skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there are a couple ways to look at your question.

1) Most people in this country don't vote (outside of a slim majority in presidential elections) for a large variety of reasons, but mostly because they know it doesn't change anything for them. The American system was designed as a system of baffles to insulate the elites from the rabble quite explicitly (indirect election of senators, 3/5 compromise, bicameral legislature with senate apportioned by territory instead of people, voting restricted to white male property owners (literally a vote by the elite only), etc), but these days it has developed into an effective democratic illusion in a path dependent fashion. So in other words, I don't think the country is split in this way, but the partisans of the two flavors of the single political party are highly polarized. Neither of them have any concern for workers, note the total lack of economic issues in their agendas and the tomfoolery around 15 $/hr minimum wage. More political participation would right the ship imo.

2) There are cases where votes are split fairly evenly on contentious issues. I'm not sure that private dictatorships are always better on these questions. Sometimes the mad king flip flops constantly, other times a hard line is taken against the will of half the people. It's something that has to be worked out politically and possibly with leadership. In some cases, I do think such things require constitutional remedies (for example, no one should be allowed to vote to re-institute slavery for example). For such close votes, I would shy away from saying the result is "the people's will", but an outcome of process. Votes are one method of measuring the will of the polity. Unfortunately, I don't think there's ever a way to be completely precise as it's possible even for people to change their minds and switch sides on an issue en mass!

One example of a vote I would be skeptical of: the way Uber rigged the wording of the recent proposal to recognize its employees as contractors to get out of a court ruling. They made it sound like voting yes was voting no. Votes are really effective ways to do democracy, but I don't think there's any method we can use that allows us to stop thinking critically about it.
Total Annihilation is an entirely different type of RTS than Starcraft. Command and Conquer is probably a closer comparison.

Likewise (and even moreso) Baldur's Gate 2 is a totally different subgenre of RPG than Diablo 2 (unless you're talking about Dark Alliance 2 on consoles).

Baldur's gate is a hybrid turn based DnD rules adaptation with multiple player characters and more of a focus on characterization and storytelling. Diablo 2 is a single player character, full real time, random loot, multiplayer focused action RPG.

There aren't really any contemporary games that were a "better version" of Diablo 2 because in improving what they did with Diablo 1 it popularized the subgenre and made way for later games. Later games that could be considered improvements to the formula are things like Titan Quest (great first playthrough experience, but less replay value) and Path of Exile (really feels like a true successor to Diablo 2, with it's endless replay value and deep build customization).
HIPPA is absolutely not too strict, it has many fundamental holes which need to be plugged.

I am vaccinated but the only place I am willing to prove it is at an airport or a medical facility. There is a developing liberty/security divide which is going very much in the direction of far too far. Going along with the irrational ways so many people talk about vaccination I am not willing to give up an inch of liberty to the hivemind. No “papers please” to allow me to participate in normal society where the group in power gets to decide if I’m acceptable.
Because a fanatical niche audience is more profitable than a barely-interested mainstream one? Games are fundamentally cultural objects, especially in these days of multiplayer and streaming, but also because the medium demands it; Blizzard's breakout hit was a barely-disguised knock-off of a barely-disguised knock-off of a barely-disguised knock-off of Lord of the Rings, and could only succeed because it was part of that cultural fabric.
That... seems optimistic about the state of the modern average engineer at Blizzard. Which isn't to say that folks are bad at their jobs, but it's not as if it's a company that's done well-received and breakthrough modern game design in the last 5 years.

If anything, the folks who made the company what it was either were the people being protested or left 5-10 years ago, or both.
Thanks for connecting these dots! You've put words to a situation I've experienced before but never fully grokked
Heed Axler's warning; the compact version is meant as a refresher, not a book to learn from.

> Linear Algebra Abridged is generated from Linear Algebra Done Right (third edition) by excluding all proofs, examples, and exercises, along with most comments. Learning linear algebra without proofs, examples, and exercises is probably impossible. Thus this abridged version should not substitute for the full book. However, this abridged version may be useful to students seeking to review the statements of the main results of linear algebra.

Maybe you previously worked through the full LADR (or some other math-major linear algebra book like the older, classic Halmos), but your memory is fuzzy. That might be a use for it.

Still, I don't know why you'd read through a 150 page refresher rather than the full book. If you can't afford it, the 3rd edition is on libgen like most other textbooks.
Not all laptops are the same, so it depends on the laptop as well.
There needs to be a process where you can feedback too, like 1-1s and have some influence over what happens. If not, you need to switch jobs. Zero influence jobs where you are directed to so X and Y but your opinion doesn’t count really really suck!

