skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my perception the price of oil is only constrained by the oil industry carefully matching their output to the demand. Am I wrong in this? Surely the Saudi's are not driving their gold plated lamborghini's because they really wanted them and spent all their savings hard won from razor thin margins.

I'm not normally cynical, but we have to be realistic when talking about the climate. The truth is we haven't really started the transition to renewable energy, we're just investing in renewable energy where it's convenient. The only thing we're really making strides in is greening up the electric grid, but the electric grid is just a piece of the pie of our total energy expenditure.

At some point everything you use and touch and see as a consumer is going to be green, your light, your heating, your car, maybe even the food you eat. And then we look at the grand scheme of things, and you'll find that you merely went down to 50% maybe 60%. And what's worse, to achieve that prices of almost everything had to be doubled, and the producers of oil simply tuned down their prices to appeal to less privileged nations, and those are both flourishing and buying almost as much oil as they were the US and Europe.
There is also a bright side here. This indirectly incentives alternative organizational structures such as cooperatives. Some would argue it's also a healthier way to grow and has existed in more traditional sectors such as farming for a long time.

Personally I think EU has a long way to go, but it's not all doom and gloom.
Upcoming Amazon medium post: Firing at Scale

For real though. We need some labor protections in this country. Remember when we robo-signed ourselves into fraudulent foreclosures?
It's not even on caniuse.com or kangax.com's browser compatibility tables. I think it'll be a while before we can use this in production.
That's mobile autoformatting for ya, you are correct. I would correct, but edit limits...
There isn't 1$ for every 1USDT, they said so themselves. It will eventually fail != "USDT failed a LONG time ago".

If you truly believe what you say, then you should definitely consider shorting it, if you're right you'll make a lot of money.
How are they trivial? From my limited knowledge they are basically trying to stabilize a speculative asset using another speculative asset. To me it seems like an essentially impossible task.
Whoa, is that what this is? I’ve been wondering for quite some time why in the world Reddit hasn’t figured out how to make the “open in the app” links actually work. It’s bonkers that they spend so much effort making the web site push you to the app, but don’t even provide a working way to open a piece of content in the app.
On another perspective, maybe HN is anti-scams, pro privacy, pro privacy and pro UX.

No other discussions face such criticism, only crypto. Does everyone believe them with a burning passion? Or are people afraid of losing money?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
So you're essentially pushing against specialized IP-oriented VLSI chips in everything from NICs to switches to routers... instead they should all have been reconfigurable general computing devices?

Don't you think that would have slowed down the growth quite a bit?
You're just missing one thing -- there is no way in hell mcdonalds will ever give you 40 hours a week.
No Amazon, really? Amazon ships physical goods to your house in exchange for money--they aren't dependent on advertising.

Even Google landed on advertising as a monetization technique but existed before it and easily could have been a sustainable business without it (though not the behemoth it has become).
> There are plenty of folks who have Type I that can't afford Insulin and have to ration it causing harm and additional costs in healthcare

Exactly. The preventable T2D is driving up demand (read: prices) for both T1D and T2D.

I don't know about Canada. I do know about supply and demand. We all do. In the context of healthcare it makes no sense that ppl abuse their health and then expect prices to fall.
It's such a shame that in the American culture the terms "anti-trust" and "monopoly" have become so closely coupled.
Not sure how to accomplish it, but advertisements should be captured in a semantically distinct way in markup. I hate ads, but I'm not saying you can't have them if you want, you just have to wrap them in the equivalent <advertisement>../</advertisement> tags, so that there is no question about what content contains an advertisement and what doesn't. That way, it's trivial for me to block them. The flip side of the coin is that my browser will tell you if I'm blocking ads, and you can decide if you want me as a viewer or not.
Millwall? A wall that wears you down until you comply?
https://flickr.com/photos/biv4b/70775796/in/album-576553/

Cool, these remind me of atomic orbitals.
Facebook the ad business is the monopoly.

What really needs to happen is to amend monopoly definitions in cases where a captive market is present.

The issue with Facebook isn't that they own 100% of the ad market, but that they control 100% of the Facebook ad market, which is itself large enough to constitute monopoly concerns. (As with Apple and Google app stores)

Advertising is trickier than apps in terms of separation, but my gut says things would be better if companies with large captive market share were required to wholesale ad space and targeting via standardized mechanisms.

And were specifically prohibited from developing any kind of value add ad products on top of their platforms.

Just too much conflict of interest.
Is there really any difference?
Previous guy tried, but the new "Big guy" nixed the EO before it could go into effect.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28...

