skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not familiar with what exactly falls into each category, though apparently there's an (official?) crate which extends the core str type to support those as well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58770462/how-to-iterate-...
I must be on a different planet because he didn't sound that way to me at all. Even his "village atheist" comment that parent had a fit over completely slipped by me until he pointed my attention to it just now, and it doesn't seem like the kind of thing the author meant in bad faith.

I quite enjoyed the ideas discussed in the article, and even though it is steeped in religious undertones, you don't have to be religious to understand his broader point, I think.
The GP is saying 3 base41 characters can encode 2 bytes. Using base45 doesn't shorten the encoded message size unless they increase the encoding unit to more than 2 bytes.
Approval voting may lead to election of weak candidates, no? Like there's a strong right candidate, disapproved by left, there's strong left, disapproved by right, and there's meh candidate approved by both. Either strong right or strong left might be better for both left and right.

Thank you for pointing to the flaws of RCV though. It has flaws, but still looks like an improvement.

In London mayor they were using "Contingent vote" system, which is AFAIU RCV with only two options, which is weaker than RCV. And in the next elections they switched it to FPTP, which is unfortunate.
Awesome...maybe?

Does it support TypeScript? Because I'm not going back to dynamic types for nontrivial code. Ever.

Does it support debugging? Because having a real interactive debugger with source mapping, ideally integrated into VS Code, is another minimum bar for me to consider it a viable platform.

If yes to both, then: Awesome! I'll keep it in mind for future projects where it's appropriate.
> you can add your own symbols (that can optionaly expand to words)

> it can display graphics such as graphs, plots, diagrams, images or even interactive ball-and-stick model of a chemical compound

> it is programmable, i.e. you can write your own functions with recursion, conditionals and loops

This sounds similar to Ken Perlin's Chalk Talk. See the demo at https://youtu.be/xuzrF_82z7U?t=2679 but the whole video is worth watching.

> RAND Tablet had handwriting recognition that was based on _clever heuristic+, i.e. no machine learning, and it required person to write slightly different than it would normally write with a pen and paper.

The linked page on handwriting recognition is as interesting as this article: https://jackschaedler.github.io/handwriting-recognition/
> 2. Search ads use this placement as a form of extortion. If you run, say, Best Buy, you shouldn't have to buy search ads for "best buy", because obviously you're the best result. However, they have to, because if they don't, the search engine will sell ads to their competitors using their keyword, so people searching "best buy" get "Circuit City" as the top result instead. (Yes, I chose that reference in part because I don't want to shame any real current companies in this example for sleezy practices.) And since users click the top result (the ad), not the first organic result, Best Buy ends up paying for every click for every user who goes through Google/Bing/etc. to get to Best Buy.

One thing to note is that the cost of the ad is based on the landing page relevance (and even more so for branded terms), and so in your example Best Buy would be able to buy the ad for the "Best Buy" keyword for pennies (a rounding error on their SEM campaign, I'm sure), while Circuit City would have to pay a whole bunch for the "Best Buy" keyword.

Given that, I don't mind it so much. It's a good way for a competitor to get their name out there, but it's not really a sustainable practice long term for them. There's built-in pressure favoring the incumbent on their own terms.
I didn't quote any statistics. Perhaps I should have said, "some users" or I could have said "users are also protected from manipulation".

I think if you thought about it for a while you would object to a constant bombardment of messages that you are not cool enough, or popular enough, or attractive enough, or fit enough.

Or that when you searched for things you were shown the "best results" rather than whoever paid google the most for your attention.

Or if you were thinking of buying a thing one day, but decided not to because you decided you didn't need it, you might prefer not to be constantly convinced to change your mind and buy the thing. Buy the THING!

My iPad is too old for an ad blocker so I have to suffer constant abuse when surfing the web on it. Don't get me started on Apple.
There has been normal athletes pretended to be disabled to cheat the paralympic game, so yeah, it obviously will happen.
> Mutating the collection won't invalidate the pointers.

Rust still won't let you mutate a Vec<Box<T>> while you hold a &T or &mut T borrowed from the Vec.

Perhaps it would be sound to do so unsafely; Rust would let you mutate a Vec<Rc<T>> while you hold a Rc<T> cloned from the Vec. But I'm not clear on whether Stacked Borrows allows moving the Box while you have a &mut T pointing to the same memory as the Box points to. It definitely does not allow dereferencing the Box. (I heard Stacked Borrows will be updated to make self-referential types sound, and I don't know if it will affect this situation.)
I'm so torn on this.

On the one hand Amazon and its bad labor relations and squeezing the last drop out of everyone and discarding ones who have no juice left. Looking the other way on fraud in their marketplace. Copycatting brands and underselling them with inferior copies (the camera bag[1] for example but many others).

