skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> China's one-child policy was a success.

China's one-child policy was unnecessary. Fertility rates were already dropping for at least a decade before it went into effect:

> China’s controversial one-child policy continues to generate controversy and misinforma- tion. This essay challenges several common myths: that Mao Zedong consistently opposed efforts to limit China’s population growth; that consequently China’s population continued to grow rapidly until after his death; that the launching of the one-child policy in 1980 led to a dramatic decline in China’s fertility rate; and that the imposition of the policy prevented 400 million births. Evidence is presented contradicting each of these claims. Mao Zedong at times forcefully advocated strict limits on births and presided over a major switch to coer- cive birth planning after 1970; as much as three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy; fertility levels fluctuated in China after the policy was launched; and most of the further decline in fertility since 1980 can be attributed to economic development, not coercive enforcement of birth limits.

* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431804/

* PDF: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinwhyte/files/challeng...

> There are two leading candidates for explaining the pre-1980 drop in fertility. First, family planning existed before the one-child policy became a part of it. Pressure was placed on Chinese men and women about the “appropriate” age at which to marry, about the number of children to have and about how rapidly. A 1994 paper by researchers Judith Banister and Christina Wu Harbaugh argued that these measures alone were effective enough to explain the pre-1980 decline, before the one-child limit.[1]

> Second, China was growing during the 1970s. It is therefore possible that it experienced the same declining trend in fertility caused by growth that all currently developed countries experienced at some point. This is typically referred to as the “demographic” transition.

* https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/october/china...
That's why I always go for the non-invasive brain surgery whenever the option is available.
This is completely unnecessary. I've been able to fix every mistake I've seen in the last 5 years with variations of git diff, git branch, git merge, git reset and git rebase and their options, and I've seen some horrific doozies from newbs and pros.
there is no low hanging fruit. For AR to really work so many things need to happen.

For one, it arguably requires even more CPU/GPU than VR because unlike current phones and current VR you really want ALL the apps to run concurrently in AR. You want your social media app to show the names and or interests of the people around you. You want your mapping app to show you directions. You want your restaurant app to point out which restaurants have seats available or a low waiting time and price / cuisine / style. You want your virtual pet to run around your feet and body, you want to see each person's virtual fashion, you want your virtual monitors showing your older 2d apps running, you want your virtual cooking instructions and while sometimes you'll want to turn down one app over another, usually you'll want many running at the same time highlighting different things. You can even argue you want the various apps to share 3d spacial data (sans privacy issues) so your virtual pet can interact with your friend's virtual pet and the virtual furniture they have placed in their house via some furniture app.

one app at a time is just not good enough for the general population to get iPhone level interested in AR.

Getting full view glasses with fast enough depth sensing so things can be correctly occluded and run all apps simalutainiously and have the batteries last all day seems many years away
That’s true! I’m not an economist or a policy expert. I don’t claim to have any answers. I’m just pointing out that profitability and affordability are mutually exclusive goals for housing prices. I leave it to people much smarter than myself to figure out if anything can or should be done.
Please don't misquote me. He said that he is not sure that women can coexist in the workplace. Yes, this is very conservative.

He did not limit himself to quants, SotfEng, Physicists, etc..., he cited minimum IQs for jobs in many sectors, for example saying that you can't be a machinist if you have under average IQs.

The figure he quoted for software engineers IIRC was around 118, meaning that 80% of people can't be productive software engineers, which is completely bullshit.

He went as far as to say that people under 80IQ are simply not productive in society, which is what insane.

But more to your point, IQ strongly correlates with academic performance. Actually, the SAT is basically an IQ test. They correspond to academic performance much more strongly than actual job performance in almost every field.

Knowing this, is the observation that fields which require high grades to get into have higher IQs as descriptive as it seems on the first take? Not really.

How about the fact that IQ is actually very variable on the individual level across time?

That's not to say that anyone can become one of those occupations. I don't think everyone can become a good programmer. But I know enough high-IQ people that could never grok how to program clean code to know as much. Perhaps the third factor is correlated to IQ in some way, I don't know. But it's really stupid to say someone of average intelligence can't become a good programmer or even a good physicist.
Depends entirely on the vehicle. The lookback on some is fairly long, others not so much (Bolt EV).

New EV users often forget that unlike 'gallons of gasoline' or 'kWh', 'estimated miles of travel' are not a true unit of energy.
It's only kinda sorta legal in the US.

But like speeding as long as you show decent discretion when doing it you'll be fine.
This is almost the perfect answer I was hoping for. I think I understand a lot better now what the draw is.
As does MIT in Cambridge MA.
That sounds like it is affordable and profitable if you are in the top half of incomes.

