skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The thing is nobody gets to build a fortune in the billions from saving up their salary. The principal way to do it is through ownership and control of a company. So what's the alternative to private individuals founding companies, finding ways to provide valuable goods and services, employ lots of people and grow successful businesses. Is that something we want to discourage? I think we all benefit from having hard working, innovative people creating, leading and running big companies. Or even from investors deploying capital so that it grows companies and expands beneficial economic activities.

part from my first job working for the government here in the UK all my other jobs have been for companies founded and run by private individuals. They've helped me put food on my table and clothes on my children.

On the other hand I do agree that when it comes to inheritance, rent seeking, financial manipulation, etc there's a lot to do to close loopholes and create a more equitable system. There is a good argument to be made that the main reasons inequality has risen are not good ones. I do not see those as fundamentally flaws in capitalism, they're certainly flaws but you get abuses in any economic system. They're not fundamental. The Netherlands is definitely a capitalist society, but they also have a wealth tax for example. There are good arguments for land value taxes, which some countries use to good effect. There are plenty of tools available to us.
this is the problem… “california didn’t do this” “it’s not X it’s Y” - meanwhile forests burn; we’re going to die arguing. I’m going to go call my congressperson and end this frivolous argument! no offense!
> How could the eradicators detect and destroy their victims before we detected any signal at all from the victims? And why haven't the eradicators come for us yet?

Because most civilizations are probably still a 100+ light years apart and we just haven't been around and listening for that long? Even if we've theoretically had the chance to detect another early civilization the other listeners have been listening for aeons longer than us and are much better at it.
Is there a perfect productivity system?
You don't think species chauvinism is a thing? If I had to lose an interstellar war and be wiped out I'd prefer it to be a human offshoot doing it. At least that way my species survives.
This is a bit out of date, but - https://www.beckreedriden.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Non...

There are three states where non competes are essentially not permitted. California, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

Now, certainly, it's up to the company whether or not it imposes a non-compete, and to what it covers/applies to. It might be that you never took a job with one. But I've been subject to them at every place I've worked outside of California. While they haven't had any particularly large effect on me, I've definitely had to go back and read the fine print when considering a job change once or twice (not to mention when it came to hiring past colleagues).
> might be at risk of being sued.

Being alive puts you at risk of being sued. The question is whether they have a case. As you said, an actual attorney would roll their eyes, but people still get scared.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it - don't let lawyers bully you. If they have no case, that is the end of the story. If they do have a case, it gets more nuanced. But most of the time, lawyers are just sending out letters as scare tactics, with no bite to them.

Especially when it comes to non-competes, each jurisdiction is quite different. Where you live has a large impact on whether or not a lawyers pursuing a non-compete agreement actually have a case. Educate yourself on your local laws, ask an attorney, but don't let anyone bully you into holding back your own career moves.
Indeed! And in fact, there are set theorists who argue that the traditional dream solution to the continuum hypothesis, adopting new axioms, is doomed to fail, and that we should instead embrace all models of set theory, all possible universes of mathematics.

I tried to write an introduction to this "set-theoretic multiverse philosophy" which is accessible to the HN crowd here:

https://iblech.gitlab.io/bb/multiverse.html
Having worked at Google myself, quite honestly, I don't think there is a use case. Romain and Mathias are both very senior engineers. They get a lot of freedom to to work on whatever they desire.
He's gonna find all the "dead" celebrities hanging out on the dark side of the moon
> you know what really alarms me? these things are only chances on a very, very short-time scale. they are inevitable, yet no one seems alarmed when meteors come between us and the moon and we dont see it coming until hours beforehand.

That is why Elon is so hell bent on making humanity multi planetary.
>Performance-wise, some overhead may come from reference-counting the components

Well, that's what ECS gets rid of and mainly benefits from that. Doesn't returning it back mean going back to OOP? What's the point then?
If your server is really just one service on one port, I would just run mitmproxy as a reverse proxy and point your client to that (https://docs.mitmproxy.org/stable/concepts-modes/). If there are multiple services, having it running as a regular proxy sounds best to me.
> They implored me to trust that they had "never sued anyone" and "have no intentions to", and I think they honestly believe that. But then why have the non-compete at all?

Exactly. 'That's great; we can resolve that issue easily. Let's just skip the non-compete - you're not using it anyway and I'm not comfortable with it.'

