skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have no doubt you will receive remarks about whataboutism, maybe rightly, but I find this peculiar too.

On one hand there is a personified "evil", which we are very good at handling mentally, dishing out imaginary punishments, righting their wrong etc. On the other hand there is a faceless corporate entity that not only scales massively in their "evil" but also in a way that is not quite intelligible to us right away. And our minds immediately flow to the more graspable object which is the cop, even though the cumulative harm of automated rent seeking is probably greater.
To piggy back on another person...I'd say "ramen profitable"....means maybe something like 2-3k per month recurring income, with maybe 5-10 hours of maintenance required to run the application.
It's a cartel of violence monopolies putting together a deal to raise their protection tax.
Checkout framework laptop [0]. Pretty sick. It's a really modular laptop focused on reusability. I would order one if they accepted crypto.

0: https://frame.work/
The GND included universal healthcare and jobs programs, both of which are the biggest line items in the AAF estimates. They estimated the cost of dealing with carbon emissions at around $7 trillion. And that money is largely for capital expenditures, which anyone who has half a brain would finance over 20-30 year period. And a large chunk of that $7 trillion can be passed off to utility rate payers over that time period with barely a noticeable increase in rates based on how cheap renewables are getting.

Also, AAF can hardly be trusted to fairly evaluate the cost/benefits. A slight increase in utility bills pales in comparison to having to abandon your house due to increased flooding due to climate change. It is funny how when they are doing analysis of tax cuts, they turn over every stone looking to squeeze out questionable "economic productivity" increases to add to their models, and yet when it comes to climate change, they just throw out a bunch of big numbers and call it a day.
I clicked through to the actual poll, and just for some context the actual poll is from 2018.

Not that I think attitudes are likely to have changed substantially, but after the power grid collapses in both Texas and California it is possible that there has been movement towards recognizing that there are costs we will pay one way or another and that paying them while also having reasonable climate is much more comfortable in the long term.

It's a good point though, asking whether someone believes climate change is real is a very low bar. It's like literacy rates, the rate depends on what grade level you define as literate. Once literacy gets high enough for a given definition you have to make the criteria more stringent to see differences. So step 1 is "is this real" and step 2 is "what would you sacrifice to stop it". We're still barely past step 1...
Just before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages doesn't have to match the legal definition.
Monitors have other purposes of TVs, the things that are important on a monitor are not the same on a TV, and a good monitor doesn't necessary mean that it's a good TV or vice versa.

See the same difference in the audio world: there is monitor/studio equipment that has the purpose of reproducing the sound as closely as possible to the original media, and then there is listening equipment that is meant to make the sound more enjoyable for the listener.

Monitors also doesn't include a TV receiver. While that can be an advantage in countries like mine for people that wants only to look at internet content since if you have a TV with a receiver you have to pay a tax, it doesn't work for people that just want's to watch TV, meaning connecting the power and aerial cable to the TV and use it. You need an external decoder, that needs to have a separate remote control, you then need two power outlets, more cables, you then have to install the decoder somewhere, it's not as clean as having it integrate in the TV itself.

I think especially at my grandma, that doesn't have internet, and wants a TV that is as simple as possible, press 1 on the remote and the TV turns on at the channel 1. Press volume up/down and the power button. Nowadays it's difficult to find TV with that requisite, modern remotes have a ton of buttons what will bring up functionalities that then are difficult to exit, especially for an 85 years old woman that never used a computer or a smartphone or anything other than a TV and the landline phone.
Or an attorney.
> He is just playing it for those immediately around him. That doesn't count as a public performance

That literally is the definition of "public performance." He is in public, playing for an audience that is not his private close family and friends.

> By your logic, if someone is playing music in a park or beach, I could start filming them and they'd have to turn it off. Obviously that is ridiculous.

You can't perform publicly without the copyright holder's permission regardless of whether someone is filming you. You have to turn it off anyway, recording or not. I agree that this is a ridiculous part of copyright law and should not exist. I'm leveraging the system we have here to fight oppression.

The fact that he plays it knowing that it is being filmed for broadcast is what adds the "willful" piece to the already "infringement" piece of the public performance.

I'm not making a normative argument here - copyright law in the US is asinine and needs major reform. I'm just combing through this like a determined prosecutor/RIAA goon would, looking for the right charge.
Leap (https://leap.so) | Full Time | SF Bay Area ONSITE | Founding Team

Leap is the social learning community for people 55+. We are building a platform to power classes and conversations in small groups, over audio and video.