On the other hand, organized labor and its infamous corruption, bullying, and drive to have everyone do as little as possible (sorry, it's 5:01 and the contract prohibits me from turning that screw, I'll be back Monday morning to do that for you) totally undermining progress, improvement and development.

It's hard to pick sides on this one. Both are quite bad and unlikable.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26545421
> it definitely would be blacklisted on any campus.

They don't blacklist anything on college campuses anymore. They naughtylist it, disallowlist it, or ungoodlist it... presumably so anyone descended from regicides won't be triggered by Charles II of England's words appearing out of context.
That comment likely assumed merging between branches was the "edge case" you were hitting; the general principle - do whatever it is more often, so that the edge case becomes routine - is sound. I found gitflow horrendously overcomplicated so I can imagine it might introduce some edge cases, but I'm honestly struggling to think what they might be - in my experience as long as you never rebase/cherry-pick/squash, frequently have parallel branches, never rebase/cherry-pick/squash, and frequently merge, there aren't actually any edge cases in git - as long as you remember to never rebase/cherry-pick/squash.
With the Amazon Project, the Teamsters are taking a different approach that doesn't rely on the traditional National Labor Relations Board election process that allows employers to run sophisticated anti-union campaigns and involves the task of running elections warehouse by warehouse.

Instead the Teamsters plan to focus on a series of pressure campaigns involving work stoppages, petitions, and other collective action to push Amazon to recognize a union and bargain over working conditions.

Faced with workers who don't want to join a union and laws which protect them, the Teamsters plan a series of coercive measures which will force workers into a union whether they want it or not.
In a long winded fashion what she said could reasonably be interpreted as trans women aren't women. While she doesn't support discrimination against people on the basis of being trans she is promoting the same thought process that is pervasively used by individuals justifying discriminating against trans people.

Imagine if someone said its totally wrong to put Jewish people in camps, after all they deserve the same rights as you and I, but maybe they really did cause us to lose WWI...

There are people who really are just mistaken and then there are others who are weaponizing this strategy to minimize their obvious racism.

I think she is merely incorrect not malicious but the reaction is easy to understand and it absolutely has to do with the size of her megaphone not just what she said. Someone who wasn't the world famous author of Harry Potter just wouldn't have got the same reaction in the first place.

JK rowling has a billion dollars and a bright future despite the reaction to her views. Can you give me an example of some people who have actually and in fact been canceled?

Protecting billionaires from people saying mean things about them on twitter doesn't seem like a worthy cause.
Ericsson braces for backlash after court upholds Huawei ban
Liink by J.P. Morgan
If rental demand is anything to go by, they would have fared just fine.
With IRV, you can put a compromise or third-party candidate first _only if they have no chance_. In other words, it's purely symbolic.

As soon as the third-party candidate starts to become competitive, the spoiler effect returns. It becomes risky to vote for your true favourite, and voters are forced to vote strategically as they do now. So IRV will not help us escape from polarized two-party politics; it will continue to entrench the duopoly.

IRV has other serious problems with fairness (a much higher spoiled ballot rate, disproportionately in low-income areas), practical implementation (requiring a redesign of ballots and counting software), and security (it isn't summable, which makes it harder to conduct a risk-limiting audit).

Approval is also imperfect, but it is simple, cheap, effective, and has none of these problems.
If sleeping with a cat enhances your sense of security... try sleeping with a dog.
Sounds like a good reason for a robot vacuum cleaner.

"I'm just fiddling with my phone over here entirely not related to your meowing and the vacuum coming to get you!"
The unions also buy off politicians to disastrous effect. In California, you can’t win an election unless the teachers union or the police union backs you, which has led to all sorts of insane policies.

Even with that, teachers and police officers are terribly underpaid and also mistreated by the California government.

Unions might be the answer. However, the US has a closed shop system where a few unions have a monopoly on labor relations.

As a result, the existing national unions have repeatedly demonstrated that they’re not interested in improving working conditions for their members.
oh, no, not the top notch Classifier device!
Bash function names can be almost anything
I'm not sure those states are good examples when their governors were happy to impose restrictions on private businesses and remove their freedom of choice wrt proof of vaccination - to the complaint of the Cato Institute, no less.
True.

However, there was also this one posted a day ago with just 2 comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27580941
Wow I've never seen someone in that much demand!
Big Pet infighting
The teamsters earned every bit of that distrust.

Successfully representing their members would go a long way to helping earn it back.

Generally though the Pinkerton's beating on union guys or the union guys dealing with scrabs resembles a gang war more than a "literal war"
No. Government and politics are primarily local because most problems are local.

For instance, I have zero clue about life in NYC. Letting me directly influence decisions in NYC is wholly unfair. I have no skin in the game! How good or bad their transportation is doesn’t affect me. Whether their local tax rate is high or low doesn’t affect me. But it most definitely does affect them.

