skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If people could confidently vote for another party there wouldn't be just two parties.

If multimember districts are used with RCV yes. If not it tends to maintain a duopoly. Australia’s Senate uses RCV like voting with multimember districts and has more diversity than its House which uses single member districts.

That said there is some benefit to using RCV even with single member districts as in theory it tends to moderate the candidates a bit as they want to appeal to more people. That said I think it’s a serious missed opportunity to press RCV without multimember districts.
Are there any entries about recording entries?
I was toying with the idea of writing a transpiler from C++ and this thread has thoroughly nixed that idea.
You seem to be agreeing the article while taking issue with it. In the comic, "college classmate" is lucky to have known the hiring manager.

Luck isn't necessarily bad or evil, as you point out in this case hiring someone you know is just smart; but it's still just luck.

Height bias, racial bias, gender bias, are all bad reasons to get lucky.
Now let's do the supreme court
> Ingredients for a cheap American soy sauce: soybean, corn, water, sugar, sodium benzoate, salt, caramel color, monosodium glutamate, citric acid, potassium sorbate.

What’s the problem?
1) Vert.x (https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vert.x) - Reactive framework (think Node.js on steroids) built on top of Netty with awesome HTTP and JDBC support. I use this to build anything that's performance sensitive or cost to serve is important.

2) Spring IoC / spring-context / spring-beans (https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/referen...): Spring is still pretty awesome for dependency injection. You only have to import what you need. Also a fan of Spring Boot but you need to be pretty opinionated about disabling auto-configuration or just pulling in what you need. Injecting whatever Spring library you need becomes pretty straightforward after that.

If you're going to adopt any of these technologies though, your team needs to be able to look under the covers when things go wrong or you need to do something sufficiently custom.
Success is winning the lottery. Hard work gets you more tickets.
and bananas!
Would you mind sharing which one is it? (an email would suffice ;))
There is a mental optimization to be had by using only a subset of the language. If you can get by using fewer constructs (and work on code with like-minded authors) you can better learn to use them correctly and save on thought as to which is the most optimal approach in every case.
I have another in middle school, same district. It's only about 5-10% as pronounced there as in the high schools.
putting taxes on electric cars (WHY?!)

As a two-edged sword to reduce EV sales.

First edge: to keep the petroleum boys happy.

Second edge: because they can't afford to make the electricity generation plants big enough and the electricity grids robust enough to stand the charging of millions of electric vehicles on a daily basis.
> Because of course an adtech company will

then it seems they're being quite slow, since the acquisition happened almost 2 years ago.
Entirely logical.

My only problem with those engaging in such behavior comes from the subset of them who have much more privilege than vast majority of Americans - like say upper middle class and wealthy minorities. They often tilt the system even more in their favor over other poor, struggling Americans of whatever color or creed.

Many highly educated, wealthy female Brahmin Indian-Americans (2nd+ gen) are particularly adept at manipulating the system in this way to benefit them as "POCs" who grew up in exclusive neighborhoods with wealthy parents, and end up at Ivies. And yet constantly leverage their "oppression".
With that argument China is also a democracy, since you can vote who will get to run the party. I'd argue that a proper democracy requires new parties to be easily formed and quickly gain momentum and power if they have support from a fraction of the population. I don't think that ranked choices allows for that, as even if the third party "Greens" in this case got 25% of the votes they'd get thrown away in favour of peoples secondary choice.
If Ambiq's chips are real, they're orders of magnitude ahead of everyone else when it comes to perf/W.
-nologo Should Be the Default
I really fail to see the point of such articles. Sure luck plays a part, everyone is aware of this. As does who you know. And where you born. And how good looking you are. And a myriad of other factors outside your control.

But you can only effect the things you control. Perhaps a bit trite, but none the less, it's true. And if you can't control it, then well... you can't control it. It would be better, IMO, to focus on improving in the areas you do control rather than dwelling on the things you can't. Work hard, exercise, try to meet people, try to be aware of opportunities, etc., etc.
Have you tried Searx[0]? It's the privacy nuclear-option, and supposedly gets better results than DDG or Google (if not, don't shoot me: i'm just the messenger)

[0] https://searx.space
Identifying the source of MERS took 14 years and that had less political interference. We need to be open and thorough but also patient.
Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed. And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel....

We can obviously drop biofuels immediately, as a complete boondoggle, and replace a far portion of the animal feed with this stuff.

It does raise the question though of what the function of the global poor is going to be, since many of them are engaged in agriculture.
It's not odd. The journalist who wrote this piece mostly likely regurgitated misinformation/propaganda he read it elsewhere. Since you clarified the tech misinformation, I'll tackle the historical misinformation.

> changing the course of the war and giving the Allies a significant advantage over their Nazi adversaries.

