skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is fairly accurate, based on my understanding of how our reserve currency system works (in the US). However, it's not quite accurate that printing more money doesn't create wealth.

The ability of our financial system to create more money (print) allows lenders to lend more money, which translates to growth, assuming the debt created is used for something that can generate wealth (like creating a small business or buying an asset that appreciates).

Furthermore, the US centralized banking system has helped developing nations to grow, as we've lent those nations money. So - the US printed more money to lend to foreign nations, who used the money to develop their countries, improving mortality rates, poverty rates, etc, all while the US GDP continues to grow with those countries. It's not just wealth redistribution, it's wealth creation.

All that said, it's not a system without flaws. The system has effectively exported the US labor force to those developing countries. The environmental costs of exporting labor are massive. Not all money loaned out has been used well. Our monetary policy has (most likely) pushed us into wars (WMDs anyone? No? Ok. Don't sell oil in Euros).
> I prefer ads that are relevant for me over random ads

I froze up the first time someone said this to me. Of course I prefer random ads, cause this way they're less likely to push the right buttons on my vulnerable monkey-ass brain. Do people think tailored ads are good for them instead of consumerism triggers? Messed up worldview.
My rule of thumb: if the choices are A) "maybe I'm just not aware of the common verbiage in [technical] circles" that I'm not a part of or B) "a little sloppy for" the multiple layers of experts involved in choosing and approving a title in a flagship science journal, it's very very likely to be A.
At least I'm still allowed to have what ever kind of thoughts I want, or will we advance enough technologically to start censoring those as well, you know, your right to think what ever you want isn't absolute, you know...
I agree. That’s why I mostly use Eshell in Emacs, but if for some reason I’m in a stand-alone terminal emulator and need some advanced editing capabilities ^X ^E saves the day by firing up Emacs on the current input.
What else would you call the Play Store on which the vast, vast majority of Android users acquire apps? Please don't bring up F-Droid or the Amazon App Store as alternatives, that's just a joke compared to the sheer volume of app installs (and more importantly, purchases) on the Play Store.
> The same table stores: Addresses (primary, secondary), sex, names (up to 3), date of birth, what currency, and many MANY more values.

Some denormalization is sometimes warranted. As for the rest I agree with you. Sounds like madness.
Dostman
Do Mac apps stay functional for long without work put into maintenance by their developers, with all the breaking changes introduced by Apple?
yet another open source postman alternative REST client
There are a lot of buttons without labels, please consider adding alt/title/aria attributes at the minimum. The simulation page is a sea of unlabeled buttons.
I take this comment to mean that you had crypto investments that worked out well for you, and then you took a DeFi loan against them to pay off your student loans?

If so, that doesn't seem that groundbreaking. You could have simply liquidated enough of your gains to pay your student loans off. Instead, you're now in a leveraged position. It's very possible that your collateral could drop below the LTV threshold, causing a liquidation, which would magnify the losses you'd have if you weren't levered. There's no free lunch.

It's certainly interesting that DeFi creates new schemes for creating leverage, with minimal intermediation, but I wouldn't call it groundbreaking. It's an incremental development in financial engineering.

EDIT: read some of your other comments that you made while I was writing mine. It sounds like you're using stablecoins as your collateral, which seems like a smart move, and you've effectively converted your student loan into a DeFi loan at a lower rate. But I'd still be concerned that while your more mundane risks aren't that high (like asset prices and interest rates), you may have exposure to more complex risks.
Most capital is inherited. No amount of hard work will make up for that.

The very notion of private property exists to maintain that inherited capital, with state violence.

Is that moral? Why?
Nancy and Paul Pelosi Making Millions in Stock Trades in Companies She Regulates
People like to forget that having 37 windows open with netscape was possible, but it would regularly crash and take all 37 windows with it. Also, all 37 tabs were likely displaying pages that looked like HN or lite.cnn.com

Software isn't really that bloated, it's the content.

In the 90s if you had a video on a website it was things like 320x240 at 15fps. If you had a jpeg it was probably 640x480, and there might have been one or two on a page.

If I load https://flickr.com/ it sends down a 2000x1333 background image that is almost 700K. On my dialup connection in the 90s that would have taken almost 5 minutes to load. The image likely takes 5MB of ram (or at least gpu memory?) to display.

Looking at flickr snapshot from 2004, the entire page is 300K.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040701020748/http://flickr.com...

Sure, some JS stuff is bloated, but you can remove all the JS in the world and it won't change the fact that images are 10 times the size that they used to be.