In that situation - a renter who made ~40k a year (in today's dollars - probably 30k in 1990 dollars) in 1990 could not afford a single family home and had to deal with expensive rents (because the city didn't allowed apartments buildings where there was demand).
> but the main goal is questionable, and author explains why.

Kind of, but on the other hand:

> people still argue which of the original renderers

Now you have N+1 renderers - I'm not sure why the new one would be any more questionable than the last N-1. Obviously you shouldn't pretend this is somehow "the way it was meant to be rendered", but they don't seem to claim that; rather, this is one additional option of how to render it, with novel upsides not shared by the previous ones (but also with it's own set of downsides).
I've seen "lines of code" used against someone at Amazon before. I'm sure the manager knew that it isn't a performance metric, but the manager had to hit a Unregretted Attrition (PIP) target so they just threw whatever they could think of at the person.

The institutional mechanism behind this insane thing is the URA target, just like many other insane things posted in this thread.
There you have it folks. How to solve the global problem of cultural assimilation rolled up into a single paragraph. Just have more guns and/or money then your competitor (literally impossible in this case).

This is a complex problem that has plagued cultures for thousands of years. If you're so confident to think you know the answer, I'd suggest it's you who is the narcissist.

>This is not true. I would have a huge problem with the Inuit enacted a similar initiative.

Okay, I'll correct myself. No-one I know (across three different provinces), would have a "huge" problem with a marginalized culture on the verge of extinction supporting their own culture, using their own money. But then again, people sure seem addicted to being outraged for little to no reason.
Old tire not on a rim is the classic item to use for that use case.
American Airlines Can’t Find Enough Employees to Keep Planes Flying
The employment problem is ongoing and starting to hit vital infrastructure like air travel. Flights are being cancelled.
Hmm. Maybe I'm thinking of macOS? This definitely happened on one of the two and I was pretty sure it was Windows
Housing prices don’t always go up.

At some point an over leveraged market will deleverage and it will suck for everyone. Remember 2008?

Sometimes a neighborhood goes to shit because jobs leave, or natural resources are depleted or you have a shit government.

House prices don’t always go up and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
So is College Debt. USA feels like a dystopia to me when it comes to many things.
> programmers where programmer is the king and each and every decision is made by programmers

Programmers at Google make no decisions. The only people 'making decisions' are the product owners and project managers.

> Even I found their coding interviews so damn hard.

A hard coding interview is not a valid metric on how good a place is to work.

> Google is considered to be the final nirvana and a Software Engineer badge the ultimate status of "you made it in life"

I've known people who feel like this as well. Some of them are still at Google and it's the best thing they ever did for their career.

On the other hand, I know people who felt this way, got a job at Google and it completely destroyed any passion for programming/computers that they had, to the point where they never worked in tech again.

Personally I feel it's dangerous to attach "you made it in life" to getting a job at Company X.
Sorry, people with mortgages and children don't quit jobs due to "signaling".

They only quit jobs when they've got the alternative lined up. And they change jobs because the compensation doesn't outweigh the crap.

When a big chunk of your company suddenly walks, that's either high crap or low compensation. And it's been ongoing because they've had time to plan their exit as a group.

The "signaling" just gave them a nice excuse.
not to be too snarky but, is this sponsored by Chase Bank? There are a lot of ways to do this wrong.
Post-Covid WFA
For post-covid WFA, your friendly doppelgänger bot.

Neo works as your double, looping you in on topics important to you when you can't make it to a meeting. He's built to learn and find information important to you.

Devil's advocates - please comment in this thread.

https://neo.vidd.ai
Texas Supreme Court sides with bullet train, clearing way for eminent domain
If you have Apple Watch, you can unlock your Mac instantly - no password input or TouchID required.

If you have Apple Watch, you can authenticate services on your computer just by double-tapping the Watch side-button. It also unlocks your nearby iPhone if you have the Watch on.

You can trigger Do Not Disturb across the ecosystem from any of your devices.

Find My lets you keep track of all devices in the ecosystem with a global lost and found mesh network built in.

Apple Pay works seamlessly across iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and iPhone. My Mac uses my iPhone's FaceID or a confirmation on my Watch to authenticate payments - no setup or weird configuration required.

AirDrop works perfectly for me with all my devices. I can beam documents and data from device to device without thinking about it.

Handoff works across all my devices. I can start an e-mail on my iPad and continue on my Mac instantly.

I can see the charging/battery state of my iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch, and Apple Pencil from any device in the ecosystem, including Mac.

AirPlay works across my iPad, iPhone, HomePods, Apple TV, Mac, and even Apple Watch. AirPlay 2 is incredible and has no delay. Rock solid connection - much better than any other protocol I've used.