Feel free to link any biased news article or Politifact telling me how it wouldn't have mattered or wasn't that effective. That's a lie, it capped the prices, but at least ask yourself if doing nothing is better, or worse, cancelling an action that did something. Then ask why they did it. Just like many other reversals it wasn't for you, it was for Pharma buddies. They say one thing and do another.
> "Just build nuclear" - As per the post itself, we need to build 3 nuclear plants every day until 2050 to replace the entire grid with nuclear. Yeah not realistic.

France averaged building one nuclear power plant every 100 days during the Messemer plan. Far from 3 per day, but France only makes up slightly less than 1% of the population. Similarly, in the US if we built nuclear plants at the same rate as we did during the 1970s we would have 100% nuclear and hydroelectric electricity generation on that timeframe. There is historical precedence for this pace of nuclear plant construction.

As far as the alternatives, it's the most viable approach, short of a miraculous breakthrough in storage technology, fusion, or similar.
If the WhatsApp merger is in question, the FTC would have to define the market very broadly. I don't think there is any case to be made that FB has monopoly power over the messaging market, so I don't think they are likely to succeed.
We should dispel the illusionthat large corporations compete freely with each other so monopoly requires something like 75% -80% of market share.

In reality even a (consistent) 20% market share is pretty much good enough IMHO. You have a bunch of corporations, each taking about 20% and they will collude 100%.
I agree with that.

While I don’t morally agree with Amazon policies, we must understand that companies will always optimize to win the capitalism’s game whatever the human cost.

However, as a society, our role is not to ask Amazon (or whatever misbehaving company) to stop being bad guys, but to change the rules of the game so that immoral behavior ceases to be a competitive advantage.
You can do this in Mochi (https://mochi.cards/).
And applying the lambda to itself results in loops, afair.

Edit: It was the Omega operator that did that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism

> After being accused of extremism, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized the mainstream usage of the term in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love…Was not Amos an extremist for justice…Was not Martin Luther an extremist…So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"

I think you can see how 'extremism' has been used as pejorative in order to dismiss radicalism.

As the Wikipedia entry points out: "When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo."

Viewed through that lens, if the status quo isn't meritocratic, then doesn't your definition imply extremists actually do have "the right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove [their] point"?

Quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail:

"If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."
Nothing bad could ever be permanently fixed, because these changes were inevitable.

The problem is how laws destroy fair competition by favoring those with the most $$.

Fix that, and you fix everthing else (not gonna happen).
The difference between Coke and Pepsi is marketing and flavor, but they directly compete in the same market. The products they have are virtually the same, only minor differences.

The product differences between, say, Facebook and YouTube are night and day. You wouldn't add an acquaintance on YouTube and start messaging them through that platform. I'm not sure you can even message people like that on it anymore. But you can on Facebook. They're fundamentally different products, they only align because they both have some sort of social aspect to them. Kind of.
Previous guy tried, but the new "Big guy" nixed the EO before it could go into effect.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28...

Feel free to link any biased news article or Politifact telling me how it wouldn't have mattered or wasn't that effective. That's a lie, it capped the prices, but at least ask yourself if doing nothing is better, or worse, cancelling an action that did something. Then ask why they did it. Just like many other reversals it wasn't for you, it was for Pharma buddies. They say one thing and do another.
I was talking about e.g. whole tomatoes vs. crushed tomatoes vs. diced tomatoes vs. tomato sauce.
Ban Mark Zuckerberg from the internet. He ruins everything he touches
And you are not repeating stuff you read from other people? Details on safety and efficacy of vaccines for different sub-populations are still subject of study, new data is being generated, and as new information comes out, our ideas on the risks and benefits may keep changing.

Thank you for the links but please keep the arrogant tone down.
This may have been true two decades ago. Now AMZN’s biggest customer is the government
I run the web app on my google free phone quite easily. Just add to Home Screen.
What way do I feel? I'm very pro-worker's rights, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the EUs approach.
> isn't that they own 100% of the ad market, but that they control 100% of the Facebook ad market

You need to define these terms in a way that doesn't make everything a monopoly. Because by this logic, my corner flower vendor has a monopoly on her corner and also on the flowers she is holding in her hand right now.
Yes, but what about economies or scale? And the the production is already decentralized. I guess there’s more than one plant in the US.
Yes, it was the proto-wat.
> Flex drivers’ forums are littered with posts from people complaining that their accounts were terminated because their selfies did not “meet the requirements for the Amazon Flex program.” The photos appear to be verified by image recognition algorithms.

