skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "You did <Y> and that made me angry. Give me a good reason why you did that or don't do <Y> again". I better hear "I'm sorry. I won't do <Y> again." or "I thought I had good reason <Z> to do <Y>."

This is horrible communication.

I did Y, but I did not make you angry. You became angry. There's a huge distinction. Instead of taking ownership of your anger, you are blaming someone else for it.

Instead of understanding and explaining why you became angry, you're making demands of me. You are demanding an explanation from me and/or a change of my behavior yet commit to nothing on your side - not even an explanation of your (likely misplaced) anger.

You are forcing the conversation into a very narrow template (either explain or apologize). Some will perceive this as "manipulative", even though in reality it's just a sign you do not know how to handle such situations with any sort of grace.

> If I hear "I'm sorry you're angry" you've probably just ratcheted my angry up a notch. In addition, I've now placed you in the "passive aggressive" category and will now deal with you as if that is your default stance--ie backstabbing manipulator.

If you're going to so easily categorize folks, you are confining yourself to an eternity of misunderstandings, with yourself being the primary culprit.

There's a reason all communications books that I've read emphasize introspection and understanding your own motives and emotions. Your communications skills will not improve if you jump to conclusions like this.
I agree that there's a lot of learned behavior here.

I feel the same way about my younger self. I also thought I knew better than people above me, and I also now recognize that it's not so simple. Even if I was right and we took action based on what I thought was best, there would be effects elsewhere that I hadn't thought of, mostly political effects, which would have larger organizational ramifications.

What's more, I have found recently that I've accepted this attitude of "find ways to accomplish goals, don't rock the boat, and find a way to get everyone moving in the same direction without complaining" and a lot of it is really not about "being right" but making it possible for the largest number of people to succeed. Even if I dislike aspects of how we're doing things, I've recognized that it doesn't help the cause to be overly candid about it as that just introduces chaos organizational (it tends to encourage discord and behavior that isn't constructive).

The strangest thing about this recent change in behavior is my manager and skip-level manager have both independently suggested I consider management, which was never my goal (still not a goal).
I think less than 1% of people make minimum wage.

I wonder who takes minimum wage jobs, even in 2016. There were plenty of 10$/hr jobs. You'd almost have to look for them.
“Most others” Jesus, imagine thinking that most people have kids. If you want what you say you want for your kids I would probably get of the capitalism merry-go-round if you have that privilege. Otherwise good luck with that thinking you can work at Apple AND be the type of parent you want to be.
The 3000 billionaires are hoarding 90% of housing supply in major cities? I doubt that. The lack of housing in such places has less to do with wealth concentration to billionaires and more with local grassroots opposition for new housing developments.
I personally hope that a new GPL would not be anti-ml. It's a very cool and interesting technology imo. I think a new GPL should be explicit and say that code produced my a machine learning algorithm is trained on GPLv4 code should remain under GPLv4 or a compatible license.
Close. It plays the Maple Leaf Rag, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-XTA_ORK38
>"we're radically transparent"

Didn't Ray Dalio patent that or something?
Given Intel wants to sell fab space it wouldn’t shock me if AMD keeps buying fab space at a soon to be Intel plant to make chipsets and other items that don’t need to be on the bleeding edge or constitute sharing much IP.
It’s a mathematical impossibility for everyone to be at or above average.
Let’s Talk Collapse
Maybe these "hunter-gatherers" will choose to eat you or I, who are fat and complacent
The piano is very interesting, and Molly McGee singing "Life on Mars" is fantastic.
You Need a Tablet Desk Stand and How to Pick the Best One
Lol right because I never had to memorize the multiplication tables, states capitols, electron shell levels and numbers, periodic tables, etc in the US
Blackface, foundation paying his wife and mother hundreds of thousands of dollars for talks, shortly before being given 1 billion government money to distribute, the list goes one and on… Any normal person will be ashamed and resign…
Because there are plenty of circumstances where living together is not possible.