Turing, Bletchley Park, Engima machine had no material impact on the war. 90% of the german military were destroyed by the Soviets in the eastern front in a simple battle of attrition. It would have served the soviets better if britain had shut down bletchley park and used those resources to send bullets/trucks/etc to the Soviets. Turing, Bletchley Park, etc provide no advantage over the germans as the germans were already heavily disadvantaged - by population, economy, technology, military, etc.

The soviets by themselves vastly outnumbered the germans and had a far greater military industrial complex. The soviets produced more tanks, planes, guns, etc than the germans. Now toss in the british empire and the US and the germans stood no chance.

It's amazing how misleading the media, news, etc are when it comes to ww2. One look at the actual data/facts/stats is rather sobering. Germany had no chance of winning. You have a better shot at beating 3 heavy weight MMA fighters at the same time than Germany had of beating the US/Soviet Union/British Empire. Go look at the data of Japan vs the US/China/British Empire/etc. Japan had even longer odds.

The propaganda that has been built around Turing, Enigma machine and WW2 in recent years is rather impressive. I guess being one of the founders of Computer Science isn't good enough? We have to exaggerate/lie about him winning ww2?
You surely are too young to remember the IE6 shithole monopoly we were all in when - MOZILLA - ALONE saved us.

It's not that having a common rendering engine for everyone would be bad. What's bad is having 1 company (or a few) for-profit companies controlling that rendering engine.

They don't give a shit about you!
Roughly a Decade of Progress in Biogerontology
I think sports categories should be chromosome strings.

"XX division", "XY world record". "XXY 400 m finals", "XYY long jump trials", ...

Gender identity doesn't factor into it at all; the words "man", "woman" should not be used.

Problem solved; you don't get to wedge yourself into competition with XX persons if you're XY.
Everyone tries to change the system to favor them. Those who succeed try to distract from this by, for example, promulgating catchy aphorisms like the one above.
Ok, I found what I think are the videos you're talking about. Is it this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKsLK_Na7iw

All I can say is, take a look at what the Navy is willing to publicly say about what they're working on:

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Our-Work/Areas-of-Research/

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/tewd/

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/tewd/vrs/

Just because the Navy's camera man or the radar techs he talked to didn't know what they were, doesn't mean the captain of the ship didn't know what they were.
There is an immense societal advantage in the belief that people can do anything if they work hard enough. Without this belief most workers would optimize for minimal effort. If we create a society where forward advancement is impractical eventually people will optimize towards the latter and actively dissuade others from trying to be better.

The peasant doesn’t think they’ll become a lord by working harder.
A couple of thoughts:

Hard work != smart work. Given a group of people with a common field of expertise, some of them will seem to be more efficient and naturally better decision makers than the average expert in the group. In some cases this may be fluff, but still believable enough to climb the corporate ladder.

In order to achieve certain goals, nurture may be as important as nature. An engineer in a rich country doesn't have to be especially brilliant to outperform a brilliant engineer who lives in a developing country in terms of wealth and quality of life. If you are experienced and have decent social skills, you can move to a less developed country and "reach the top" with relative ease. The top will of course be lower than in your country, but it will still be the top for the local observer.
GameStop (GME) short position leads White Square Capital hedge fund to shut down
Brave isn't capturing user data, and the "replacement" topic requires more nuanced coverage. Internet users have been installing ad-and-content blockers long before Brave (when Netscape launched the Plugin API back in 1996 or so, ad-blockers began to appear almost immediately).

Brave is rescuing the Web from a block-alone response, which starves content creators of much-needed support. Brave also increases the potential for support by giving users without disposable income (and those with disposable income) the ability to support those who make the Web enjoyable. We do this in a manner which is low-friction, and anonymous too (thanks to the Basic Attention Token).

Brave has introduced a model that understands the security and privacy reasons for blocking third-party ads and trackers. But Brave doesn't stop there (as is the case with popular blockers); it also aims to address the issue of content sustainability online.
Huh?

First - if you want to raise money today in silicon valley - the place is flooded with money.

Second - elon's not (that) famous for paypal or his other earlier companies - he's famous for tesla and spacex. Even as a rich person he put a huge amount of money into them relative to net worth.

Third - he did this and took on two entranched systems. In space he took on the existing govt backed space launch system type industry. These were players with BILLIONs of annual costs for very little return (SLS will be $20B to develop and $2B+ per launch). He's offering launches in $50M - $100M range by comparison. Etc etc. 100+ launches so far (SLS has zero even though govt spent many billions on it).