The one thing that likely uses more resources is the per-tab sandboxing browsers do now.
Most executives I've known use a web portal for sensitive emails and communicating with one another. Usually these portals have something like "Secure Email" in the name, but they are really just a web interface to email that limits what can go to whom, has data retention policies and usually multi-factor authentication. Courts can get the emails from these providers assuming the provider is legit and law abiding and reside in a country where law enforcement have jurisdiction. Some are not. The executives can be compelled to turn over authentication.
Thanks for the reply. Question though. in Cantor's argument we explicitly mapped the reals to aleph-0 so it makes sense that our conclusion decides that mapping to aleph-0 is too small so it's size must be larger.

Where in the forcing process do we even "use" aleph-1? If we used aleph-1 then it could see the parallels and the argument would make sense - but all I see in the forcing process is "start with a set of all reals". Nothing about trying to map them to aleph-1. Maybe it's implicit, but couldn't I have just changed step 1 to instead be "start with a list of size aleph-90, then use forcing to prove that the reals are larger than aleph-90." In Cantor's argument it feels like we "used" the natural numbers. Here it seems more like we said take an arbitrary number of them and see this one isn't in it. But that arbitrary number of them (aleph-1) could've been any arbitrary number of them because we never really used any property of the set being aleph-1 vs aleph-90.
My idea? FB app stores data locally, uses this local data to pull ads onto your phone to be served/rendered. Don't need to send user data out. Just identify the ads this phone should be targeted by and render them as needed.

Good point about the scanning, though. These scumbags certainly would try to pull something like that off.
The Visceral Theory of Sleep
Best Time to Move from Microsoft Dynamics GP to Business Central?
The article isn't about how many types - or rather cardinalities (sizes) - of infinity exist, it's about which of those cardinalities describes the real numbers.

"Countably" infinite sets have cardinality Aleph_0, the "smallest infinite size". There is an infinity of "larger infinite sizes", all of which are "uncountable", so to refer to a set as "uncountably infinite" doesn't pin down which particular cardinality it has.

The article is about what specific cardinality the set of real numbers has, and in particular whether it's Aleph_1 or Aleph_2 as it seems less likely to be any of the infinite other possibilities.
That's not what people who advocate for absolute free speech think. It is an aspect of our broader right to liberty: the right to take such actions as each of us judges proper, so long as we do not initiate force against others. Defamation laws protect are to protect people who feel have been subject to libel speech in a way that affects their reputation or careers for example.
How to build a YouTube downloader in Python
I have yet to hear anyone give me a coherent explanation of why a monorepo is better.
> It’s a weird thing about academics — they like to write papers and “share ideas”, but it’s very hard to get source code from them.

I suppose at least part of the reason, especially for things like crypto and statistics, is that they don't want to get bogged down in plausibly-correct claims of fatal flaws, and be perhaps repeatedly (over years hence) put in a defensive position of having to prove the criticism incorrect or have everyone assume the work was wrong?

I can sort of understand that. The same's true for the papers themselves of course, but I can see it being more annoying for code. ('But it's never going to actually be in that state', etc.)
You are correct that in Node.JS a module is just a function that can be re-used in more than one app. But as making a module is the only way to separate your code into several files and folders in Node.JS - Node.js developers also make "modules" that can not be re-used in other apps - so while one app depends on them, other apps can't depend on them and they are not published on the NPM registry... One cool thing about Node.JS modules is that you can import/require them inside main! So whether or not a function is in main or not only says how the developer likes to structure/place the functions. It's rare, but the best programmers I know likes to have all "dependencies" inside the same file - so basically they do not use any dependencies ...
That's true, but I agree with the parent comment that 'contract' implies an initial negotiation and optional agreement, and none of us had that negotiation nor option. It's just a misleading term to use, so it seems like a bit of sophistry.
The non-sandwich analogy is called Hilbert’s hotel.

Saying that two sets have the same cardinality is equivalent to them having a bijection between them.

So the claim is that the natural numbers and the natural numbers plus a sandwich have the same cardinality. This can be proved by the bijection:

0 -> sandwich
1 -> 0
2 -> 1
3 -> 2
.
.
.
n -> n-1
.
.
.

There is actually more though! If you had an infinite but countable amount of sandwiches (that is a sandwich for every natural number), that plus the natural numbers still has the same cardinality as just the natural numbers. There, the bijection is

0 -> sandwich_0
1 -> 0
2 -> sandwich_1
3 -> 1
4 -> sandwich_2
5 -> 2
.
.
.

No natural number or sandwich is left out by this mapping.
>My question is, why is this empirical data not "good enough" for mathematicians?

There are two reasons: firstly, because mathematics is not an empirical discipline (well, unless you're a number theorist...), so it is possible to be certain of mathematical truth, unlike the inherent uncertainty of physical truth; secondly, because every finite bound on the natural numbers may as well be 0 when compared to the numbers that remain.

There is simply no way to take any empirical measurements of the natural numbers (or the reals) that would let you estimate anything "for all numbers", since the proportion of numbers you failed to sample is infinite.