Our north star is helping foster more meaningful connections among a community that is traditionally underserved by tech.

Founders are myself (formerly co-founder/CTO of Screenhero) and Caroline Ingeborn (formerly CEO of Toca Boca, making awesome iPhone games for kids).

Come join the founding team! We're looking for:

* Founding Engineer: https://www.notion.so/foundingteamleap/Founding-Engineer-1a2...

* Founding Designer: https://www.notion.so/foundingteamleap/Founding-Designer-c0e...

Email me directly at vishal [at] leap.so
> 118 degrees Fahrenheit (48 degrees Celsius)
i wish there was a service that would just tell me what fees i needed to pay. this was a big pain in the butt and most of the value i paid for for professional help.
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: PHP, Python, JavaScript, MySQL, Postgres, Terraform, Docker, Jenkins, Gitlab, Azure, GCP
Résumé/CV: https://jon.camp/bell/resume.pdf
Email: campbell.jonathanc@gmail.com

I'm a Director of Engineering who's built multiple departments, including one of ~55 engineers. I've managed both ICs and reporting managers. Currently looking for a new role with a similar-sized reporting line.
I just use the Best Buy warranty. I always buy it and haven't paid for a laptop since the one I went to university with. I just buy the warranty again. On my fourth laptop now.
If you look up the many settlements made by newspapers in the UK concerning hacking phones etc you will see 'damages'. To give one example:

"Rather than fight the claims against the Sun in court, when they would have been set out in more detail in front of a judge, Murdoch’s company has instead agreed to pay substantial damages to settle the case. "

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/10/sun-publisher-...
Like others said, this isn't EMI, it's induction. And almost all electronic devices are vulnerable to it. Magnetic fields cannot be blocked yet the path field lines can be redirected, this is called shielding. It's not a panacea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding#Magn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction
I still don't read it that way, or at least I think there's more to it.

What he's expressing is a structural property ("logical consequence") of representative authority, applied to information, much like it is applied to power in democracy.

The point is that there's always a limit to informed consent, and that technocracy/"government of experts" is more or less an inevitable property of ("true") democracy itself rather than a choice.

That consent can only ever be misinformed is the point or at least the argument debated here.
Now they can still shop around, but probably on all the benefits they will receive.
It's copyright law that's broken. Youtube and etc are just an ugly stack of mismatched patterned band-aids covering a large infected wound that really needs antibiotics and not just bandaids.
No one is suggesting that recording the police should be disallowed. I'd argue its a critically important piece of balance between the police and citizens; at worst, it can tell a different angle of the same story, and at best it can fight against corruption which does exist (e.g. not wearing body cams, lying, computer glitch lost the bodycam footage, etc).

The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used. Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy, impossible to legislate boundary.

A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at fault.

A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality or corruption, which does happen (especially outside developed nations).

YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the single place for all internet video. Stop letting the algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos. Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry? Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world better", but destruction never ends this way.

You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can take it". Its still escalation, and they can take it. Do you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War? Do you enjoy the fact that officers approach cars pulled over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred pounds on each side breaks.
I mean, I do take issue with that. But police officers behaving inappropriately is a MUCH larger problem, and so the focus on my concern.
> I have to log in with the nonexistent account, in order to unsub

I would consider this a CAN-SPAM violation. You can have your representative and AG apply some pressure.
Young people HAVE the most opportunity to accumulate wealth.

Who will have more wealth at 70 when investing in an S&P 500 index fund? A 10 YO investing $10/month or a 50 YO investing $50/month?

The 10 YO will have twice as much wealth while only investing half as much.
> any sort of generic ordered container that supports O(n) iteration must necessarily require O(n log n) work to construct in the average case

This doesn't apply if the order you want is insertion order.

These hash maps are constructed in O(n) on average, just like any other hash maps.

Java's LinkedHashMap is also constructed in O(n).
One key difference is that my wife is a badass React engineer. She's a more capable dev than I am in many respects -- perhaps most of them.

With her salary covering life expenses, my salary will be going straight into the bank. That means I can aim as high as I want; the higher, the quicker we'll hit that $1M mark. I estimate somewhere in the 10 to 15 year range, which also happens to coincide nicely with the (unfortunate) transition toward management as you get older, since that tends to come with yet more pay boost.

$1M isn't a lot. But it's FU money for us, because we have simple tastes. Fooling around with electronics, traveling wherever we want, having a multi-floor house; these things are doable on much less than a mil.

So you're right. I won't be buying a Tesla on a whim. But I won't want to.

