasons, and certainly I'm totally fine with immigrants because this is how America came to be and later became great.

What I see as troubling is the "cancel culture", the force of the righteous mob. I believe that a society with more justice and grace than we have now can be built entirely without it, and that the intolerant fighters for inclusion and tolerance make the prospects of building such a society weaker.

You can't force people to be just, loving, and caring. You can force them feign that, but I suppose you very well understand how fraught such a society would be. There is a number of historical examples, all sad.
You've now forgone an important optimization opportunity for absolutely no benefit.
You're too kind.

Top contributors to DID Core can be seen on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/did-core/graphs/contributors
That’s a great point. But it’s not necessary for the events to be periodic.
Yep, completely agreed on the sizes + viewing distance. I've been on the fence but I'll retrain myself from buying it. It seems it has quite a few downsides.
I'd disagree on both notions- while my beliefs are firmly held, I also try to question them regularly. The reason they're firmly held is that they've managed to stand up to what scrutiny I've tried them against, repeatedly, for years.

On other things, I simply haven't spent a lot of energy thinking about it, and as a result am more than happy to apologize if I'm even slightly in the wrong. Generally, I'm quick to apologize if someone's made a good reason for me to, as I don't regard the need to apologize necessarily with me being a worse person.
Top 100 Renders from the Internet's Largest CG Challenge: Alternate Realities
If you don't consider these eyewitness accounts as evidence, then I can only assume you have your blinders on. It is very important to note that these people you dismiss as "political actors" were historically apolitical; they weren't active at all in politics, and many even identified more as liberals or democrats. They only became more active as they bore personal witness to the evil ideologies being perpetuated in our society.

Bari Weiss and Jordan Peterson, two historically liberal, well-educated people, discuss what they consider far and away to be the greatest threat to Western Civilization. and guess what? It's not Trump. It's not white supremacists. It's not racism. It's not January 6 rioters. It's not people who refuse to get COVID vaccines. It's not global warming. It's not even China or Russia or Islamic terrorism. It is the self-destruction of our culture at the hands of leftist ideologues that seek its destruction in order to replace it with a new, far worse culture.

I could send you a ton more links with evidence, but I have a feeling you would find a reason to dismiss all of them:

* https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-neo-marxist-takeover...

"The domination of US universities by the left, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is well documented. In 2016 a survey carried out by Econ Journal Watch looked at the voter registration of faculty members at 40 leading US universities in the fields of economics, history, law, psychology and journalism/communications. It found that Democrats outnumber Republicans by an average of 11.5 to one. In psychology, the ratio is 17.4 to one; in history, 33.5 to one."

* https://fcpp.org/2020/11/27/how-marxists-take-over-and-what-...

* https://www.amazon.com/Professors-Most-Dangerous-Academics-A...
Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. The DEA Put Him in Prison (2013)
PM does not have to investigate Russian interference, judge says
No, the government didn’t force them to keep people on the payroll. They were free to fire employees.
> shows some effects that I see as pretty disqualifying in a voting system

I think in most plausible configurations, the intersection of Condorcet and IRV is larger than the intersection of Condorcet and plurality if you ignore strategic voting.

Do we have good data about how people do or do not vote strategically in an IRV election?

[edit]

To clarify: I think both you and I would prefer approval to IRV; this is just discussing whether IRV or plurality is less-bad.
https://archive.ph/Bp9p4
Thanks! I am just learning C++ for a new gig, and coming from Javascript land, it is a lot to take in :)
Good for you & your company! I’ve been watching the job stats and noticed a slump in junior positions.
Long story short --- stable coins are backed by fiction.
I think the article misses the point of what physics is. It is not a collection of "sparse" models and principles, rather, it is a scientific discipline from which such models have emerged.

You will notice the article conflates the two things: physics and the known laws of physics (e.g. first para in section 1.2). Simplicity of the latter does not imply simplicity of the former, but the article assumes that it does in order to tackle/state the question as posed: "Why is AI hard and physics simple?".
> How does this square with the first amendment?