You may be interested in reading the answers to this question:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/514/conjectures-tha...
which describes some problems which seemed true "up to some large number", but later turned out to be false.
Pacificforest.org is not exactly a neutral source, and that's a pretty confusing article (are they talking about sequestering in plant material, or respiration?). In terms of annual growth (which is a decent proxy for the amount sequestered from the atmosphere), trees peak (the culmination of the periodic annual increment), and then every year sequester less than the year before. See page 3 here [1]. There's a reason they mention 90 years as that's approximately the culmination of mean annual increment (the highest average growth over a rotation) for PNW douglas fir forests, which is what Pacific Forest Trust principally focuses on. A very old forest reaches statis and stops sequestering carbon all together, and as we see in the intermountain west, they can become very large sources of emissions as you lose forests to stochastic events like fire.
The National University of Singapore did a study too.
https://www.nuhs.edu.sg/sites/nuhs/NUHS%20Assets/News%20Docu...
The Most Impactful Innovation from Movie Theaters in the Last 20 Years
People already ask questions like "but why are my feelings less important than your ability to say what you want". If more people fall for this, I believe we will inevitably reach that point.
Great comment. Thanks for the correction.
I didn't mean it to be an accusation, although I see how it could be seen as such. So apologies!

Praktische Konkordanz gets very technical fast, but if you have a limitless basic right (so that the Basic Law doesn't spell out limits itself – freedom of art would be such a limitless basic right), it may only be limited by other basic rights.

If I paint a picture on the wall of your house, a surface reading or literal interpretation of the Basic Law might come to the result that since the exercise art is free, nobody can stop me.

Obviously that would be stupid. :-)

But in order to limit that basic right we need to find another basic right that is being infringed upon by the limitless exercise of the first basic right.

In this case the most obvious one is the right to property.

And then you get a lot of legal analysis why in this specific case limiting the right to free exercise of art should indeed be limited, and where exactly the limit lies.

I mean it's all obvious, right? I doubt that any legal order would actually use strict priorities to basic rights, but that's my point: if you spell out scenarios Schmidt's words aren't improper, nor surprising.

She could mean something broader, more nefarious, but just from reading those words I can only conclude this is totally common interpretation of laws and constitutions.

People on Twitter just choose to interpret those words unfairly, because… Facebook.
Shouldn't CLA mitigate all/most of your concerns as the maintainer? Can you elaborate on your concerns?
It's the same as voting. You give everyone a vote because that is the least exploitable, fairest approach given the situation. You don't try to determine who is "most qualified to vote" because you end up with what the republicans are doing now. The likelihood that you accidentally recruit a power hungry dictator by virtue of his random selection to some position of power is much less than that individual maliciously seeking it of his/her own volition.
Probably something new that’s worse than lootboxes as more and more of the world wises up to them.

I get the jest, but hiring a former Zynga and EA executive seems like a pretty smart move to me. EA has sold people the same sports games every year, for what 30 years? That’s the kind of executive experience that an enterprise organisation cares about.
This is really pretty but I personally appreciate the onboarding speed of cfiresim.com much more. Way easier to save multiple models and I can actually understand what the graph is telling me a little easier. I'll be honest, if I'd never seen one of these graphs before I doubt I'd understand the mobile version of yours. No idea what the different colors mean or what all the icons refer to.
Why not just install a good ad blocker in your browser?
It's a virtue because it maintains balance between the two extremes of passiveness and aggressiveness. If you're being bully and a blowhard, then you're clearly being aggressive, not assertive.
You should be able to set up one plan where you rent, then clone that plan and make some changes to add a house, and flip back and forth between the two plans to see the differences. Or, another way to do it is to make a single plan for renting but then add a house asset to it configured to cancel rent expenses when in effect, which you can toggle on and off by clicking the icon. When you add a house to a plan, it should ask you whether you'll be paying in full or financing it. If the latter, then it should provide options for interest rate, down payment, monthly payment, and such.
I mean this is America-specific so "NTSC" is fine, especially that it is still used as a shorthand for "American standards for standard definition" in certain areas of videography.
> ...but more about using that information as a way to try to pressure Facebook to censor content they don't like.

That's far too simplistic of a take. Facebook and social media amplifying partisan shit-stirrers and misinformation over more sober voices should be seen as a serious issue, regardless of your ideological commitments.
Is that a list that can be easily exported/imported?
Maybe this is a regional thing. In the U.K. have a few arcades like you describe but the vast majority of arcades are side businesses and populated with gambling machines. You see them in places like bowling alleys, sea side amusements, larger family camp sites, etc. Most of those places might throw in an air hockey and pool table or two but aside from that it’s just ticket machines.
Excellent deep dive on this beast that had me similarly question my intelligence in the past.

As a former academic: the reason sharing source code is/was rare is that it tends to be extremely ugly, and that you don’t get any credit for publishing it where it matters (I. e. tenure committees). To go from something that works to something that you would allow people to see takes about as much time as the original work.