We're immensely privileged as software engineers to have this kind of leverage. Most people -- the vast, vast majority of the world -- don't lead such comfortable lives. I intend to exploit that privilege to the fullest, in order to build the best life possible for my kiddos.

Then watch as they screw it all up, ha. But I'm fine with that too.
Thank you, I needed to read this.
talk about counting your chickens before they hatch..
"I noticed some white smoke at the south end of town and within 15 to 20 minutes, the whole town was engulfed in flame." -- town mayor

That is terrifying speed.
> Why should a social media provider, who is ultimately a dumb conduit for the public town square like any other telecom service, be able to do so?

I think you're begging the question here. It's not clear they're conduits - they're arguably at one end of the conduit. They arguably abut the town square (the internet at large), but that's not the same as being the town square.

> Why not just treat political opinion as a protected trait as well?

Lots of reasons. If you think about it for a minute or two, you can probably think of several.

> They are effectively governments when it comes to their ability to shut down speech

You mean "their ability to shut down speech on their own property, and nowhere else", which is different. So, yes, they're effectively governments on their own turf, much like the owner of a popular bar. Even if the bar is the the de-facto "town square" of some isolated hamlet where the townsfolk routinely gather to discuss the issues of the day.
Falling 200feet isn't necessary fatal if you are riding the floor down and the structure is collapsing 10 feet at a time as the accordion collapses.
Seawater Greenhouse
I know the purpose of this is really to avoid the clip going viral but I’m curious whether there have been any cases addressing whether this situation could fall under fair use with respect to the person recording? Videos like this are usually newsworthy (and not made for commercial purposes) and the copyrighted material is incidental to the purpose of the recording.

I suppose I’m wondering whether this is an actual potential legal issue for the people making/posting these videos or whether the only issue is the headache of YouTube’s takedown process? If someone posts a video like this how likely is it they’ve infringed on someone else’s copyright? Being careful not solicit legal advice maybe a better question is, what factors would be relevant to weighing whether or not the video infringes on the copyright?

I guess it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around how there could be infringement without the (intentional?) misappropriation of the work.
I know. I agree. I didn't disagree with the original statement.
StackPath | Software Engineer | Full-time | United States | REMOTE | https://www.stackpath.com/

We are seeking to hire a CI/CD Engineer with solid understanding of C++ build system using Make/Cmake and also modern Build Systems like Bazel. Your primary responsibility will be to design and develop modernize C++ Build System. You will be working closely with C++ Development team.

See full job description and APPLY: https://stackpath.applytojob.com/apply/AT5vjBUbGI/Software-E...
I don't know what to tell you apart from that's not what 'fraud' is in practice. Things being not what you want and someone having spent money does not equal fraud. You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.

I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than that.
As a normal guy, it is hard to understand the extremes to which a company will avoid taxes, basically getting all the profit to it's stakeholders, and none to the ones who made it possible for them to succeed (the workers, the ones who built the roads, the ones who provides the education to their kids...)
Sahara Forest Project
How to get the balance of an ERC-20 token
What do you like doing in the moment?

Does being 'great' (or rich, famous, powerful, etc) let you get to that thing you enjoy? What is the value in being 'great'?

When I think about 'why' I want those things, I often realize they're dumb human status-seeking things. In the end just create more stress. The reality is I just find joy in the work itself, and am happiest when I can let go of those other things.

Further, the reality is there's not a single dimension to measure people. Everyone has unique superpowers and weaknesses. The dimensionality on how someone can be "great" is so massive to be useless.
Sounds plausible, I'm voting for that explanation. Would be easier if Amazon was transparent about the real reason instead of giving a PR reason
Magnet in Apple devices is not EMI. How do I know? I had to certify one device for EMI.

Magnets cause no harm to pacemakers, though a large enough magnet could disable it permanently (that would have to be a really strong, large magnet, though).

Pacemakers are designed so that they are disabled by magnet. This is used in case the device malfunctions. Rather than cut up the person in a hurry, you can just use a magnet to stop the pacemaker from causing damage.

Any person that wears pacemaker will know how it works and will not put any electronics in their shirt pocket.

Here you can see pacemaker teardown on EEVblog, showing the reed switch that responds to magnet to cut power to the device: https://youtu.be/sNW3Xqtgkus?t=696

Magnets were chosen for this because they are universally available and if you wear a pacemaker that misbehaves it is easy to find magnet or ask somebody else to find a magnet and bring it to your chest.
DeepFake Arnold and Stallone Channel
I don't buy this. Some Acer laptops in the past have required that you set a Supervisor BIOS password in order to change the Secure Boot settings, but after you do that you can set the password to blank to clear it again.
In all the cases I've seen, the password can be bypassed with a password reset using SMS, thus SMS becomes 1FA.