What’s wrong with there being a system in place that ensures that everybody, irrespective of having gone through divorce, or death, medical issues etc, has a chance to survive with a roof about their head and some food on the table?
There is a lot of space between “banned” and “not amplified for profit”.
From the article: A full-time minimum-wage worker can afford a one-bedroom rental in only 7% of all US counties — 218 counties out of more than 3,000 nationwide.

The article really means a minimum wage worker cannot afford a 2-bedroom place. The larger problem is that in 93 percent of the US, they cannot even afford a 1-bedroom place.

It can be hard to find something smaller than a 2-bedroom place. We have torn down a million SROs and largely zoned out of existence the ability to create new Missing Middle Housing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

The real problem here is a general lack of housing stock of a certain kind: Smaller homes in walkable neighborhoods that remain affordable and haven't become crazy expensive due to being part of an older vibrant area in very high demand.
No. Meta Analysis:

https://ivmmeta.com/
I'm curious how did the ink & switch group form? Did they all come from a certain school?
Where I live, a friend got into section 8 in very short order (pretty sure less than a year, I think a few months at most) and it was in a fairly upscale apartment building for the area. Also relied on other programs as he had a wife and newborn at the time.
What fraction of the housing supply do you believe is available at “below average rent”?
If they are taking housing benefits then the cost of rent is no factor.
I think one thing that would help in this discussion is a realization of how few people actually earn minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is below the wage floor in every major city in the US. Here in San Antonio, Texas, largely considered to be a poorer / lower wage city, typical non-skilled labor is paid between $12-$14/hr starting.

While Texas and San Antonio don't have higher legal minimum wages than the federal minimum, effectively nobody is earning the federal minimum because nobody will work for the federal minimum. Even gas station clerks and grocery store shelf stockers in San Antonio make at least $12/hr. The "nice" gas stations pay $14/hr /starting/ and up to $18/hr. This is in one of the lowest cost of living and lowest median earning major cities in the US.

It's simply not helpful to compare the bottom legal possible wage to average costs for a two-bedroom rental, when the typical bottom wage is much higher and most individuals earning these wages don't rent a two-bedroom apartment by themselves, they have room-mates or are part of a family unit where the cost of rent is shared.
>No it's not. Only Google spends significant time with automatic architecture search, and many people think this is really to try to sell cloud capacity.

Maybe not automatic architecture search but a lot does go into testing different architectures and changes to them in a more manual manner. Though yes, those tests are run on a smaller scale so for those huge models, training will be a bigger portion compared to architecture search than for smaller models.
Reading the entire piece, or at least the surrounding text, one finds that it is merely a rhetorical device, not some final word.

Here are a few more snippets for those too busy or disinclined to read the whole thing:

"It was now clear to me that at least some of these packets were definitely forgotten orders. ... We couldn’t always come to a definitive conclusion. ... the USDA clearly remained unconvinced by my arguments. ... I certainly don’t rule out there being messier aspects to what happened last summer that remain to be uncovered."
tl;dr version: think like a monopolist. Intel has been successfully doing that for decades.

While semiconductor fabs don't have the useful life of say a railroad, they are valuable for far longer than the 2-3 years they are in the spotlight. I'm no expert in this area, but as the recent semi shortage demonstrates, it appears today's 'ancient' fab can be viable for at least 20 years if not longer.

Given the astronomical costs of both the fab and chip design for current nodes, we're likely to be seeing <=28nm sticking around for far longer to get their payback on the process nodes. So if you're Intel and you gobble up as much of the production capacity as possible, that would seem to be a prudent move as long as you don't overpay relative to how much you'll be able to increase prices with the greater share of the market. Think like Intel probably is: they're not thinking of being one of many semi players, they're thinking of being one of the last 2-3.
You should really add a FAQ section on the website. Quite a few people on in the comments here are asking the same questions.
India surpasses the US in sending legal requests for info, says Twitter report
I live in a fairly well-off place and most food service jobs pay about $7.25-9/hour, _maybe_ with tips. My university (3 hours away) pays $8.50/hr for most student positions, a cruel joke when tuition is $10k+/year. Mine is about $13.5k but I have enough scholarships to bring it down to about 3k.