If I get a new device, setup and integration with the rest of my devices is instant - no configuration required. This is especially great with AirPods - I don't have to pair them with each device. I just pair with 1 and I'm good to go on the rest.

Apple Store support for everything in my ecosystem.

etc etc etc
People remember a great deal from English, History, Biology etc. Anything used regularly like say touch typing sticks around. What they forget is generally unimportant details.

So, most Americans will know the difference between a period and an exclamation mark. That Lincoln was president during the civil war even if they can’t the battles. Mice come from mice not grain. Basically the kind of basic facts that seem inherent until you realize you needed to learn them somewhere.

And of course people who went further into Math, History, etc where building from foundations created in those years.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it makes two problematic assumptions:

1. That vaccines are 100% effective.

2. That vaccines are only about the person who takes them.

On #1, this is easy: the best COVID vaccines currently available are around 95% effective. Some are less. That leaves a meaningful chance that despite the vaccination I might still get sick.

This provides a nice segue to #2: As the percentage of vaccinated individuals increases, the chances that I'll get sick due to that remaining 5% decreases.

This is a core tenet of herd immunity: folks who are not protected by the vaccine (or cannot be due to health issues) are still protected by the fact that everyone around them is protected. This doesn't mean it's safe to not be vaccinated - one need only look at measles outbreaks to validate this - but the point of getting the vaccine is about more than just the individual, it's about the population as a whole.
In the US, we've under-built for more than a decade following the 2008 crash, and that undersupply is running into millennials entering the key home-buying years, further exacerbated by the pandemic. It's not a Ponzi scheme, it's supply and demand. Absent a recession, I expect prices to keep going up.
Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering about the Quadro as well, since I know that NVIDIA and Linux do not play nicely at all.
I assume you are saying this to claim that if housing is "merely" affordable, no one will be incentivized to build houses.

That's not really how it works. Developers can make a profit when building new housing on vacant land, or on improving existing housing. That does not preclude the resulting housing from being affordable, though.

This is an unfortunate overloading of terms, but "profitable" in this sense doesn't mean just the usual "get more money out than you put in". It refers to the practice of land/housing speculation, and buying housing with the intent to hold and then sell at a profit without doing anything meaningful with it.
>best subjects to teach

Best subjects for what?
ProPublica Donors Absent from Bombshell Report on Billionaire Tax Dodgers
The current company I work at uses stack ranking. I had no idea what it was until I joined a new team and was told, "Well, no bonus for you, because you're the new guy. Mark always uses the new devs to rank against so he can give out bigger bonuses to his cronies."

Sure as shit, for three years, it didn't matter how awesome or shitty a job I did, I got the same middle of the road review. One year, I got a paltry bonus and no salary increase. The next was neither and the final year I got a pittance of both. By the second year, I knew what was happening and just completely checked out. I went full "Office Space" and did the exact minimum in order to get my work done and not get put on a pip. Would come in around 11, get my stuff done in a few hours and tell my team I was going to be "WFH" the rest of the day.

Finally left that team and two years since leaving that team, I've had several large bonuses and salary increases.

Stack ranking is some toxic bullshit and managers use it to make themselves look better to their own skip managers. Fucking corporate politics man, it ruins everything.
I don't remember your name popping up as my HN doppelganger the other day, but you could have been me writing that comment.

I don't think it's because we're getting older so much as because we can remember a time when new technology didn't suck like this and so we see straight through the rationalisations and marketing doublespeak.

We live in a time when a right to repair can be controversial, copyright is being distorted to limit what users can do with tech they have bought and paid for in ways that have nothing to do with giving copies to other people, and the working life of equipment is being dramatically shortened by software limitations or a lack of ongoing fixes for software defects from the manufacturer. There should have been laws protecting ordinary people against these kinds of dangers long ago.
Virtually every website on the World Wide Web will track and record IP addresses as visitors click through the site's page. There are plenty of adblockers to prevent sites from using ads to target you. You seem to be more upset at Google than the sites you visit that choose to use them as a source of revenue. You also can't shop on Amazon without being tracked and solicited to based on your shopping habits or sign up for any discounts at most grocery stores.
I have to imagine it's been done, at least with some stripped-down kernel+busybox situation. Not sure, though.
Really good sanity check concept!
It's been going on in New Zealand for decades now. Median house price is now $590,000 USD. And the quality is abysmal. Insulation and double glazing are considered opulent luxuries, most properties do not have them. A big proportion of them don't even have baths. They're closer to American barns than they are to American houses.
Why would the expectation be that it helps affordability? On an individual basis, having access to more money means you may be able to afford a home that would not have been within your means.