(As a side note: I feared for the worst when I saw, among tags like “hacking” and “open source”, the tag “feminism” in the side bar. I enjoyed being wrong.)
Drive Pilot
The cardinality of infinite sets is unintuitive. We can create a one to one correspondence between the Naturals+Sandwich set and the Naturals set (for example, assign sandwich to 0, 0 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc). That means they have the same cardinality.

It's even possible to add an infinite number of elements to an infinite set and retain the same cardinality (the Integers set has the same cardinality as the Naturals set).
Also in: https://github.com/shadiabuhilal/rtl-detect/issues/11
I live in Austin right now after almost a decade in the Bay. It's nice and I can see why people like it: it's got more of the kind of vibe which lets you raise a family - very suburban, relatively cheap (wrt the Bay Area), people will say hi on the street, stuff like that. San Francisco is a city, though, as small as it is, in a way that Austin isn't, as big as it is.

Just like London and New York City are in a different class from little SF.

The heat is kind of unfortunate, but I can tell you that sitting in an air-conditioned home looking out at a sunny day beats sitting in a heated home looking out at a foggy day for me. I wish SF didn't have the fog and was all sunny all the time.

The only thing is the politics, though. Texas politics, which leaks to Austin, is very top-down big-government. SF and maybe CA politics is more personal freedom. Lots more taxes and corruption in CA, as far as I can see, but definitely more personal freedom too (except in gun rights).
To give a concrete example for you, lets start with the finite set:

{0.22, 0.32, 0.33}

We now construct a new number in this way:

First digit of the first number is 2, so we take 3 which is different as our first digit.

First digit of the second number is 3 so we take 2 as our second number. Now we have 0.32

First digit of the third number is 3 so we take 0 as our third number.

We've constructed the number: 0.320 = 0.32 which is in the set already. So this construction method doesn't guarantee that it's a new number, only that it's different from the first.

With Cantor's Diagonalization argument we guarantee it's different from the first number since it's different in the first digit, then we guarantee it's different from the second since it's different in the second digit, etc. etc. it's different from all the numbers in our list.

To take the same set above as an example, we end up creating a number like: 0.318 which is definitely different from the numbers in the set
I've resisted - for too long? - submodules as I've always heard they can be problematic; that the actual implementation isn't quite what I should be.
There is a good video about that on Numberfile[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TkIe60y2GI
For me, it varied. In the beforetimes, sometimes I walked into the first onsite interview and the technical interviewer had printed it out!
> stable commercial product by 1980

This is not true. Even the Smalltalk-80 Blue Book wasn't released until 1983.

> If you can't build adoption with a 15+ year head start

Historical context is important here. FOSS etc were not nearly as prevalent as they are now, and most major development environments had a price. The main Smalltalk players probably got it wrong by pricing out expensive licensing fees. But the head start does not matter when the next thing that comes along is released for free, which is what happened with Java.
For US companies, both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (for executives at public companies) and FINRA rules (for securities brokers, etc) require document retention for specific periods, for paper and electronic communications.
"That’s because a company could use what it sees as the unfair participation of a commissioner in future arguments to show the case against it was unjust."

Bingo. In my time working with patent litigators, I learned that a good lawyer always raises any issue now, so they can cite it in an appeal later.

I sat in some depositions, and the deponent's lawyer almost always said "objection as to form" for every question (unless they said "don't answer that!") That was so they could use it later if they wanted to.
He's one of the richest people in the world, with a massive interest in space & rockets, and owns the most exciting piece of space technology being built today. Where else would you spend your time in this situation?
I don't think you are disagreeing. Both can be true.

A) You are born into a system without your permission, and must abide by the rules of those in power or you will be punished.

B) Laws can also be morally sound and in place for good reason.
TD Ameritrade (thinkorswim) locked me out of my trading account months ago after buying a grand of GME and everytime I call they say they are investigating fraud. All they will let me do is tell the manager to sell and return money to my account. Hope they sink
ArenaNet: Live Game Outage Analysis
Slight disagreement - tact is not mentioning the eyebrows at all. That way you're not being even slightly false. "Those eyebrows look very unique" reads as passive aggression.
> Also people leak to reporters when they feel like they are entitled to control the direction of their organization even if they sell all the stocks immediately after the vesting.

Yeah, they do. However you're confused about the organization in question: it's the Human Society or the United States of America (or some other nation), not Facebook, Inc.
>> The FED isn’t even the problem for what you are trying to resolve. I cannot understand why people tend to focus on it.

Because they don't know what they're talking about.

I'm a capitalist with many socialist friends. I disagree with them often, but I never think that they don't know that they're talking about.

People who are hung up on The Fed aren't even wrong. They just don't know what they're talking about.