Likewise, nobody in NYC is affected by the repeat wildfires we’ve had recently on the west coast. Letting them directly say, “Nah, it’s no big deal” is also unfair.

I definitely empathize, though. Lots of my beliefs aren’t represented where I live, either.
I don’t think undercooked meat nor stray cats explain the 30–50% prevalence rate. You have a source for your claim?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963851/
What's that look like per capita? That's still an extraordinarily small minority.
So how did he negotiate for the $125,000? I was expecting a play-by-play. Instead, this is largely advice for how to get vendors to lower their prices.
SO is CC BY-SA https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
> IRV lets people express their preferences in a fairly understandable way. The strategy I see...

That's the concern though. You likely don't want to just "express your preferences." You need to strategically rank candidates. But then what are you being asked to do exactly when you go to vote? I don't think it would fly if the instructions on the ballot gave you guidance on how to "strategize" your rankings. But if it doesn't give that guidance, it's misleading.

And I understand that all voting mechanisms have their own unique pitfalls; so we have to fall back to pragmatic questions. And one major pragmatic question is: What's the status-quo/What is everyone already accustomed to? Asking a large voting body to switch methods is not easy and I think it's being motivated largely by a misleading "grass-is-greener" claim about rank voting.
Time has tended to overlook the Ottoman Empire. The few times I've mentioned it, people often haven't heard much about it. And are very surprised to learn that it was a party in WW1 .. after existing for 600 years ... after they'd tossed out the Mongols that invaded Europe in the 1200s.

Out of the fire, into the frying pan.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gdp+of+brazil&t=h_&ia=web

https://search.brave.com/search?q=gdp+of+brazil

One thing I am frustrated with DDG is its lack of summary card for some entries. I think Brave search better in this case.
This is a terrible click-baity article.
"Our side would shade have won if we just had the right voting pool."

But this national thing isn't even a vote, it's just straight intimidation and extortion trying to get Amazon to "voluntarily" give in.
This is poor rereporting of good reporting: Cook did not "call Pelosi" - it's pretty clear that the call was arranged, and her staffers were able to listen in, and probably Cook's PR people too. In any case, the link should be to the original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/technology/amazon-apple-g...
I wasn't saying it was.
I recently did a little survey of string types across programming languages, and found that they display an immense variety of designs for a datatype so fundamental.

Swift stakes out one of the most interesting points in the design space by completely encapsulating the internal representation and requiring all accessors to be explicit in whether they operate on the string's encoding (e.g. as UTF-8), its Unicode code points, or its grapheme clusters. All positions within the string are represented using abstract iterators that don't reveal their numeric quantities.

Diametrically opposite in the design space is Go (close to C and C++), in which a string is simply an array of bytes, conventionally treated as UTF-8. To access code points requires explicit decoding (or a range loop), and to access grapheme clusters requires a text package.

Ruby is another interesting choice: a string is a pair of a (mutable!) byte array and value indicating how to decode those bytes into code points. This representation works well when you have to deal with strings in obscure encodings as it preserves the original bytes, so, for example, you can read file names from a directory then delete those files.

There are a great many other designs in wide use---Haskell, Java, and Python being the most unnecessarily complicated---but these three designs seemed the most defensible to me.
It's a gambling expression meaning the minimum [money] you need to even sit at the table. To be a really competitive player you need more.
To what end? Preventing Amazon from improving average labor conditions by getting them to treat their employees as poorly as teamster shops do?
Nowadays, Rule of Zero. Let the compiler generate all the special members implicitly, when the members can each do their own cleanup. This turns out to be quite often.
I'm somewhat confused. In what way do you mean pay the family expenses? Was you sister disgusted with the idea of a woman/herself paying the family expenses, or a singular individual being in that position at all?
Sure, opinions are debatable.

But minor candidates being spoilers have come up at all levels of elections many times for decades.

Splitting the vote happens frequently, again at all levels of elections (at least nationally in terms of the primaries for US Presidents).

If you vote for your favorite candidate, and your candidate is not the last-ranked candidate, you cannot cause your candidate to lose by putting them first.