EDIT: A non-lawyer's suggestion (talk to a lawyer before you do this): Skip signing or edit documents (cross out and initial sections you don't like, add words - and initial each change) and then sign and send it back. Don't say a thing; leave it to them to bring it up - most people won't bother disputing it with you.
Why would anyone come from light years away to inhabit a planet. It would be cheaper to just build habitats or colonize a planet in their solar system. There is almost nothing we can provide to a civilization capable of traversing between start systems.
As another comment said, and I can confirm from personal experience, just the fact that you need these to enforce a non-compete is no panacea. There is usually enough probable cause, or whatever legalese name it has, to take an employee to court and cause them enormous havoc and expense (UK anyway, but the rest of your post reads consistent with UK laws).

Additionally, if you think you are small fry for a firm to sue you, not necessarily. Enforcement of non-competes is just as much aimed at deterring others from trying as it is at affecting you personally, if you spread the cost for the company over the 10-20 employees who are deterred, it suddenly looks cheap.

Even if against the odds of going against a large corporation with deep pockets you eke out a win in court, you are almost certainly not getting all your money back, and none of your time and stress either.
The difference between his reading of Kitchen Confidential and Medium Raw is like night and day.
> Joe Biden says he’s going to ask the Federal Trade Commission to try to ban non-compete agreements

In the United States the Executive branch can't write their own law, even if it is to ban non-compete agreements.
Google Activates New Web Performance Metrics
Yes. To be fair though, the word "sensitive" has many meanings, some of which are contradictory to each other.

For instance I have (cannabis or not) high sensitivity to sounds, lights, art, things like that. (e.g. I can start telling you about "three sided cards" w/o trying to ham it up and have tears well in my eyes)

Any time when the volume of a P.A. system is in question I will want it softer than anybody else in the room which other people might see as "insensitive" to their needs. It is one reason why I haven't done sound work for live music for years even though I can sling an XLR cable as well as anybody else.

The "insensitive" I was talking about in the prior post is small mistakes that make "subtractions from the emotional bank account" that my wife perceives at an unconscious level but won't confront me about or will minimize at a verbal level, but have a real impact on the relationship in a long term. I am pretty sure other people would be affected similarly but I don't have the long history of observation to convince myself of it.
And did the company invoke it?
you guys are great at refuting those people with facts. Keep at it!
Sanitize Your Home or Office with a Pro Eco-Friendly Service Provider in Surrey
People can sanitize themselves but they cannot sanitize the entire house or office by themselves. For this purpose, an Eco-friendly sanitizing service in Surrey should be consumed. The service is professional enough to use chemicals for sanitizing which is eco-friendly.
Agreed, which, as an aside, is why the civil forfeiture issue is such a scandal
I think there's a popular form of argument that basically goes "The person I disagree with is wrong but more then being wrong they don't actually believe the wrong thing they're saying rather they believe something so terrible that you the listener would immediately reject them if you knew it."

The argument quickly strike at it's opponents in the worst ways as disingenuous liars and damns anyone convinced by it as an easily duped fool.

Here's the thing, while it's only marginally effective at convincing someone who disagrees with you to change their mind it's really effective at getting people who already agree with you to show support.

I understand the appeal. Actually changing anyone's mind is probably impossible. If you want someone to do something they don't want to do you need to use both empathy and intelligence to show the person why the thing they think they don't want is actually something they do want. It's really hard.

The alternative is try and make them feel bad about themselves. To get the people who already agree with you super fired up. To win utterly without compromise. I appreciate the enthusiasm but it's a total pipe dream.
It's cynical to support the firing of an executive that admits to the worst sort of extreme racism publicly as a misguided attempt to build his own brand? Lol
Yeah, there is a docking ring as a "maybe we can design something to use this in the future". Since JWST is going out to a Lagrange point it would definitely be robotic servicing at this point unless our human spaceflight capabilities expand very significantly.

The Nancy Grace Roman (formerly WFIRST) space telescope also has grappling points for robotic servicing so it is something that is being considered in designs for programs of record.
> they ask "do you have a github account?". No, I've been highly motivated not to.

I release all my projects under a fake name and fake Github for this reason. Ethically dubious, but I still get to contribute code and I have something to send a prospective employer.