Napkin math shows that, to afford a $13.5k tuition bill, one must work 1564 hours for the university. They cap you at 20hrs/wk so as not to overburden you, so you can pay off your tuition bill in a mere 78 weeks. I go to one of the least expensive state universities.

A minimum wage raise would not be merely symbolic, at least not in Texas. If my university paid $12/hr, it would take 55 weeks to pay off tuition and at $15 it would take 44 weeks.
I don’t think that type of plan is bad because of “optics” but also because it doesn’t solve the problem. Subsidizing people’s moves doesn’t make sure they have access to housing. It just shuffles them to another area where it’s someone else’s long term problem, even if you secured them temporary housing as you moved them.

We have more empty houses than homeless in the US. We should be able to guarantee food, water, and shelter to every citizen, even if we don’t necessarily guarantee it’s in a place someone desires.

We aren’t productive enough as a society to be able to give everyone pleasure constantly but we are certainly productive enough to guarantee basic physical needs for survival
Wait until you see 2022.

Or 2023, 2024, 2025, 202…
I've gotten good seo results with Hugo themes
Reminds me of a job back in the early 2000s which was Oracle PL/SQL stored procedures fronted by JSP with inline JDBC requests.

It was awful. Not intrinsically because of the architecture, but because of the piss-poor implementation. Piles of badly written PL/SQL that should have been on dailywtf, with even worse JSP. It was all written by IBM contractors and was obviously a garbage rush job.

Of course the response from mgmt and the internal dev team was to rewrite everything in the "modern" J2EE style, but keep the old database partially because large parts of the existing logic were just not understood well enough to rewrite safely. So the rot kind of just continued.

After I and others left I believe everything was finally rewritten from scratch in RoR or something.
Watch the video, its actually quite easy to follow.
Wow there’s a lot of out of touch people here. Just because someone makes a dollar over minimum doesn’t mean they suddenly can afford housing. Minimum wage is ridiculously low and should at minimum be enough for someone to work full time rent a reasonable distance from their place of employment and shop where they live.

It’s almost like the middle class feels threatened like they’re being devalued or something.
> If an adult with kids is making minimum wage, they need to be able to rent a two-bedroom.

No disrespect is intended to anyone, but by definition a person making minimum wage is poor and why can’t they live in a single bedroom apartment or even a studio. Where does it say that minimum wage = every occupant gets their own bedroom?

In large parts of the world families share bedrooms.

Please note I’m not saying these people should not try to better their lives, but people making minimum wage need to compromise.
Could they use GPS or another elevation measuring device to create a elevation and flood map?
You're correct. They received a ton of money from government [0], and that money will be used for consolidation, not to improve competitiveness. Intel is buying a bunch of outdated fabs to increase its pricing power on older technology.

[0] https://www.semiconductors.org/chips/
Looks like they're entering the same space as Blockstream. RIP Liquid.
“non-mainstream positions” is covering a lot in that statement. “provably false information that endangers the public” is a more accurate rephrasing.

In any case, the article doesn’t even come close to saying that. It details an internal discussion at Facebook about whether they should make data about the most popular posts public. Where is the word “ban” even mentioned?
1.5% earn the federal minimum wage or less, down 0.4% from 2019. This excludes the workers in the 29 states (plus DC) with a higher state minimum wage. About 28% of the US workforce earns under $15 an hour.
Everyone's first inclination is to raise the minimum wage (which I am not against). But let's not dismiss the fact that we could also work on lowering the cost of rents.