For cars - he had to build his entire car charging network, fight dealers and their govt cronies, fight oil, all while govt / politicians were spending billions again on this hydrogen superhighway nonsense.
real technocrats know instant runoff is quite lousy. It's very unclear why this is the alternative that becomes so popular.
Most American stores have San-J brand sauces which are a better alternative. Doesn’t really stop a lot of people from picking the bad stuff.
Depends on the object. As OP notes, `make_shared` with weak pointers is fine "if the base object has a relatively small memory footprint after it's been destructed".

There's lots of cases where the object itself is big, though. Think of objects with big fixed arrays, "god objects" with a bajillion pointers, or objects which themselves allocate data in-line.
Same here. Better to go covert. I've shifted over the years to maintaining a few close friends, with which you can candidly exchange.
I'm not so sure about this.

Wanting to work at FAANG is basically the olympics of IT, and people still try to do it all the time.
Effective taxes, socialized health and welfare and safer communities. Collective bargaining at work. Those things should level a lot of the big bumps out.
Yes, I feel like its something Google receives insufficient credit for. Amongst all the the massive propriety / walled garden orgy going on with messaging systems it is a real stand out differentiating feature and something they have maintained for nearly 2 decades now without interruption.

Google does plenty wrong, but I have to say it's noticeable that when tech companies actually do something right they often get zero to negative credit for it, so from that perspective it is hard to blame them sometimes.
Luck for sure is the biggest factor I think. Also one must really want to get to that top. Me: lucky or not I do more or less ok. Not rich but I am my own boss I live my life as I please and do not give much hoot about what is going on around. And that's is what I want.
Of course it can’t be solved, but it can be improved dramatically.

E.g. guaranteed levels of healthcare, education, and shelter.
Phishing asking recipients not to report abuse
Elaborate, please? The blockchain enables everybody to participate, earn, and support content creators in an low-friction, anonymous manner. Advertisements serve as a great way to introduce revenue into the system (by way of advertisers who wish to reach an audience). Brave pulls it all together into a single, OPTIONAL component, which guards the user's privacy and security by conducting its operation locally, on the user's device with client-side machine-learning. No red flags here.
It's not that these features are rare for C++, it's that Xcode is generally a pretty bad C++ IDE (imo, of course).

In both Visual Studio and CLion, these types of features work well, in addition to plenty of more advanced features like address/thread sanitizers, fuzz testing, etc.
RISC-V isn't in a market. SiFive is, and I think their positioning is "high performance, but cheaper than ARM". "Going RISC over let say ARM" doesn't make sense; ARM is RISC. That's what the "R" in "ARM" stands for: "Acorn RISC Machine".
No one is creating jobs with nowhere to go on purpose. Business owners create jobs that fulfill the needs of the business in the most cost effective manner possible. For instance, what growth can a mom and pop restaurant or grocery store offer it's employees? None. Is that because they don't think poor people are working hard enough? Of course not.
Very sad about what happened. Had very high hopes for you guys (more than from brave).

I know TailCat is open source...
But what about Brave Search? Any clue?
> Michael Phelps was not slightly better at swimming.

If you look at individual records he literally was just ~1% better than the previous record holder. His 200m freestyle record was 102.96, the previous record was 104.06. The whole field is people making slight improvements on previous generations.

> Elon Musk is not a modestly more enthusiastic car company CEO

Many attempts at electric cars were there, his happened to be at the time when battery tech had become good enough. A few decades earlier we'd look at him they same way we look at Clive Sinclair after his electric car effort, despite a previous notable contribution in the computer market.
Elon Musk is by no means mediocre either in intelligence or in business talent. But I guess randos on the internet will always have a godly opinion of themselves...
I’d say that part of the cost of switching voting systems is educating voters how the new system works. Many voters simply don’t care about the finer details and just have a couple desiderata—we want to have our vote count, and we want to be able to vote for our favorite candidate.

Instant runoff is super easy to explain and achieves those desiderata, at least to some extent.

It’s hard to quantify the differences in mathematical terms against soft concerns like “we can educate voters and explain how this system works”. For that reason, I would like to see a non-mathematical argument against IRV, one that accounts for the other half of the voting problem.
Because my decision of getting involved in a business or situation in which the outcome (say, we are able to somewhat make a qualitative estimate) is 10% effort and talent and 90% luck would be different if the % are reversed. That's one of the many reasons for reflecting on the odds.
What missteps? The only notable UX issue we've had was years ago, and was a matter of naïve design. When we were made aware of the issue, it was corrected within 48 hours. Hard to portray that as a "culture of hostile UX".
That is an eel-advised pun.
RISC-V is not closed, but the best RISC-V cores are.

If Intel buys RISC-V, the entire ecosystem could be set back.
The issue is that people who could of paid their choose not to. And they benefit from it. While people who struggled to pay are left with nothing.

There are example of landlords who no longer received rent, despite tenants still working from home. Tenants then used the savings to buy a house, leaving the landlord to try and recover lost rent.