When they ask why it's pseudonymous, I say "non-competes" and they nod in understanding.
Wow, I really wish he included details of how he shaped the metal parts and how he made the curved wood portions. Seems like highly specialized techniques or skills would be needed for much of this, often requiring equipment that can only be found in well-stocked university/craftsman workshops. Did he hand-make the action, for instance? That seems impossible.
Interesting - out of curiosity a few years ago, I glanced at neuralink's hiring site and was surprised to see the same. I'm sure these folks are very qualified at what they do, but if we're hoping to put these devices in humans, at some point all of the models and "hard" data will have to be matched up to something messier - disease characteristics, quality of life, etc. How many PhD EE's does it take to come up with an operational definition of things like "Depression" or "Multiple Sclerosis symptoms" so you can just "turn this activity down"? Good luck...
It's extremely beneficial to avoid uproar and having your emotions manipulated. Knowing when someone may be taking advantage of an absence of information helps you focus on real issues and not manufactured ones
Revolution of Our Times – Official Trailer [video]
De jure, maybe, but de facto it most certainly can, as the OP's anecdote attests to.
I wonder if we're making too many assumptions about how civilizations would live and spread. I've always wondered why our species puts so much focus on planetary colonization instead of building smaller habitats. We seem to assume we'll terraform Mars, maybe build habitats on some of the Jovian moons, then jump to the next star. It seems more logical to me to take the ISS and iterate on it, building larger habitats and learning how to live in them.

There could be trillions of habitats out there and we'd never know it. From small low-orbit stations orbiting home planets to larger complexes orbiting their stars instead up to generation ships moving to the next star to mine for more resources or to build more ships due to population limits being hit. Once you've perfected the building of habitats that are large enough and are tailored to your species specific needs, why mess around with planets that can kill you in so many different ways?

Maybe the reason we don't see anyone is because we can't resolve even very large habitats at light-year distances and the reason we don't run into them is because we don't have anything they can't get somewhere that isn't already inhabited. Perhaps they avoid inhabited systems because of the dangers involved.
I understand why ATLAS would need to do something like this maybe up until 10 years ago. I also understand the time and performance hard constraints the library needs to provide applications with, specially in some scientific experiments.

However, this type of static linking is very weird in today's architectures, specially when considering that an application can run anywhere, from a light bulb to a top notch server hosted in the cloud and elsewhere. It specially bugs me to think that people leading some of these projects are so stubborn to the point of not accepting the new reality imposed by today's software and system architectures.
> Researchers from Northeastern University reviewed data in Boston from 2011 to 2018, a period of both sustained growth in Airbnb listings and growing concerns about crime. They found that certain violent crimes—fights, robberies, reports of someone wielding a knife—tended to increase in a neighborhood a year or more after the number of Airbnbs increased—a sign, the researchers said, of a fraying social order.

It didn't say how many neighborhoods were analyzed. It any case it's nothing more than correlation within the data of one city. I have nothing good to say about Airbnb nor this study (as it's being described).
If they sell enough of these, some developers will naturally just start adding active support in their games for it, even if only as a switchable feature.

[×] Use settings and textures specially optimized for this device?
Mitmproxy was an interesting solution to a problem I had a few weeks ago. One of my IT support gigs was trying to use "Mevo"-branded cameras to stream some live events to Facebook using an iPad. We had to use the venue's Wi-Fi network. We found the Mevo app would not detect that we were "connected to the Internet" and wouldn't allow us to stream.

The venue's network admin said they weren't filtering anything outbound to the Internet. We could access websites from the iPad just fine. Same w/ Facebook, Youtube, etc.

I put up Mitmproxy, an adhoc Wi-Fi network on a second Wi-Fi NIC, a DHCP server, and iptables NAT on my laptop. I set the iPad to use my adhoc SSID and my machine as an explicit HTTP proxy. My intention was to snoop on the traffic to determine what Mevo was using for criteria to consider being "connected".

For whatever reason the Mevo app just started working in this configuration. I ended up sticking a spare Wi-Fi router and a PC w/ Mitmproxy installed in the venue for the duration of the event. I never did figure out what the Mevo app didn't like about the venue's network.
I love that series -- just an incredible, imaginative, unique perspective -- but the dark forest hypothesis just doesn't make sense.

It's orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude less energy to communicate with (including obscuring your origin, if you want) than destroy a civilization. And communication has potential benefits (cooperation) that destruction does not.

Civilizations that communicated would very quickly and easily out-compete/out-advance civilizations that did not. "Malevolent" civilizations would inevitably run into more advanced cooperating civs sooner or later and be checked, either learning to cooperate themselves or lose.

Put another way, the assumptions used to build out the hypothesis, "Chains of Suspicion" and "Technological Explosion", don't make sense either. "Chains of Suspicion" assumes civilizations cannot communicate, yet the dark forest hypothesis assume civilizations can destroy each other. That's a contradiction. If you can physically interact, you can communicate (and as I pointed out before, with much, much less energy/resources than it takes to destroy). And "Technological Explosion", as written in the book, assume exponential technological growth could occur at any point, which seems to be nonsense to me. Any kind of exponential growth necessarily depends on a medium primed with the resources for that growth and stops when the resources are expended (which is never all that long, given the nature of exponential growth).