I used to think that rents are simply a function of supply and demand, but recently I realized that there's also a floor for rental prices regardless of the demand. That floor is a function of the cost of buying a house, property tax, and the opportunity cost (eg: stock market will give me an ROI of X, so real estate has to be within that range or I'll just move my assets accordingly).

I am only familiar with the SF market so the rest of the country might be totally different, but having looked into buying a house there I can totally understand why the floor for rental prices is as high as it is. The property tax is 1.2%, and good luck with buying something under a million dollars where you can expect to attract people with steady income. Last but not least, if we're really going to compare this investment with the stock market, then I shouldn't be expected to worry about water leaks and clogged toilets, so we should also include the cost of a property manager. In short, no thank you.

Raising the minimum wage would lead to higher prices, lower sales volume and lower sales tax. Is it possible to take that same budget and instead make more land available for development, lower the property tax, and make other moves to make home ownership more attractive? That should also lower the cost of rents.
Do you have any recommendations on what material to read?
Yeah, that's called being in kindergarden. Just rent a room and fill it with kids toys and charge full grown adults $1,500 each per day to go back to kindergarden, for the experience of it. Then you join them and voila, you could probably make a few million dollars a year if you open in all the large cities around the USA and world.
I would suggest you start by reading the part of the constitution where the crime of treason is defined and then continue on until you get through the bill of rights. Any dysfunction there is is liable to be systematic. You wouldn't need to point a gun at someone to force them to share their source code and if you did YOU would be the one going to prison. If it was required by the fat government contract it would be done.
I’m not super familiar with Zig specifically, aside from watching some of Andrew’s talks and coding streams. But this thought process is not a Zig only concept. As far as I know, the explicit ‘operators’ that are provided with Zig are guaranteed to be a low-level construct (ideally implemented at the ISA level) which are made visible to users of the language in standard ways, i.e. infix arithmetic operators. When overloading of these operators is allowable that guarantee goes out the window. There is a fundamental difference at the generated code level between a function call resulting from a use of ‘’ to multiple two random matrices and a use of ‘’ to multiple two 32 but integers. Further, as I understand it, Zig guarantees that anything that allocates memory does so explicitly and anything that calls a function does so explicitly. The very concept of operator overloading is incompatible with such a guarantee. So, I think given the implied goal of explicit is better, it makes sense that a flat rejection of operator overloading is the broad view.
My Notion Notes Wiki
It was inherited from JANET pre-DNS, which had UK.AC.FOO for academic and UK.CO.FOO for commercial. So instead of .edu.uk and .com.uk, we kept the established inertia and just flipped the word order. It's also why we ended up with .uk as a ccTLD instead of .gb (as iso3166 would have us use).
That’s nice and all until it becomes illegal to get abortions 6 weeks after conception. Or when schools teach abstinence-only sex ed.

I could somewhat agree with this argument if we had better sex ed, better access to contraceptives, and better access to abortions. All three are clearly getting worse in Texas.
Further, less than 250,000 people out of 161 million in the US laborforce are actually earning the minimum wage. It's less than one sixth of one percent.

If you listened to the propaganda, you'd think it were 20% of the laborforce.

Which warrants a few other questions, including how many of those minimum wage workers are living with their parents rent free, what the average age of those workers is, and so on.

This study instantly becomes that much more absurd if you actually analyze the minimum wage worker segment. It ends up you're talking about 1/20th of 1% of the laborforce that it reasonably applies to.
If a child has eight kids they’re going to need more still.
The “dark mode” on this website is cute. I wonder if it might help some people read.
Makes more sense to issue a stay at home order if you don't have the vaccine. I can think of many better policies than this, which will likely just undermine the vaccine and not provide significant protection.

Or just let kids take it?
The Tyranny of Meritocracy.
Novosbed Canada Bed – Save $800
For me when I say relevant ads, I truly mean ads that are based on the things I do, the things I buy and the interests I have. If I bought a new 4wd car, I wouldn't mind seeing ads for bull bars or tow bars because these are things I'd potentially be searching for anyway.