Does that sound like the right people got the benefit?
Yeah, that's a very serious concern.
Coaches salaries will plummet.

While the rich may get richer in the short run, I think it will disperse talent. The big programs will spend more on upper echelon players and won't be able to stockpile... It's water money.

Thus other teams access to the stockpiled players.

Well,
> Like, what does "benefit society" even mean?

Oh, this one is easy.

Imagine we managed to create a good enough model of the society. Kinda similar to what engineers use to design bridges or combustion chambers.

Then we create a target function - minimize the number people below poverty level, minimize the weighted number of crimes, maximize productive life longevity - and so on. All good things.

We run it and the model tells us: (1) mandate every woman have three kids by age of thirty (2) promote currently elected president to the king and make it a lifetime hereditary post and (3) make sure everyone goes to the church every Sunday (4) sell Alaska to China.

We shrug, check things here and there - and no, there's no mistake, the solution is stable and whatever we thought were unresolvable problems of monarchy actually do have simple solutions which noone thought about before.

So, what's next?
Maybe it's time hacker news got a "Misleading Title" tag that could be added to a submission after it has been posted.
No. While that might be true if Elon were only breakthrough successful in only one business, he has done this in three: Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX.
My main issue with this narrative that work hard != success is that it looks at the upper tier of a profession. You don't have to be a CEO or a professional hockey player to be successful. It's trendy to say this for some reason, but the people saying it don't believe it. The author of the post literally has 3 degrees (undergrad, masters and MBA). He works as VP and head of M&A of a $5.2bn company. He doesn't believe this crap. He's worked hard and probably prides himself on being successful. But he peddles this crap on LI for some reason to discourage others from having any hopes or ambitions. Why?

And it's backed up by mostly BS:

> How about the role that luck plays in career success? Three Italian professors created a model to track the success of 1,000 individuals over a series of lucky and unlucky events spanning 40-year careers. The result?

Papers like this get thrown around a lot as evidence of something. I was curious about this one since I don't know how you can measure "talent". He made it sound like a longitudinal study. If you actually read the paper [0], it amounts to nothing more than someone creating a model of the world as they think it is, run the simulation, say the world looks different than the simulation I just made up, so something.

Here are their assumptions:

> We consider N individuals, with talent Ti (intelligence, skills, ability, etc.) normally distributed in the interval [0, 1] around a given mean mT with a standard deviation σT , randomly placed in fixed positions within a square world (see Figure 1) with periodic boundary conditions (i.e. with a toroidal topology) and surrounded by a certain number NE of ”moving” events (indicated by dots), someone lucky, someone else unlucky (neutral events are not considered in the model, since they have not relevant effects on the individual life)

It makes for a nice headline, but this isn't science.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf
Can I interest you in a nice Hercules Cortex-R?
Any successful person who does not acknowledge luck in their success is an asshole.

Any as-of-yet-unsuccessful person who doesn't acknowledge the value of hard work and focus on things they can control is guaranteed to never be successful.

IMHO its ego on both sides that drives people to debate the exact factor of luck in success; even if you could quantify that what is the point? We're all dealt different hands in life, the trick is to play to your strengths and be grateful for the success you achieve.
Call my cynical but there's no way this is happening in NYC unless the establishment has crunched the numbers and decided it benefits them. Vermont state elections, Cleveland, etc. I could see those switching as a genuine experiment. But NY is too tightly under the control of the entrenched establishment to be doing this unless the establishment benefits.
Exactly. People can't do anything to ensure success, but they can definitely ensure failure. All anyone can do is the best they can, so that when and if lucky opportunities arise, they can capitalize on those opportunities.

Same thing with dating. There are no magic words or social skills to ensure that the person someone likes, will like them back. There are lots of ways to ensure failure, but no way to ensure success. Ultimately we're all at the mercy of other people to a degree, and that's the way it should be because we're all in it together. All we can do is make reasonable efforts to be the best versions of ourselves we can be, and accept that many things are beyond our control but we'll do our best anyway.
Claiming to be "self-made" isn't directly advocating that the poor need only pull harder on their bootstraps, but it's only a few steps apart.

If someone believes you can be "self-made" without also necessarily also having a substantial amount of luck, that someone can't explain the gap between success and mere subsistence as anything but "lack of determination", often with a moralistic tone.

The very successful shape our society with their influence, which they wield in advancement of their beliefs. If those beliefs are incomplete, or lack empathy, it affects all of us.
I was talking about the general election not the primary. (If we used a decent voting system, then all popular candidates could go to the general).
And here I am, trying to change the system to favor others despite my wild success in a lucrative industry. Social equity is not just jealousy.
The portrait can conveniently serve as that of George V, if the uniform is replaced.