skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Great work guys! I would love to a see a site like Aliexpress with the depth of Alibaba where you use an image of what you’re looking for to look up parametric models of what you want to buy with live pricing and part rendering. I am thinking about the humongous world of fasteners and simple parts. Looking at the texture of mixed fasteners is like candy awesomeness to me. They are so well defined and standard that you can build out one- shot models to identify them with the right scanning rig. Sorry the future is not flying cars, but awesome part sourcing tools!
A lot of these come down to if you were standing in front of a judge, explaining the whole thing, would they agree with you? Or would they think you're gaming it?
Thanks for the recomendation!
I guess tablets allow you to respond if you aren't at your desk.
> I don't see how delivery can be profitable on < $10 orders with a 15% cap.

Then don't serve orders under $10. Your reaction to this implies that delivery taking the cut needed to be profitable on a $1 purchase is ok, ignoring the obvious downside to the restaurant.
> It's male chauvinism, abuse and oppression of women

Do you think all sex workers identify as female?

> As long as buying a woman just to exploit her body sexually is normalized we will never reach equality

How is it any different from any other industry? What's the difference between paying someone to massage your scalp because it feels good and paying them to massage your genitalia because it feels good? For that matter, how is it any different to any job at all? Is a person being paid to restock shelves being hired for their holistic personhood? We're "exploiting" their body for their ability to lift items onto shelves. How are sexual skills any different from any other skill which we employee people for?

> The few happy sex workers that truly think they are not abused are not worth the enormous negative effects prostitution has on society.

Right, those sex workers are so dumb they don't even know of they're happy or not.
The quoted statement was referring to absolute socioeconomic status.

I agree that relative movement is possible and I also know a lot of extremely hard-working people (both rich and poor) who have been successful and climbed a rung or two in their lives.

My point was more that the average wealthy person I know doesn't seem to have a particularly greater or lesser "ability to do things" compared to the poor people I know. Whereas if the "ability to do things" was really a substantial socioeconomic equalizer then I would have expected that DO-ers would be over-represented the higher up the socioeconomic ladder you climb instead of evenly distributed at each level. Perhaps it's different at the very top and the very bottom?

(As a contrast, in the military I found a positive correlation between an officer's rank and their ability to do things. Most of the colonels I worked with had an impressive intellect and drive, and even moreso with the generals I met.)
> But with all respect, you don't in fact know what I think.

That's fair. I shouldn't have said that.

Re the blog post... it cites several books and scholarly texts, and mainly chooses which ones to present. Now of course, that's a form of bias, but the books and source materials are explicitly listed and I believe they paint the picture even clearer than the blog post.
> In order to send representatives to the European parliment, the EU requires that representatives be elected in fair elections

And the US Constitution requires that its member states have a republican (small r) form of government.

> Part of being a member state of the EU requires having access to some sort of public healthcare system

First of all, that's not even true; the only requirement is that the member states accept the European Health Insurance Card regardless of how the healthcare is financed (publicly or privately). The Netherlands, for instance, gets its healthcare primarily through private health insurance. An EU-like approach to healthcare in the US would be for the Federal government to establish a common standard that can apply across disparate health insurance systems that are implemented, funded, and administered by the States, but that's not really what the D party is selling (as far as I know).
> yelling fire in a crowded theater

... is not and never has been an exception to the constitution. It was written as part of a dissent which has been thoroughly ignored and repudiated except by people who don't understand the first thing about US law.
Another effect of Covid: Indigenous people are being killed for frozen beef
It's not irrelevant when we're talking about social policy and one's ability to perform services for a company. A company can't fire you because you voted for candidate X. They can't fire you for saying you support candidate X's agenda, either. It doesn't matter if a bunch of people consider such an action inappropriate and you later apologize for associating with candidate X because you have come to see things differently now.

It's a very similar situation: Noah liked to be forward with people. It wasn't a problem. Later, somebody decided Noah was too forward. Noah apologized. What's missing (unless you know more than I do) is the determination that Noah committed real sexual harassment. A "sorry I was inappropriate" is not the same as "this man harassed women in problematic ways".

If Noah had actually committed sexual harassment there would be legal ramifications because sexual harassment is a real problem that society cares about. For me the distinction between social justice and legal justice matters. If a mob is free to extol its own judgement on people, then we do not have justice. We have mob rule.

What's interesting is that if Noah had been convicted of sexual harassment and served his punishment, then it would be illegal in e.g. California for any company to weigh that information into future hiring decisions. So Noah is actually more damned for simply apologizing and trying to do the "right thing" than he would have been if he denied the allegations.
Thanks.