If these algorithms work better with lighter-skinned people (as has happened in the past), could they have a discrimination issue on their hands?
The creators of Amiga introduced them, and added hardware support to make it performant. The only thing which felt sluggish in an Amiga was the floppy disk.

Likely these creators understood the importance of overlapping, draggable, resizeable windows for the audience, and the audience indeed enjoyed them. Same thing with the classic Mac.

If you tried a tiling WM, you realize that it requires learning, tweaking, and discipline. Those are expensive qualities to require from users; one should ask for limited amounts of them.
Ads are fine. The "fuck you" pattern is letting you see the cat picture for 5 seconds before covering it up and requiring you to create an account and share your data with Facebook before you can see it.
Those are based on the trust of the companies behind them though and don’t collapse so suddenly. Also MT.GOX took several days to fully collapse.
Mochi [0] is another. It is markdown driven with bi-directional links between cards. Templates. Local-first + syncing, and a bunch more. (Also, I made it.)

[0] https://mochi.cards/
IIRC you can get into the tens of microseconds with an x86 box running a heavy linux graphic desktop with real time patches. Single digits with core pinning on a light headless system.

Bear in mind that real time performance and throughput are perpetually at odds with each other. Long story short, scheduling things such that everything happens in a tight time window means you need to leave gaps in the timeline.

This tradeoff is variable so you can loosen requirements for running something like a rover where there isn't really all that much need for tight realtime control, it's not trying to achieve micron positioning as it drives around. That means you can use a more efficient CPU and lower your idle current which is probably the real constraint here.
You have to make a distinction between good faith and bad faith comments. The latter don't add to a scientific discussion or intellectual curiosity at all. Being openminded is one of the great virtues, especially for scientists, but it doesn't mean that when someone screams insults, you have to take seriously the possibility that they're true.

I think the lack of that distinction is one of the nuances missing from much online communication these days. With bad faith comments, I try to downvote and move on, but any comment made in good faith, even and especially when I don't agree, is a good thing.
I never use reddit on mobile, but also there the whole new reddit design thing is so terrible I just don't bother going there anymore. It's sad, there were a few really nice communities there.
I wouldn't be suprised that FTC is just a friend. I mean it's year 2021, they already figured this out in the 19th century.
Who turned the ZUCK loose with arrows and spears ?

Yeah, sure, his security detail made 100's of video clips of him before he got one on target, they have jokes flowing between their texting each other how lame Zuck is . . . .
A disproportionate number of the disagreements and fights amongst my friends during my ill-spent youth took place in the Blockbuster stacks trying to decide on a mutually agreeable film.
It might not be forbidden if it works. Google is famous for undocumented workarounds.
Not quite sure why you want short, Dive Into Python is a very good book and you can read it free online: https://diveintopython3.problemsolving.io/

I think trying to come up with a short tutorial that meets just your level of experience is going to be hard. If you are already familiar with something just skip that section.
The 2021 Microsoft Windows Event
This is because they have largely been successful in stamping down leaks for a while now

The only leaks they have yet to stop is the hardware related ones.

Great example was during WWDC almost no software changes were leaked before hand.
I imagine the guy who built his own toaster from scratch probably also contemplating rebuilding the entire pipeline to produce the input to the toast. "Step one: acquire the ore. Step two: smelting iron ore..." http://www.thetoasterproject.org/page2.htm
Dissenter attempted this, and was quickly deplatformed.
EOS tried to use on-chain Ricardian Contracts and pair that with upgradeable smart contracts in C++ with DPoS consensus so that intent-of-code could be enforced. That's pretty "real world" but most people feel it's not unstoppable enough.

Ethereum is pretty unstoppable, but unless you use a contract proxy, your contracts are immutable and bugs that can be exploited will be exploited.
> This is why whilst I don't trust banks, they do have big safes with locked boxes in.

This doesn't matter at all. Banks will hand your money over during a robbery - it's policy and it happens often. What matters is that banks have insurance and legal infrastructure to deal with theft. When a bank is robbed insurance covers the loss, the FBI begins investigations, etc. The lockboxes are for show (I worked in a bank, no one will tell you otherwise).
The term “echo chamber” at this point is almost meaningless.

What constitutes an echo chamber. Where is the line? If you don’t allow hate speech, is that an echo chamber? If you don’t allow misinformation, or lies, or conspiracy theories, is that echo chamber?

To me, avoiding those things is the basis of any positive communication.