But it sounds like you’d agree that FPTP needs to go. Great, me too. That’s the real focus for me: let’s start using different methods that eliminate, even to small degrees, the problems of FPTP.
I'm Australian so I might be biased, but I don't like MMP. It seems to be optimising for democratic outcome (well at least a parliament that looks like the distribution of first party votes) while ignoring all other factors.
Many countries that use it seem to have weak governments that can't get much done. There is parties that won't work together because one is secessionists (Catalans), right wing (national rally in France, AfD in Germany), different ethnic group (Arabs in Israel, Flemish vs French speakers in Belgium). Some parties seem to get more popular if they refuse to compromise.
This can end up in endless elections (e.g. Israel), inability to form government for years (e.g. Belgium) or parties that aren't acceptable for mainstream parties to form coalitions with becoming the only opposition (e.g. National Rally). Even well run countries like the Netherlands and Sweden can seem to take forever to form a government.
RCV mostly allows one party to form a majority government and get things done. There is clear accountability. While at the same time there is still the incentive to appeal to a broad base. And over time new parties can break into the system if they are appealing enough.
All of the things I know the answers to off the top of my head it passes, but I’d have to check a few of the others (e.g. the “ffl” ligature) I’d have to check.
Table stakes are a required minimum bet in a game (often poker) - the meaning being if you can’t provide at least this you can’t play. So if a new language doesn’t support Unicode well it won’t get any adoption.
For anyone like me who hadn't heard of Gibbard's theorem, it's actually even simpler (and more depressing) than Arrow's theorem. To quote Wikipedia:

For any deterministic process of collective decision, at least one of the following three properties must hold:

1. The process is dictatorial, i.e. there exists a distinguished agent who can impose the outcome;

2. The process limits the possible outcomes to two options only;

3. The process is open to strategic voting: once an agent has identified their preferences, it is possible that they have no action at their disposal that best defends these preferences irrespective of the other agents' actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard%27s_theorem

----

So basically, it's impossible to completely eliminate strategic voting. No matter the method: ranked vs. cardinal vs. anything else you dream up can't help.
Also posted on HN today: “Toxoplasmosis – A Global Threat. Correlation of Latent Toxoplasmosis with Specific Disease Burden in a Set of 88 Countries”

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27599085

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963851/
There is always the option to expose the "fallible construction" as a factory function instead of a constructor. Then you can return errors as needed.
> In this US, you would rarely need to do any additional research.
>
> There are almost always only 2 choices - the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate.

In NY, what's being discussed in the OP, the ranked choice system is being used only for the primaries. Whoever wins the Democratic party will certainly win the mayoral general election -- but ranked choice voting isn't being used there anyway.

So what you're describing isn't actually the context of ranked choice voting in this election.

In Chicago, another city where the Democrats always win, they actually have, since 1999, non-partisan primaries. Just one primary, for all parties, top two candidates go on to the general election -- so the general election can be between two generals. It would be interesting to see instead a single ranked-choice election, no primary at all.
Nyxt 2.1.0
Ask HN: How to get back into reading books?
Over the past year I have barely read a single book, most of my media consumption is on reddit or here now. I used to read quite often, probably on average two books a month but now I find it hard to focus on getting into the book and reading it until then end. Unfortunately for me my desire to read books is still strong and I am buying just as many books to add to my "to be read" pile as before, just without reading them! Has anyone experienced something similar to this and been able to pick the habit back up?
Per the paper, 37.5% of the regularization regimes were Batch Norm + Weight Decay. According to other findings, Batch Norm and Weight decay have an interesting interaction that results in a learning rate adjustment, not regularization:

https://blog.janestreet.com/l2-regularization-and-batch-norm...
Exotic superconductors: The secret that wasn't there
That's true, but there are enormous differences between those other categories compared to sexuality! For one thing, we do not know exactly which genes code for each of these traits yet. And for another thing, the genes coding, for example, fast twitch muscles are not generally part of someone's identity the way gender is. I don't think the presence of those genes nor their uneven distribution does anything to defuse the social issue that we're talking about.

To be completely clear, in some sports there appears to be a moderate risk that elite cis-women will be completely unable to compete with elite trans-women. This is going to be visible and apparent. I don't think this will be acceptable to the most people, and they will likely look to change the system.

Nit-picking your other points: there are not really any popular rich-people-only sports any more, except perhaps auto racing. I don't think broader society is all that interested in the egalitarian properties of yacht sailing. R.e. the clothing technology: yes, and those things were banned because of the advantage they conferred. That's exactly what I'm talking about here.
Amazon could avoid this by not squeezing so hard.

Over squeezing labor leads to pushback.
Aligning the symbols for easy parsing in the "best" example was a nice trick.
YC fusion company announced a big milestone
My dogs did this when my sister was born, at least until she was moving around on her own. Whenever you put her down to change her, they'd lay a few feet away (one on each side) and growl if anyone they weren't sure of tried to get too close. I don't recall them ever growling at anything else, and were fine with visitors at any other time, so it really stood out.
Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice(2019)
Resolving transaction deadlocks on ActiveRecord associations
An open shop implies that employees can form rival unions to oust abusive unions. The poll questions don’t go into that level of detail, so it is hard to interpret the results.
I’m asking about the taxonomy around the verses and supporting content like videos.