I cringed every time this idea was forced into the forefront of the books. They are such great and imaginative books, I don't mind at all that not all the ideas really pan out, but it was a little hard to stomach every time the plot turned on this weak idea.
It's interesting to me that you mention the "not one person" viewpoint. I am forced through traumatic past experiences to live my life consciously aware of these other "me"s and them of "me", as a result of dissociation. We have to actively communicate with each other internally and work together. Things don't happen if we don't agree on them, or other "me"s will go off and do their own thing and we have to get on the same page to keep that from happening. Lots and lots of therapy.

Want to lose weight? I have to have every part of me on board, if one of me doesn't want to and instead wants to eat crap, they can and will and we lose our progress.

I can't count the number of times the dev-minded parts of myself resolve to work on X project or leetcode/day only to wake up the next day switched to a different personality that doesn't remember making that resolution, or even know how to work on code. There are parts of me that cannot even comprehend code another part of me has written, but when the part that wrote it comes back it's crystal clear. It has to be communicated among everyone inside that we have the goal to work on X and time has to be given to the parts that want to and can, consciously (if we're even able at the time).

There are still other parts with the internal authority to say that X thing will happen and they will show up every day to enforce their expectations. This doesn't happen often, usually in very stressful periods.

Any time a part of me wants to make a long term change in my habits, appearance, or behavior it must be put to a quorum majority vote. If there is not a quorum or majority we cannot make the change, or the formation of the habit or new behavior will fail. If we have a quorum but a conflict in what we want to do any given moment, we end up procrastinating. Parts of me can try to make their own routines and habits, or do their own activities if they have time alone, but inevitably if it's against collective will it gets put to an end quickly.

We have to have a contract with ourselves to be functional in day to day life. There is no reneging on the contract when we are forced to share a single life in this way.

When we agree? It's powerful. Lost 100lbs in 2018, saved up and moved across country in the middle of the pandemic last year, got a new job, a new car, and started moving forward in our career.

Also we get to use We/They/Them pronouns which is fun (I like to joke that technically any pronoun could be used for us.)
Reporting a crime where you are not the victim is a bad idea unless you can do so anonymously. The crime could be part of organized criminal activity, and organized crime is often in cahoots with, or at least has informants within, police departments. It could come back to you. This is not fantasy; I know of people in New York that his happened to.
> re: grad students versus elite universities, under NDA.

I think it is important to not conflate NDA and non-compete, NDAs have a validate place, and are likely what should be used instead of non-competes in most situations.
omg Koalapad. I totally forgot about that. And the very huge banners. and running out of ink after printing just one.
Umm, but your employer is also taking time from you so you definitely can say that in reverse.

In fact, your employer is taking your a fragment of your life, and human life is worth more than currency, so actually, it's really quite inappropriate if your employer was found accidentally using ideas that you had while you were in the shower at home when they weren't paying you. (internet you-can't-hear-my-voice disclaimer: this is obviously hyperbole meant to really drive home the point.)

I'm generally a fan of market-based methods of structuring economic activity, but this sort of implicit assertion that the owner of capital is just obviously more important than the owner of labor really puts the "ism" is Capitalism.

Labor is a market, and markets are determined by both the players and the rules under which the players compete. Companies use the force of law to coerce laborers (see: every other post in this tread where supposedly free people worry about being sued). It's completely fair game for labor-force participants to turn around are use that same force to coerce employers.
Although I've been doing C++ for about a decade now, the one thing that is making me somewhat wary of its future is the difficulty of versioning key components of the language. Sure there are tricks with namespaces to version things to get around ABI breaks (to a degree; this is a world of problems), but fundamental features of the language are set in stone in a way that is very unfortunate.

The latest I've come across is the "R-value lifetime disaster". Arno gave a great talk at cppnow this year [0] highlighting this and Arthur O'Dwyer gave a great rebuttal / follow-up that is also worth considering [1]. The gist of it is that have const& also bind to r values (T&&) causes information about the lifetime to be thrown away. In reality, the "universal binding" ought to have been const&&, as that encodes "can't modify this thing" and "it may not live longer than this function call". This is quite a footgun, but I'm not sure if there's a way to change it with some sort of "language epochs", especially considering that this will have to be exposed in modules / headers so that different "epochs" don't try to link to or use each other's code!

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb7cj-3l1Kc
[1] https://quuxplusone.github.io/blog/2020/03/04/rvalue-lifetim...
I had two police officers at my door a couple of years ago, turns out my neighbour had died and they wondered if I'd heard anything or not heard anything from him.

Apparently the correct advice is to refuse to say anything without a lawyer, which I'm certain would be the end of the matter. I wonder if it's lawyers (paid $500/hour or whatever) who suggest that advice.