skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think this is accurate. You can sue the company, you cannot sue the developers. This applies to other companies as well. You can sue McDonalds if you get burned by their coffee, but you cant sue any of the employees that are responsible for selecting to keep the coffee at that temperature.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
You can purchase property with a Roth.

It cannot be your primary residence.

You have to be entirely hands-off with it. You are not allowed to manage the property, do repairs, etc.

You are still not allowed to decree that the value of a house that you own is $10 and sell it in to your Roth in order to shelter it from taxes and get around contribution limits.
It's so handy to have functions that evaluate to either the derivative or the integral for a particular (version of a) shaping function like smoothstep.

Analytic integration has yielded some of the most stunning optimizations in graphics rendering! Replacing sample-the-hell-out-of-signal-and-integrate-the-samples with instead direct evaluation of an integral (or good-enough-standin-integral) function (where that itself can be known or derived) can yield many speedups and cool tricks!
The utter confidence with how you answer all these comments while being completely wrong is sickening. It really shows a lack of vision but you wield your confidence like an expert but you’re not and only displaying the Dunning-Kruger to a t.

Early detection these days consists of things like CT scans which can’t tell the difference between cancerous tumors and benign tumors. I have a friend with a mass near her liver but they didn’t detect it until quite large. She asked what she should do and their answer was “well if it was liver cancer you would be dead by now, so it must be benign.”

This is the state of detection that you think is such a utopia, that we shouldn’t bother trying to improve, because you are so confident with your answers but you literally have no idea how wrong you are.

Having an accurate blood test that can differentiate a cancerous tumor from benign is ground breaking. Early detection of cancers like pancreatic or liver cancer detection is virtually impossibly today until it’s too late is groundbreaking. It could lead to new treatments that work when the cancer is small vs when it’s too big to operate.

You’re taking studies done using very obtuse, inaccurate and costly detection like MRIs and CT-Scans and conflating them with new technologies. It’s backwards, old thinking and trying to pooh-pooh new ideas and technologies because of poor understanding on your part. It had no place here among people with vision and hope for the future.
> We'll see if the inflation in ancient human species stands up to scrutiny.

Not in that business, but could it be simply that a new way of measuring taxonomy is needed? From the outside, it appears that the whole business inherits from a Victorian need for orderly tree structures.
I understand there is a perfectly legitimate need and reason to do what they do. However “privacy-first data sharing” sounds like doublespeak to me. In the same vein as the famous “war is peace, freedom is slavery.”
Some games build a community that has quite a bit of inertia to switching. Starcraft has an enormous community and competitive apparatus surrounding it, even if a game was better mechanically, it's unlikely to dethrone StarCraft without a fairly unique situation happening. The more likely scenario is StarCraft gets messed up in some way that splits the community into a new game. In my opinion anyhow.
Depending on your software, you can! I know Google Calendar allows you to restrict shared calendars to just time ranges, it'll show up as "not available".

Settings > Calendar Settings > Access Permissions > Make Available to Public > on the dropdown, pick "See only free/busy". Now you can share the link with your work calendar and it'll show up as indistinct blocks of time.

You can do it both ways, and you'll be able to check your availability for both work-related things and personal things in their own calendar, but contextualized.
But tests do not have a negligible cost, have other costs besides the pure monetary value (such as occupying valuable lab time that could be spent on symptomatic patients instead), are typically not at all comfortable and easy because you'll be looking at a biopsy at a minimum (which again takes away valuable resources from symptomatic patients) and so on.

My argument is not about particular individuals, but about populations as a whole and wholesale screening of those populations. The consensus is that this does not lead to improved patient outcomes across that population, though in individual cases it may very well be the result.
An autonomous drone for search in forests using optical sectioning algorithm
This is not a question of mindset, it's a question of statistics when you're trying to identify anything that is rare.

Take prostate cancer as an example. It's a relatively common cancer, with an incidence of .1% [0].

If you have an _incredible_ screening test with a 99% specificity (ie, 1% false positive rate), then:

If you test 100,000 people, you will correctly identify 100 people with cancer, and misdiagnose one thousand people as false positives.

There are consequences to having a false positive: unnecessary interventions, surgery "just to be safe", stress, etc.

This is why you limit testing to populations that have a higher probability of being ill (namely, show some sort of symptom).

Now imagine being tested for 100 things: the odds of coming up with a false positive for something start to approach 1!
Wonderful write-up. I'm working on something that could benefit from this in my free time[0]. The code examples were fantastic; somewhat ironic that the AI couldn't detect sarcasm, but it was fascinating reading the longer implementations, complete with code comments.