The First Amendment does not prohibit content neutral regulations on trade with foreign states under Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, abd I don’t see an argument that it would prohibit enforcing such regulation by seizure of domains registered by a US entity for an foreign party in violation of those regulations.

> Is there a foreign country exception?

Yes, the first amendment applies differently to US government actions overseas than domestic actions, but this is a domestic action and the more relevant fact is that “Freedom of the Press” means the government is restrained in regulating what you print with your press, but it doesn't mean that if you are associated with a (notional or genuine) journalistic institution you are immune from content-neutral laws of general applicability.
Quite interesting, thank you!

I am even more interested in how the formula works out if you buy one professional laptop (say, Lenovo X13) with a Ryzen CPU -- because they consume less power -- and I am looking forward to reading such an analysis sometime in the future.
They didn't force companies to continue employing workers, or continue their office leases, or continue any other expense.

And they certainly didn't make them continue to pay workers who refused to work (from home or otherwise).

Or force them to provide their services/products for free to non-payers.
I suppose large fractions of people in college meet their schoolmates through the dating apps.
Most people don't go to college, but if you did, you're likely to have a mostly college-educated bubble
- Video processing

- Ray tracing

- Data mining

- Data compression

- Financial market modeling

- Any kind of large-scale optimization
Today people don't even remember DNS names anymore. They just use the search engine/advertisement provider of choice. DNS is of course still very useful to separate service names from physical architecture so you can move stuff around. But I hardly ever see people typing in DNS names or using bookmarks these days.
I would say that for the first 10 years of my programming career I was not competent. The next 5, I was marginally competent.

I like this essay on the topic:

http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html
Probably an aspect of people using apps while in college, and ending up in that bucket instead.

A graph of "age when met" for current couples would be interesting, if today's "final" couples meet at a later age than in the past because people don't want to settle down as early, you'll have less school couples.

We also need a graph of "number of relationships still around started by year" - if fewer relationships started in 2018 are still extant compared to ones in 2014, that's gonna skew numbers too.
In one sense, I'd argue that the feeling of censorship is misguided. People are more free to communicate now with a larger audience than ever before in history. Before if you had something controversial to say, unless you were an extremely well-known academic or politician, it didn't get any further than your barstool or bridge club. Now your thoughts can be instantly transmitted to an audience of literally millions. Ideas are being hyper-amplified, not hyper-suppressed.

However, it comes with a catch. In pre-Internet days, when your verbal blurts potentially reached dozens, you felt fairly free and unimpeded to reach the limits of your communication bubble, tiny as it was. Even if you were roundly condemned, the area of effect was likely small and the duration transitory. Now that your verbal blurts can reach millions, so many more people can take issue with your words, and they remain part of your dreaded "permanent record" forever. Consequently the stakes have become much higher. Speech doesn't feel free and unimpeded, even though in practice structural impediments have been greatly reduced.

It seems to me unfortunately that the lowering of structural impediments to communication ineluctably goes hand in hand with the raising of social impediments. People are becoming cautious because we simply can't take for granted that any speech we generate will stay safely within its intended audience. Private emails can be dredged up years later. Screenshots can be taken without our knowledge. Phones can record videos of us saying and doing things we thought were personal and confidential. Information just wanted to be free, and got its wish, but it's turned people into prisoners in a panopticon. My point being, these are two sides of the same coin. Blaming "Marxism" or "cancel culture" and the like isn't going to change that fact.
>It doesn't seem like there's major doubt that the Cossacks sent a rude retort to a surrender demand

There's no doubt that they did that. We have multiple documented responses, some of which are quite witty I'll add. (If you remove the old-fashioned tone of voice from the translations and speak them as someone would today, even the drier ones can be fairly amusing.)

There are also embellished or fabricated responses even in modern times.