Again, the alternative: “echo free”, all points of view are equal, actually does no one any good, because comments sections aren’t a place to share and be open to points of view. Unmoderated sites, and echo free almost always end up a place for people to harass others.

The internet is different than face to face. There are few to no consequences for bad behavior, and that includes spouting political, and religious ideology in settings and situations that no one wants it. If someone sat down at your table and started spouting some of the stuff that goes around comments, you’d be pretty upset.

So if I get to choose a table at a nice restaurant with nice courteous people, why can’t I choose the same on a website?

If I go to a science mag blog I don’t want anti science, anti vaccine, anti evolution conversations. Those are settled issues in my book.

Maybe to some people, that means I’m in an “echo chamber” but honestly to me it simply means my bar for conversations is much much higher. And if someone can’t meet it they’re not invited to my table.

And if a place of patronage allows anyone to come in and harass its customers, because “feee speech” and preventing “echo chambers” I go elsewhere.

I’ve spent to much time on HN for instance dealing with misinformation or as you put it “non truth based” and for me that means things that are not verifiable, non factual, based primarily in prejudice. I usually come to HN to read technology and science news, and have come to expect a level of discussion that includes a certain level of intelligence. However on many occasions I end up seeing comments hashing out the same old prejudiced political view points over and over. So my use of HN has dropped and will probably continue to drop. Mostly I scan comments rather than read most of them as I used to.

I’m sure at some point everyone will get tired of these echo free chambers because they are simply too draining. They lead to anger and angst when actually having to deal with other’s view points in the real world.

Echo free leads to more polarization, not less. The Facebook/Twitter era has more than proved that.

Edit: Another area I’m tired of dealing with in comments.l: moderation being called “censorship”. Censorship requires an authority that can prohibit behavior at a public level. Asking people to behave, act, or talk in specific ways is not “censorship”, especially when it’s done in a private sphere, as on a website’s comment section. You’re free to do or say things in your private space without my interference, but you don’t get to enforce that on my private space or a websites private space. Calling comment moderation “censorship” is so disconnected from the actual history of true censorship, it’s an insult to the word.
It's gotten to the point where if I saw "Software Engineer - Reddit" on a candidate's resume, I would seriously question this person's chops, even if it's just one small signal in an otherwise great background. How did this site's quality to get so poor? Why couldn't you do anything about it? It's so bad that you have to believe it was deliberately made bad.
Let's face it, it would end up as "JScript". What we now know as "JScript" would probably become "MScript" or something.
Whenever I put a google search down, and see one page of Pinterest on there I immediately go back to the search box and go for; “-site:pinterest.*”. I absolutely hate that site with a passion.
Games are real time in the sense that their response window is 1/[desired frame rate] of-a-second. As far as hard realtime systems go, they're some of the slowest.
Have you looked into the Warsaw Calculation of calculating insulin? I did it for awhile and pretty interesting. Only real issue is its pretty inconvenient, requires breaking up doses more. But it also takes into account for fats and proteins into the insulin calcuation. I dont remember what, but say your carb ration is 1:10, you would calulate a protein as maybe 1:25 and fat as 1:30 (theres some assigned value is the point iirc - dont use these numbers )
> the barrier to buying a domain is so low

This suggests that one way of making spam unprofitable would be to require any domain which sends email to put up a bond of $100 which is forfeited if any of the big four email providers decide that the domain is sending spam.

To make this acceptable to public opinion, the forfeited bonds would to go directly to popular charities, and all existing domains would be automatically grandfathered in, so there would be no extra cost for any current business or user.
They probably are, but I think an underreported phenomenon here is that tendentious and annoying comments are disproportionately driven by a few outlier commenters, and when you ask for $1/mo, they'll pay just to have an entitlement to continue the behavior.
The government is giving out COVID vaccines. Appointments are free, but still difficult to come by due to limited quantities. Do you really want bots reserving all the appointments?
The word "destroy" is questionable. These types of user-hostile patterns may in fact be needed to secure revenue or to exist at all.

The standard internet user doesn't pay for anything and increasingly blocks ads. That's why these patterns exist.

Surely it would feel uneasy to developers with a passion for UX, but there's nothing you can do about it. Go ahead and quit, it's not going to be very hard to find another developer willing to do it for 200K.
> 48-bit static IP addresses. 70 trillion should be enough. 128 bits was overkill

The least significant 64 bits in IPv6 are used for link-layer addressing, which is how IPv6 supplants older L2 protocols (ARP etc) with NDP etc, thereby fixing (or at least improving) some significant issues with larger IPv4 subnet scalability/reliability