(Some caveats:

To talk about the elephant in the room, we both know we are engaging in an old debate about double-standards and 'reverse discrimination'. Let's not pretend it's some novel thing we're proposing.

Also, I don't know about the credibility of the first citation's definition of hate speech, and I think Wikipedia has little credibility (no idea why I'm suddenly seeing so many people citing it on HN) - it might as well have been written by you or me. So I'm not commenting on those.)

Some points:

* There are degrees to threats and danger, of course; communication depends on words, context, emotion, the parties involved, etc. Every insult is not a threat and does not rise to the level of hate speech in a significant way. Perhaps we should use the term 'threatening hate speech', to distinguish it for these purposes.

* There is a clear standard necessary to 'threatening hate speech' that is omitted from the reverse discrimination argument: The vulnerability of the target. To reuse an example I gave in another comment, if a Swede is locked in a room with 30 Norwegians and says, 'Norwegian scum should die', people might back away a bit but it's not much threat. But if a Norwegian says 'Swedish scum should die', that's a threatening and dangerous situation for the Swede. In U.S. law, this standard is expressed as 'protected classes' (afaik). Hate speech is only a double-standard if we omit this factor. The consequences to vulnerable people are very well established and very dangerous, arguably the worst events of human history; we can't just ignore that because we lack the perfect solution. Doing nothing is not the null hypothesis, it's an alternative with clearly worse results.

* Subjective judgments are less desirable than objective measures, but that's life; the world is just too complicated and in almost every case we don't have time for scientific accuracy. It's a theoretical argument to require objectivity; reality, as everyone can't help but observe, requires and uses endless judgment. That doesn't make all judgments good or equal (another theoretical argument). Note, for example, that courts have a complicated system designed to output good subjective judgments by judge and jury; they expect and accept subjectivity. But to the extent a rule requires subjective judgment (which is every rule, as every one has edge cases), I agree that it would be better to do it objectively, we should do that where possible, and that we have to be careful.
For any given individual "do" is almost surely better than "not do". That's the choice facing an individual as they contemplate how to live their life.
IIRC, Einstein's biggest insight was cutting the Gordian Knot that other physicists faced when looking at the universal speed limit of the speed of light. Others tried to work around it. Einstein said "what would I have to do to make that true and keep other physics".
Currently, you are required to attend a school, but are not required to attend a public school. On top of that, the speech is absolutely not illegal. You cannot face criminal sanctions for the speech, just school related discipline.
> would you suggest that the life of that single mother would not get worse if she stopped working so hard

It likely would but not necessarily, depending on other factors.

"Her life would get worse" is a complete distraction here from the fact that she is working crazy hard and is not very successful.

I agree that if we define success as being a high enough value it ceases to be meaningful. Luckily society has a base level value we call "The poverty line" and we can use that as a metric. It's not a very good one, because living right at the poverty line is still not a desirable life. But it's what we have.

How does "hard work -> success" explain the millions of workers who live below the poverty line? If that is the base level of success that society sort of expects, then you would figure that anyone who has a job they work hard at should be able to be above it, no?

Are all of those workers just lazy? Not working hard enough?
I doubt it helps you achieve your objective of conversation by generalizing extremist actions toward the republicans. Any more than suggesting antifa actions drive the democratic ideology.

I'd argue that (among other things) it's the echoing of this type of polarizing talk that creates the "sides" of the conversation.
> There is someone else who thrives on calling things “fake” when they disagree with his opinions…

Is Donald Trump a scientific journal?
That's more or less the plan! But on a small scale for self-deployment. Thankfully had a little experience with high bitrate streams at Rogers, at least superficially.

Did your team build the player itself as well? The meter for bitrate was a nice touch!
And yet - why are so few others capable of standing on the shoulders of said giants? Here I am, with more giants' shoulders to stand on, if I wished it, with easy access to vast wealth of information that Newton (or someone living in the 1980's) couldn't even dream of - and yet - my contributions to calculus are precisely zero.

I studied drumming for 6 years and could easily be outmatched (and have been) skill-wise by a 5-year-old with talent.

Are there just no "geniuses" at all? Could anyone paint the Sistine Chapel? Carve out David? Paint the Mona Lisa? Play drums for Led Zeppelin? Invent new fields in mathematics? Is 99.9999% of humanity just ... what? lazy?
https://archive.is/vrV13
Wouldn't those things depend heavily on what is being developed?
There's also a difference between collaboration and being on a team or group that directs the goal.

It's arguable that lone genius collaborates but are the sole director of their idea and goal.
> The effects of testosterone in the womb

Can you point me to some studies around fetal testosterone?
TIAR. ITAR is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
> In a mysoginistic vision of marriage in your culture, maybe.