The question is - which of those is this letter? I don't think we can rule out any possibility based on the information we have available. We simply have a gap of a hundred-odd years in which we can find no surviving written evidence that people talked about it. I don't think that's evidence enough that it didn't exist.
I think you've got an interesting idea there, but I'm not sure why you'd associate it with Roko's Basilisk given that people who are aware tend not to take it very seriously. It seems like you'd be better off just presenting your own idea, and maybe gesturing that it was "inspired by other ideas from LessWrong" if you really feel the need.
Manage your social media tasks to literally 30 minutes a day
> Which begs the question what was US reason or objective besides looking like a bully

Enforcing the sanctions regime which applies to US parties, including domain registrars in the US.
Just the mention of "mandatory fun" sends shivers through my socially anxious spine
If this is what they mean by shakeup then it’s just the regular stuff in recent Intel past.

When I was at Intel in 2 years I saw at least 6 reorgs and had 4 managers. You can imagine my career growth or the lack of it. Unfortunately it needs a real deep clean of non
technical power pint happy management and clueless engineers.

And the politicking is so deeply entrenched in culture now that the new CEO himself might be a victim of it if he is under false illusion that restoring Intel to past glory is just about turning a few knobs.

Thankfully I left for a FAANG before it was too late with a wonderful hike, better colleagues and working conditions. The most irsksome thing for Intel to attract back those who have left is almost no one of those I know and in touch with who have left wants to be back and it’s not the money but the poor experience of working there.

If anyone can give Amazon a run for its money in treating its employees badly, my bet is on Intel.
Thanks - I've just added this to my reading list.
Wow! Thank you for sharing this. The simplicity (yet versatility) of your 8 rules appeals to me.
There's only 1 page of search results, regardless of the search term. Why?
I used to work for a flat organization, with few formal managers. I now work for a much "taller" organization, with four levels of management between myself and the owner.

In practice, at the flat organization, there were ways that the people at the top were able to impose their views and preferences on the company. Most obviously, the folks who had been at the company for a long time were friends with the owners, and they had a lot of unofficial influence over things went, even if there was no org chart putting them over other people. If a change seemed good and necessary to the in-group, then they were in a position to enforce it. If it did not, there was no way to get them to go along with it.

Also, in practice, at the taller organization, there are a lot of bottom-up decisions anyway. It's just that those decisions get to be in fact bottom up - I go to my manager, who talks to some other manager while I keep hacking on something else, and either that manager agrees, or more likely they point out something else and my manager comes back to me with a more balanced alternative. At the flat organization, decisions were bottom sideways. I had to go to a bunch of ICs from different teams and try to convince them of the merits of some idea, and if they had conflicting goals, I had to mediate that myself.

I'm much happier at the taller organization which has a paperwork-heavy performance review and promotion process (compared to the flat organization, which also had no titles and where performance reviews were a brief closed-door meeting with the one manager between you and the owners). I find it works better for me: I understand better other people's expectations of me and I am better able to communicate what I want to change too. It's extra time, but it's well worth it for the predictability, and I feel much more supported trying to make difficult cross-team changes.

It doesn't work for everyone, of course; different people have different personalities.
I don't think anyone escapes some kind of discrimination in such a deeply toxic society. It's maybe less obvious for cis, straight, white, and otherwise Default people, but it does happen. The material effects are usually not as severe as they are for anyone else.
This is a well known phenomenon that was described by C. Northcote Parkinson[1]. While Parkinson's law is often misunderstood by readers, including Wikipedia editors, who can't make it past the first paragraph of a work, the actual law is a formula describing the growth of bureaucracies: x = (2k^m + p)/n, "where k is the number of staff seeking promotion through the appointment of
subordinates; p represents the difference between the ages of appointment and retirement;
m is the number of man hours devoted to answering minutes within the department; and n
is the number of effective units being administered. Then x will be the number of new
staff required each year." In this context "minutes" are basically printed out emails.

There's much more to it and it's a great read.

And to answer your second question, in virtually all cases the only thing that can be done is to wait for the organization to fail. There's a reason there aren't many 100 year companies.

[1] http://www.berglas.org/Articles/parkinsons_law.pdf
Related, but less interesting: When my wife gets annoyed filling out forms for places that don't need to know her occupation (doctor, pharmacy, etc.), she puts down "art thief." Nobody's said boo to her yet about it.
Realizing the reality would make them leave religion though.