What if someone stole my phone and I'm unable to instantly get a replacement? I don't want to be locked out of my account either.
Regardless of the fact that this is not EMI, putting a strong passive magnet in a phone is just asking for trouble. Not only can it interfere with medical devices, but it will also gather up iron particles in the environment that will scratch up the back of your phone.

I use a wireless charging pad regularly and have no trouble aligning the phone. It's not like the alignment needs to be perfect, it can be an inch or more off-center and it will still charge fine. I think the solution is worse than the problem here.
>and by selling order flow to someone who will internalize it at the worst legal price possible, they are intentionally failing to fill an order at the best possible price.

AFAIK they have duty of best execution, so they're supposed get the best price irrespective of PFOF. Obviously this conflicts with their own incentives, but that's what the laws are for.

>RobinHood also features various dark patterns that are designed to remove money from the pockets of their users and put it into their own pockets. Off the top of my head, I can list the following:

I'm not a user so I didn't know any of these. Thanks for bringing these up. Informed complaints like these are far better than the "they're front running you!" complaints that people seem to repeat endlessly.
The reason we haven't solved climate change is just because it's an incredibly hard problem, and we just flat out don't have a political consensus and clear mandate from the people to take the sort of drastic and incredibly costly steps it would take. Changing direction like that is a political problem first and an economic problem second.

As for Exxon, they may be scumbags and need reigning in, but basically they are just a business providing a service. We all consume fossil fuels all the time, and we need someone to buy them from. The way to reduce fossil fuel dependency isn't to just kill the oil companies, we'd kill our economies with them. We need to wean ourselves off the poison. We need to stop being their customer, not blame the shop for selling us the goods we went to the shop to buy.

I'm not sure what you mean by absolute private ownership of capital. We don't have that in an absolute sense at all. We confiscate capital through taxation (which I'm fine with by the way), we regulate markets (which is a necessary function of government), the government controls the money supply and directly manipulates financial markets all the time as is needed. The government is a massive employer and huge spender in the economy. I'm a Brit actually, but all of that is true of every liberal democracy. Heck, I even support the NHS, I think it's far better than the US model. However capitalism is fundamentally about individual rights and freedoms, not absolute ones, but valuable ones. I'm a wishy-washy centrist, and proud of it.
Evenly distributing the revenue assumes the effect of the negative externality (climate change) is evenly distributed. But climate change tends to harm poorer people more than richer people, so it makes sense to distribute more revenue to them.
So if you seize all the wealth of the top 1% you'll pay for ~7 years of something that no one claims will actually solve climate change.

Maybe we could buy some healthcare or bike paths or something. The important thing is seizing the wealth of the 1%.
> Who is actually going to pay for this in the end?

The companies them selfs I presume. If tax evasion is a necessary requirement for the existence of multinational companies, or—in other words—if multinational companies need government subsidies to stay afloat, perhaps they can just die in bankruptcy.

More realistically, the companies will do just fine paying their fare share of their profits back to the states that provide them with infrastructure and skilled workers. I mean it is not like a multi-million dollar yacht for your CEO is necessary for the company to continue its operation.
Funnily enough, Wave discontinued their receipt scanning feature this month.
They still show the player controls as an overlay the whole time as the video is paused. For me, turning the player controls from a bar below the video into an overlay that dynamically comes and goes is the defining moment when YouTube became unusable. It's simply impossible to read slides in some videos because you'd have to pause them to read all of it, but then the bottom part of the slide becomes unreadable. How was anyone able to arrive at the conclusion that this would be a smart thing to do for a video player?
Is this true? I play music on the street sometimes. Am I violating the law?

Seriously concerned. Not that I want to defend the cop (o haven’t watched the video), but I feel that if we start enforcing these restrictions we are going to get ourselves into a rabbit hole of no fun.
Not to be rude, but who cares?

The premise underlying the question is that mostly everyone is obsessed with fame and impractical expectations of success. I would say that maybe that does exist, at least in some cultures. I would say the first thing to acknowledge in changing that is that the teacher, parent, [other] who instilled these ideas in you were wrong. This should lead to the realization that much of what society has "taught" us was more of an indoctrination rather than a truly objective evaluation of the concepts presented to us and those concepts discovered in other ways/forums.