If I had random ads as you say (truly random), I don't want/or need to see tampon ads in my feed as a male. Which is what you might end up with. Conversely, if I just purchased a new 4WD, I don't need to see ads for a new Sedan.

If I'm going to see ads I may as well see ones that are somewhat relevant right?
Advertisements are truly that, consumerism triggers and the only way to stop that is to stop ads altogether.

Happy to discuss my thoughts, but that's my line of thought.
Well they do have the vested interest but they are predictably irrational in another one - trying to make more money and cutting costs from "non-core businesses". It isn't rational but certain sorts of predictable stupidity are more common in some contexts than others.
1. This is true
2. Solar output is at one of its minimums
3. "abrupt" in that case means over the course of decades or centuries, not a few years. Re-read that Nature article, it doesn't say what you think it says.
4. Definitely, Earth will be fine, humans not so much. There are plenty of times in the past few hundred million years where humans would have a rough, or impossible, time surviving.
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Denier or not, you need to read more, starting with the article you linked.
> Isn't creating a sequence a bad idea in general, anyway?

No:

- sequences are very common. I recommend using them on every table for mgmt. and internal efficiency reasons.

For example, with Innodb, if you don't have a numeric id as a PK, it will assign an invisible one for internal use anyway.

Most third-party tools won't allow you to manage tables without numeric PK's.

- in most large applications, most sequence ID's are only used internally

- for public display (your concern) uuids or random numbers are possible

Source: DBA.
Could you please provide a source for those hard numbers?
not to be negative, but various shaped controllers that are electronic, there's tons of those. That's not interesting in the same sort of way as an acoustically-distinct sound-production device
Another reason why this deal should be blocked by the government. It is anticompetitiveness at its core.
archive.is is sometimes useful for bypassing paywalls. Then sticking a captcha in front if it. archive.org has the wayback machine going back to the late 90s. Plus, music, videos software, books, bbs and usenet archives, ... massive amounts of information that you can't find online anywhere else.
Harry Dean Stanton
By that logic, you'll never reach any conclusions: any weather pattern is possible, theoretically. If one year of California being on fire for 4 months can just be a coincidence, so can two years. Or twelve.

One day of beating the temperature record by +5 deg F can also be less likely, and therefore better evidence of global warming, than, say, two separate events each breaking the record by +2 deg F. The magnitude matters. Here, some towns saw 150 mm of rain in 12 h. Previous monthly record (since 1945) was 200 mm.

But really this is all silly. Look at that temperature color stripe and try telling anyone that the last 20 years are drawn from the same distribution as those before: https://ml1ohkphn9q1.i.optimole.com/Qi2pur4-vTGg4qbd/w:1080/...

The denial was silly even a decade ago, which is about the time the political right switched to accepting warming, but rejecting a human contribution. By now everyone has noticed that's equally silly, since it'd be quite something if science predicted warming a decade in advance with surprising precision while getting the mechanism completely wrong.

So that's where we are today, and the last remaining refuge really is to debate the magnitude of the problem and the value of trade-offs: who should do what against it, i. e. "...but cars in Texas are just 5% of global CO_2, it does not matter if we stop buying SUVs". That's really about values and not entirely accessible to rational arguments, so the remaining hope is that some of the harms just randomly hit the people opposing any action, and either kill or convince them.
2016 called, they want their headline back!
“People who experience a single random seizure, for instance, are 50 times more likely to become epileptic than someone who has never had one”

Given that epilepsy is diagnosed and treated based on the presence of recurrent seizures, this seems like a tautology - the set of “at least one seizure” contains the set of “at least two seizures”

Like saying “playing at least one game of basketball was associated with a greatly increased chance of playing more than one basketball game in a lifetime, compared to those who had never played”
Paintinglite v2.1.2
And if the problem exists throughout the country?