[0] Basically a tool to help document code, but rather than producing minimal document stubs, or "undocumentation" stubs it tries to parse the implementation and produce something that requires as little modification as possible... I'm far from complete, but in some contexts it produces text which has caused me to discover a bug in simple cases (i.e. a complex statement that evaluates to true/false is described by the generator as doing exactly the opposite of what's intended b/c I reversed the logic)
DDG is pretty great, I’ve been enjoying it for the better part of the last year. Sometimes I’ll go back to Google for niche questions but it’s infrequent. The !commands really power it up once you learn what they are.
Part 3:

I was committed and now our investors had an excuse to walk away. It was an unideal position to work from as we closed the deal. I almost never hold a grudge, but man...

Enough dark stuff... I took none of the $50 million, so don't ask me for a loan.

A Riverwood Principal and a Co-Founding Partner came to where I live during the pandemic to meet. They were our first serious conversation & have lived up to their reputation as great investors.

The decision to go from being bootstrapped & profitable to taking a large investment was one I debated for a long time and got a lot of advice on. I think I made the right decision, but ask me in 5 years.

Bootstrapped -> funded comes with change & plenty of opportunities for mistakes. And boy have I've made mistakes, but I have a great team that carries me.

If you are a ShipHero customer, know that you're going to get a better product each day than you had the day before.
> Lisp only needs parentheses because its operators have variable arity, that’s about as deep as the “type system” goes.

List needs parentheses because its parser does not depend on knowledge of operator's arity, it just parses generic abstract syntax tree.

Arity is property of functions, not expressions, so you would need static type system to assigning arity-types to expressions.

Also, you would still need parentheses to express structural data, where no operator arity is relevant.
You joke, but for a while they had an actual "Roadmap for the Roadmap"...
Part 2:
So I literally could have gotten the "churning customer" on the phone with the investor to say they weren't going anywhere.

But the investor didn't ask, just made his decision.

3: Company X was going to beat us on price.

I mean it's true, they weren't going to beat us on price, they already do. I have nothing but respect for that company. ShipHero starts at $1,850 a month, X starts at $9 a month. You know how I learned those facts? By visiting each of our websites and clicking on the pricing link

Enough of me being salty, screw that guy.

It was overall a positive experience.

I got a ton of support from teammates and friends I made on Twitter and off.

The nicest VC that didn't offer to invest was probably Austin Levitt of Sequoia.

We did have 1 self inflicted issue.

We had multiple good offers, which put us in a great position.

I was up front with investors about all the negative things I could think of. No unexpected bad news was my approach.

Then, the week after we signed an LOI, the employee with the 4th most equity quit.

The way it works is: before you sign an LOI, if you have multiple offers, you are in a position of power.

Then that changes once you sign the LOI. When you sign an LOI, you have to tell everyone else sorry, I like someone else better. So now all your other options are gone.

Once I got the "Peace out, I quit" email, my first call was to the investors.

I was hitting them with unexpected bad news but at least I could be transparent. It wasn't pleasant but the investors still were solidly in.

A few days later that individual posted that they had left

The announcement was public and let's say exaggerated this person's role. This time the investors called me.

REST IN THE COMMENTS (char limit)
That is a pretty interesting idea. I love the idea that someone starting out with the desire to project their will on the rest of the world, becomes so successfull that they no longer own their own language. "If you didn't want other people to mess up your language, maybe you shouldn't have insisted that everyone else speak it?"
It seems like every year there’s a new study showing how cubicle farms are bad for productivity and health. Everyone hates them.

Same thing for long commutes, they’re terrible.

But still companies keep building new cubicle farms in downtown cores. Maybe office workers are just done with this stupid shit.
The answer is bigger than the question. Almost everyone in the West is overpaid because Western Society reaps the benefits of an underpaid working class on another continent. Out of sight, out of mind.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree with everything you've said and I realise that I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say in your previous comment.

> It is a difficult topic to comment on, because people tend to be sensitive about it, for valid reasons.

It definitely is.

Having been recently diagnosed (via medical professionals) with ADHD, I've suddenly encountered for the first time what it's like to be on the other side of this.

I previously had a very misinformed idea of what ADHD (and related things like OCD) actually were. I wouldn't have trivialised them necessarily in words or conversation, but I definitely had a completely wrong understanding of the seriousness of these conditions. I didn't know what I didn't know.

The misconceptions about some of these conditions are so widespread that in my case, I've found it actively unhelpful in some cases to talk to many people in my life about it. Having done the research, I now understand much more about how my brain works and why some things are much harder for me than others, but trying to bridge the gap in this knowledge with others is really hard. Even those closest to me either view the diagnosis with suspicion (and I don't blame them for that if they have the same misconcieved idea about the condition that I did). Others just listen to me describing the problems I have and dismiss them (not intentionally) by saying things like "everyone has those problems"!