"Men expected to work hard and die early to provide for the family, women most affected." /s

Men being expected to provide is not misogynistic. It places a burden on the man.

Yes, if the woman were PREVENTED from working that would be misogynistic, but that's not what the parent comment said. The parent comment merely said that men are expected to pay, not that women are prevented from earning, and these are not the same thing.
I finally know what it feels like to be a pretty girl.
They're doing their best job slowly killing Trello.
Would you expect a measurable improvement in results in 2 normal years, to say nothing of two COVID-impacted school years?
There are many things companies can do to improve employee retention. Regular raises, promotions, internal transfers for people who like new challenges, pension plans, etc. Instead quotas for churn are somehow popular.
Reference is a type qualifier, pointer is a type. Best to just internalize it, even if you'd rather it be different.
Of course. Knowledge is always collective. We hugely underestimate how much knowledge is externalised in cultural firmware, passed down from generation to generation, and only accumulated - when it accumulates at all - because of inventions like writing, math formalisms, cultural and creative traditions, and the scientific method.

Without a head start from previous generations you get a rather dumb monkey. Even a genius dumb monkey is going to be extremely limited in what it can do.

Even so - an educated genius monkey with the right life opportunities can still generate lone game changing insights that most monkeys can't.

Without that kind of step change insight domains will stagnate, sometimes for centuries. No amount of collective cultural activity of any kind will move them on.
The real problem with this line of thinking is this conversation needs to revolve around things we can put on a political agenda, and there's no way to put "make more kids that do things" on a political agenda. We can put access to education on that agenda, and did, back in the 90s.

I don't know what the next societal band-aid will be, but it probably won't get us any closer to actual equality of opportunity. Still doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Thanks for explaining. I do see how that could work, and would lead to perhaps even a better system if your average person could transfer stewardship of their device to a different service and away from Apple.

Some fallback to possession of a device for a time fallback would be good to avoid needless e-waste though. It's pretty ridiculous to have a perfectly good item that you can't actually use because it got software bricked.
Magically lowering the cost of delivering food would do it.
I'm more surprised you think that compulsion has an impact on whether the first amendment protects you or not: no one is forcing you to be in any given public square, yet the first amendment protects you while there. On the flip side, it's compulsory for you to show up to jury duty, yet your freedom of speech is severely limited in that case.

"Free speech if and only if you leave" is not really free speech, is it?
I’ve a hard time to believe that Donald Trump worked hard a single day of his life, and by most standards he was extraordinarily successful.
Isn't Einstein the poster-boy for the theory that people we regard as a lone genius were actually in constant communication with sub-geniuses we've never heard of that helped him?
Uhhh if they stole so much, they probably also stole from really rich guys who don't care if you live or die..
Landline phones have largely been compressed data since the 70s, and we're still using the same compression algorithms on most phone networks to this day. ~~Most cell phones will use the exact same audio codecs as most landlines and this has been true for decades.~~ EDIT: Actually this isn't exactly true. Most "landlines" will use G.711 while most GSM cell phones will use AMR. Either way, both are pretty highly compressed audio sources but AMR lets you drag the quality even lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.711

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_code...

Its been a long time since most landline phones were actually complete circuits from point A to B. Those old mechanical switches were crazy expensive to operate.
It looks like the related threads are:

Tim Cook claims sideloading apps would destroy security and privacy of iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565002 - June 2021 (35 comments)

Apple CEO Tim Cook: Sideloading Apps Would 'Destroy the Security' of the iPhone - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535691 - June 2021 (1 comment)

Tim Cook: Sideloading is “not in the best interests of the user” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27535605 - June 2021 (44 comments)

Apple is blocking Apple Silicon Mac users from sideloading iPhone apps - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25807114 - Jan 2021 (36 comments)

Apple begins blocking M1 Mac users from side loading iOS applications - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25796271 - Jan 2021 (9 comments)
When doing that the better approach is to use a factory function wrapping this.

However mind that if you don't throw from C++'s perspective the object is fully created, so that the destructor will run.

If you throw an exception from the contractor, the object won't be fully created.
I'm smelling click-bait.
Question: how does the Table view headings reconcile to the Board view?

On the Table view, there is a heading for: "Prototype", "Beta" and "Launch"

https://github.githubassets.com/images/modules/site/planning...

But when you look at the Board view, I don't see "Prototype", "Beta" or "Launch" denoted anywhere on the card.

https://github.githubassets.com/images/modules/site/planning...
I agree with all the overengineered stuff argument, but this is not as easy as you describe except for the simplest of the use cases.