In aggregate, everyone having more access to more money means inflation.

Access to more money for a specific good or service means inflation concentrated in that category. See: college tuition and home prices in the U.S.
Paper: Bitcoin, Currencies, and Bubbles
The critical thing is that this also requires a growing population - which is not guaranteed in all places/timeframes!
There is a potential benefit, and it is not really due to regenerative braking. It would require that your traction system is more efficient at converting stored charge into kinetic energy at high loads than at medium loads and that it also has a very efficient "coasting" mode to cut losses when almost no output is required.

Cruising on level terrain is a mediocre load on the traction system to offset the rolling and aerodynamic friction. Climbing a steep grade at the same speed will increase the load significantly, but that extra kinetic output energy is being stored as gravitational potential energy rather than lost like the baseline cruising load. Then, when you descend the mountain on the other side, you recover that gravitational energy to offset the rolling and aerodynamic friction. You want to be "falling" down the mountain grade at your terminal velocity where no braking and no traction force is required to maintain your cruising speed. It will not work well for winding descents where you need to brake for turns.

I've seen this work with turbocharged ICE cars with elevation gains of 4k foot or more and hundreds of miles distance. I've repeated on many trips to prove to me that it isn't simply a fluke (such as extreme headwind or tailwind). Going over a pass yields me a better trip MPG than covering the same several hundred miles on relatively flat ground.

I could see this benefit for a hybrid car too, since I believe they mostly handle highway cruise on ICE power. However, it seems unlikely for a BEV car unless there is something about battery and power electronics that I do not understand, that would give them a significant efficiency boost at high power.
Hmm, not sure it's quite right wing. Left wing nationalism is actually a pretty big thing in the world outside of the anglosphere and some parts of Western Europe.

I'm not sure I'd apply a left-wing / right-wing label to it. A lot of people see French as a minority language in Canada that must be protected, others see it as an issue of pure nationalism, it can come from a lot of directions.

It's not unique to Québec either, similar programs exist among linguistic minorities in Africa, Eastern Europe and even Asia.
One of the gains from using lidar is also that it's a different sensor altogether from cameras, with different failure modes.

For example, cameras are sensitive to glare from reflections (sun near sunset or reflecting on metallic objects) and oncoming traffic at night. Lidars operate on a different narrower wavelength and are unlikely to be affected by that, although they might struggle with objects that have low reflectivity at a long distance.

The fact that these sensors are different means that the intersection where a dangerous situation would not be detected by either sensor is much smaller than any sensor individually.

In any case, once AVs are deployed at scale, if it becomes apparent that some sensors can be removed or replaced by something else, then they will be if there's a case for it.
To answer the title: They aren't make more land, but they are making more people. And people like to live where it's nice and they can get jobs. I don't think land values are a Ponzi scheme. From a supply and demand perspective, it does seem like a good investment.

The rest of the article is meh.
pretty sure he was referring to files, see http://www.di.uevora.pt/~lmr/syscalls.html ( search for channels)
No, they are not. Amazon logistics employees get paid significantly higher than any other blue collar job in the region.
That’s true, I didn’t figure in rental yields at all. Consider it a first order approximation. Would anyone rent if it was more affordable to buy?
Very nice! Sadly all my CentOS 7 machines have now become Ubuntu LTS.
The reason this doesn't work is that people want to live in very specific places. If you aggregate at the national level, the cost of land or housing hasn't gone up all that much in America over the last century. For every San Francisco there is a Detroit to balance things out.
So what you're saying is housing was affordable in the 1990, but not you're paying twice as much for a much smaller space.
Resize and clone the install from the HDD to the SSD. I've had the same "install" of Windows since 2011, its gone through 3 different storage mediums, two different motherboards, and three different CPUs.

My go-to for a low level copy between two different drives is Clonezilla.

https://clonezilla.org/

GParted is also another live OS with good tools to manage partitions.

https://gparted.org/
Apartments are not family homes.
So here's the thing: if housing prices crash you still have a house.

When Bernie Madoff crashed, how much stock did anyone have?
It won't be SFHs though, and it remains to be seen whether Americans will accept that without conflict.

A condo/apartment future is actually pretty likely, and achievable. NYC and most of the non-US world went that way in the 50s, and a lot of Silicon Valley cities (which were previously all suburban sprawl) have been constructing those 4-over-1 condos like crazy over the last 10 years. Even notoriously anti-development SF Peninsula cities have gotten in on it.

But that's largely not where the real estate feeding frenzy is - condo prices are up, but nowhere near as much as SFHs. Turns out a large proportion of Millennials still want a detached house with a yard in a good school district, the same thing that the past several generations wanted, but that dream is increasingly unrealistic.