I've heard (perhaps even read on HN) that after being diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood you go through a bit of a grieving phase, in denial, then angry at medical professionals who didn't it spot it before, and then sadness at how your life might have been had you realised you had this condition much earlier. I'm in that phase now, and so the lack of understanding from others (which again, I don't blame them for) makes this all the more harder. I'm trying to reincorporate this new understanding into the "model" of myself that I've constructed over many years (without this important information) - it's tough and rather isolating.

So all of that said. I guess I'm likely to view a lot of discussion on this topic through my own specific lens, which is likely to make me overly sensitive to perceived "trivialisation".

It's interesting to recognise that I wouldn't have had this sensitivity at all only just a matter of weeks ago. It's funny how your outlook on things can change so significantly in a short space of time.
The only problematic mindset is yours, and you clearly have not engaged with the subject of iatrogenics in any meaningful way. The policy you advocate for would cause real harm to real people, likely to no benefit. Please understand how wrong you are.
re publiccode.eu

Great link, thanks. Very encouraging.

I've been saying "citizen-owned software".

FWIW, I ran for office on an election integrity platform. Demanding that we own and operate our own elections. While "open source software" worked well enough (10+ years ago), everyone immediately understood "citizen-owned software". Transforms that bullet point into 90/10 (pro/con) issue.

Edit: I should clarify something. FOSS isn't sufficient. Citizen-owned software means we control the repo, builds, distros, etc. Microsoft, RedHat, whomever can fork or whatever, for resale or whatever. But we always control the root.
And a NAS is not a replacement for a backup.
I don't see why early detection means early treatment. What if after detected, the illness is monitored instead. If it then gets to a point where the treatment is no longer considered risky for the stage of the illness, then the treatment can proceed.

It would also give the person the opportunity to change lifestyle to perhaps prolong the time that the illness will become a problem, or perhaps halt its progress altogether.

Additionally, the person who is aware of such illness, can keep an eye out for symptoms related to it, that might otherwise be ignored as something else. At which point normal cancer treatment can progress.
Developers don't release apps, product managers do. The media narrative of blaming "developers" is contributing to the core problem by misattributing blame. Of course, even with properly attributed blame, nothing will change, since there is no liability framework.
Was this in US or EU? I wouldn't be surprised if it is EU but theoretically this should be so GDPR non-compliant that Merkel personally throws you out.
Miami Condo Collapse: Death Toll Rises to Four and More Than 150 Unaccounted For
Ha.

But actually, if most people weren't so averse to biological organisms, perhaps we would've had computer controlled ducks, rats, hens and other small animals by now.

Why bother reinventing the whole thing when you could just replace (part of) their brains.

Experimentation would be pretty gruesome though.
There are oodles of games that started as free games and then made a commercial release later on. It's not really unique to web or "instant".

Further, there's a huuuge dropoff in interest once you do go to a paid release. Often these games are accessed from locked-down school or office environments as part of a "game jukebox" in the same way that YouTube often doubles as a "music jukebox" - there's minimal investment in what you're playing, so, like fast food, it's more important that it leaves a good impression in five minutes than to actually have substance. FNF's basic appeal is akin to a fashion brand with a cool logo - these characters could have used any number of delivery vehicles but the game, and the game when put on Newgrounds specifically, happened to be the right one with the right audience. And because it's positioned for ease of access you get the high virality. When you flip things so that the audience pays upfront, they have to have some conviction in this one, out of a countless number of games, being the one they should champion. It's just a radically different proposition and only some games can cross over between the two markets.

FNF does benefit from having a lot more hardware and bandwidth available these days. Music is classically the Achilles' Heel of web gaming because it's either space-inefficient or you need to invest in a sequencer format of some sort(which was only feasible in Flash by fighting the available technology every step of the way). But FNF delivers full-length audio streams without too much difficulty, so we've clearly made some giant strides there.
So more like yes for some cases, no for others. But how do you choose?
Neat, and promising, though not the one I was thinking of.

I think it might have been this one, Acorn by Twisted Fields:

https://community.twistedfields.com/t/introducing-acorn-a-pr...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsyEIgKVM5E
I guess if you have hundreds of trivial patches it'd take ages to review and merge them, and due to kpis Huawei are being deliberately inefficient
Sounds like he is saying. Huawei is doing a lot of trivial cleanups to be able to say like they are a major contributor. Basically the argument is:

- trivial patches are ok, if you are just doing it for practice. Like a student.