For example, you might have on screen a component (something inside a modal for example) that might need some data (a newly created record maybe) which is some information that has been dispatched in the past, so either you have to foresee and pre registered every single listener on beforehand or you have to keep track of all the events or the data that was emitted with them. At that point you've invented a new state management solution.
Just a healthy discussion, no arguing

The swedish answer is simple- because they don't see prostitution as legitimate, criminalization or not
In the ideal scenario the apps are routing a new customer to you, handling taking the order and payment, picking up the food, and delivering it. That seems like it could be worth more than 15% to the restaurant.

People say these apps have fees that are too high, but they are not profitable, they're actually charging too little. The main issue is that people are extremely price sensitive when it comes to food delivery, which leads to these companies employing every trick in the book (hidden fees, service fees, delivery fees, tips, promotions, %-based charging etc) to stay competitive. I would prefer some regulation is how this is managed to enforce more transparency.
Money laundering is a different kind of a problem from what we're talking about here, though. Those are mostly KYC or internal controls failures - I'm not saying they're a good thing but they're not impacting other customers of the bank really.

Find some recent example of the owners of a bank/exchange absconding with their client funds: that would be closer to the matter at hand.
> Free speech is always about freedom from government control.

You are confusing "free speech" and "the First Amendment". Free speech has nothing to do with government; it's a generally applicable concept. The First Amendment specifies a requirement for the government to respect freedom of speech. That wouldn't even make sense if freedom of speech weren't a general concept.
With a population of approximately 60 million people that's an average of R850 (approx. $60) per person in SA at the current exchange rate. Obviously only a small fraction of the population are going to have invested. Even if I guess an improbably high number of 1 million investors the losses are R51000 per person (around $3600). That's more than a month's salary even for those just inside the top 1%, since it only takes $3500 per month to be in the top 1% of earners in SA [1].

[1] https://www.goodthingsguy.com/opinion/perspective-salary-sou...
"Simply running a website" may be harder than you think compared with transporting food.
> "This new-fangled technology is worse than what we had back in my day!"
Lots of the commenters seem to think (as I did before reading the article) that this is capping how much delivery services can charge the customer, but it's actually about how much they can charge the restaurants. This distinction actually makes some sense because the former is explicit and the latter is hidden.

I don't love delivery fees and practically never have food delivered, but I would not want to see the customer-facing fees capped. They are explicit fees, and people can choose to pay them or not to have food delivered.

The thing that is being capped here is more opaque — it's the fee the delivery service charges the restaurant. This fee results in the restaurant raising the price of food (which in turn increases this fee slightly).

This price adjustment is not transparent to the customer, so I'm more open to having it be regulated. I would prefer that instead of capping the fee, that it be made transparent.

That way the information is out in the open and everyone can make their decisions with a full understanding of whom is being charged what.

Also, this rule has not been finalized yet — there's apparently another vote remaining.
I think people are getting hung up too much on the "their own" part vs "full of geniuses" part.

Ok, fine, if three - instead of one - people - out of billions - came up with a revolutionary new idea - that does not, to me, discount the idea of the "lone genius", just because 2 > 1 and we can't strictly use the word "lone" anymore.

The idea would be discounted, if say, 500 million people all invented calculus independently of each other over a period of 5 months.
>If $20k was just given to everyone, it’d have a massive inflationary effect.

Forgive me if I ask - on what basis do you know this?

The quantity theory of money and the theory of Ricardian equivalence are most likely wrong[0]. What else remains to be said?

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_money-and-banking-v2.0/s...
I use Jira with 300+ users for both software and non software projects. I don't love it for either but I don't hate it enough to move. Any tool that offered 1:1 feature parity and a full migration, would only need something as simple as slightly cheaper or faster for me to move. IMO the administration is a pain even for simple things.

I've also been on Jira for at least 4 years now and the development is just sad... New UI stuff wasn't "better" just different. Pages are still slow if not slower. Reporting is abysmal; we use the API to pull pretty much all data into a database and report from that. The one tool our team's universally loved was canned– a browser extension that allowed you to screenshot and open ticket with things like browser info and URL already in the ticket. We even tried to modify the extension to put metadata from within our application (didn't work and product was sunset anyway).

My outlook is that developers will move towards something like Jetbrain's issue product or maybe even GitHub issues someday. Support teams will move towards a more dedicated support style system like zendesk or a custom solution around twilio. And for non dev projects, I hope better tools come up... Microsoft project seems to still be a leader in my industry, and also seems to be universally hated amongst my teams.
I have seen a few overlay empty divs over an image/video. Very frustrating behavior.