- trivial patches are not ok, if you are doing a lot of them and only for the purpose to get a higher contribution ranking (like commits per company)
Fair point: if we had a completely non-invasive cancer treatment then that would be a game changer (I made that some point in an earlier comment far down in the thread). And in that case it would lead to improved patient outcomes. But the current regime of tests+treatment options does not in the general case - and there are quite a few exceptions that mostly have to do with genetics - lead to improved outcomes.
The waste heat of some datacenters here in Finland is sold as heating service (we have a remote heat (kaukolämpö) network) so basically whenever houses need heating the datacenters make some money out of the waste heat.
> My impression is that people successfully market products like this to give people a sense of control where given the state of the art, control is lacking.

There can be no such evidence for a screening method like this, because it is brand new. We may find that even detection as early as Grail provides is still insufficient, but we don't and can't know yet. Certainly with many cancers earlier detection does lead to better outcomes. You also seem to be focusing on cases where screening has not improved outcomes while ignoring cases where it has.
The argument you’re making has always bothered me because it’s hiding the ball.

If finding something that otherwise carries no symptoms is best left untreated, then the fact that you found it should make no difference to the decision. The doctor should say that the best course of action is to do nothing. More information can never be harmful. If you know information is best not acted on in the abstract, then you also know you should not act on it in particular.

So what you really mean but have left unspoken is one of two things.

First, that doctors are untrustworthy people who make recommendations and decisions based on concerns other than their patient’s wellbeing, such as covering their asses from lawsuits or making more money.

But rather than fix that, you would rather keep patients more ignorant and away from the doctor in the first place. Which actively harms people who do have honest doctors. That is, your approach of not testing hurts people with honest doctors to protect people with dishonest doctors.

Or second, if you take dumb patients as the problem, you are willing to hurt people with good decision making ability (who would heed their good doctor’s advice to leave the possible ailment untreated) so you can protect people with bad decision making.

Because many times, these tests will uncover things that obviously need treatment. They will save many lives. But because more stupid people will hurt themselves, then no one should have access to them.

The political and moral assumptions built into these positions are immense and yet the medical field tucks those away and pretends that this is just a purely scientific truth, that someone running more harmless tests is actually inherently harmful.

That is a lie! And a very nasty one at that.
Yeah, I watched his video series on Youtube a couple years ago and really enjoyed them. Definitely a good introduction to the topic.
> It's hard for people to understand or care about ethics in programming. One possible reason for this is that the issues are too nuanced

Oh. "too nuanced". The author is too soft. Most probable reason is that business owners are assholes.

EDIT: oh, and because most developers are spineless creatures not being able to stand up for their principles, unlike the author. If everybody really cared about privacy as they say they do we wouldn't have so many issues. I mean, somebody is implementing all those features.

sorry for the harsh tone but I don't know how to say it any other way. When developers - professionals who enjoy royal treatment on the job market at the moment - are too afraid to upset their employers over an ethical question, it makes me mad.
How do you find Brave in comparison? I've been pleasantly surprised with it's results but wondered how it fares to regular DDG users
It's not a nitpick. It's a question of whether a writer is scientifically literate enough to get that and many other details right.
> I've seen videos on Star Citizen talking about new systems they're adding like being put in prison and escaping

On its face, this seems like an obviously awful idea. Escaping from prison the first time sounds awesome. Escaping from prison the fifth time sounds super boring.
> but you can't easily measure security, customer or developer satisfaction.

Where I work, we use Chexmark and Whitesource to scan for vulnerabilities. These get routed to grafana. Then to management. Results are available in git within 15 minutes - allowing the merger to wait until the results are available before merging

Developer satisfaction is measured with a quarterly survey that goes to ALL employees

Customer satisfaction is measured with a different survey
So, rephrasing your statement, it absolutely doesn't, because software developers don't hold any legal power to reject a deployment (since they aren't true engineers), so they can't sue the company when it's held against them.

If software developers do that they are just being difficult.
That still escapes the main argument: your problem isn't the medicine, your problem is your anxiety.

If "this sort of thing would just wreck your day to day existence and destroy your quality of life" (let your own wording sink in), you should work through that exact problem, probably rather sooner than later.

Detecting diseases before they actually destroy your life isn't bad, it's good - and so you should perceive it as good. Not because you're a rational acteur, but because it's literally, by definition, in your personal best interest. Take a step back from the panic, just purely observe, and try to see it for what it is: it prevents real suffering - your own very real suffering - and the price to pay is working through imaginary suffering.

Getting your blood checked isn't linearly related with fears of death, the exact opposite is the case. Try to see it for what it actually is, instead of intuitively letting panic-mode take over. If your intuition doesn't serve your well-being, proactively go ahead and fix your intuition - you can.
2/3 of America lives paycheck to paycheck.

Taking a year off is definitely not the norm
Hens would be less destructive, I think.