You want to be somewhere where they make sane decisions so when management says “fix this fire” it’s genuinely serious and a rare event.

There is a holistic aspect to this - other things happening in the company, the culture, the history, the industry and even the general culture of the country / city will come into play.
Read "To sail beyond the sunset" (iirc) Poly AND Incest mixed with infinite lifetimes, there were some things going on in that book...
It's submarine marketing for https://www.numerator.com/. It seems like a pretty bad attempt, but I understand very little about PR so it might be brilliant for all I know.

See http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
That's interesting. Good on you for asking them. Some ideas from my dumb little sector of time & space:

Probability-minded theorists (contingency planner-directors) are routinely one of the smallest population groups when population is broken down into cognitive function or temperament. Theorists are already a comparatively small group in the first place.

Typical analyst-theorists don't naturally give conscious attention to the language of probability; for one it is cumulative and closed-ended (single point of arrival) rather than open-ended (possibility-focused).

Contingency planners don't generally run in academic circles due to the way they feel blocked by, and block, open-ended discussion.

Contingency planners themselves are more likely to communicate their favored perspective in terms that lend a guise of certainty; this may be related to the impactful way the visualized, singular outcome forms from a powerful visual image in the mind's eye (a distinct process from subvocalization for example). It may also be related to the naturally planning-repressive "who knows; how can you know that" effect of society's feedback to this function.

Society lacks language/pattern-custom to adequately follow up on probabilistic lines of thought when they are introduced in arguments.
> [...] route the traffic out of NAT Gateways.

Which is AWS's way of printing money. Straight up, no lie.

Instead with the advent of IPv6 and everything getting a publicly routable IP address anyway, you no longer can rely on a machine having a "private" IP address.

I recently stood up infrastructure where each machine in the VPC got a public IPv4 and IPv6, and used security groups to set up permissions for what systems can access what other systems.

This way I protect the instances, and don't pay the NAT Gateway fee because the public IP is a 1:1 NAT and doesn't cost anything.
Duolingo reaches $6.5B valuation on day of IPO
Its very easy to fix corporate lobbying.

Just limit contributions to x dollars (indexed to % of poverty level or whatever) to persons that can vote.

This takes away the personhood of corporations and takes care of moneyed interests.

However this would require a constitutional amendment in order to not come in conflict with free speech.

Alternatively, you could make elections outcomes somewhat random, and effectively rendering the prize (officeholding) a lot more uncertain and therefore, not worth the risk.

Imagine winning a campaign for state senate and getting swapped with the 2nd place ranked for comptroller.

Who's going to put money in that campaign
> Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money.

In an ideal world, everyone is looking for each other. But this is not an ideal world. CEOs, politicians, employees, and even the people who vote are all looking for themselves: they all have demands that benefit themselves. Everyone wants more money. I want free education, free transportation, etc. Why think that my wants, are somehow, on a higher ground, that the wants of the CEO? Why think that my wants, if they are the wants of more people, are somehow better the society at large than the wants of a CEO? I feel that might be making many assumptions that are not very obvious, or that I am misreading you.

> Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution.

I apologies if I am understood that way. That is certainly not my intention. I mean that banning the transfer of money from a company to a politician will not solve the problem, because there will always be a loophole.

> Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers.

Given that the US is not a democracy, people only have a say on who they elect. Politicians decided it is ok to break the market and control it, and they decided it is ok to lobby. Politicians also don't necessarily represent the people of their district/state in the strictest (by the simple fact that many did not vote for them). If it was up for the people, it is hard to say that it will be a better government, because people, like politicians, are looking for themselves and not necessarily for the overall society over time.

>It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.

Can't agree anymore. It is a system that gave birth to some great things and some terrible things.
One might reasonably extrapolate from a 10x (100x?) reduction in deaths to a 10x reduction in brain damage.
> The real difficulty is how one accommodates bear and cougars.

One doesn't. Bears were exterminated in Britain 1500 years ago. And cougars were never native here.

> But the largest predators in the UK are badgers.

Fine by me, badgers aren't a threat to humans.

> Do we continue to close schools and break out the dart guns every time someone sees a bear in a tree?

No, we exterminate them like my ancestors did 1500 years ago, because they were sensible (my ancestors, not the bears). Maybe put some in a wildlife park or zoo.
For more horsey fun I recommend this horse race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0u-Fr8CXCQ
Coincidently I was thinking the other day if I learn kubernetes, azure services and networking to a decent level, I might have a nice source of easy hard things in the future (most coders don’t seem super keen on this kind of stuff)
Wherever compliance is concerned, I prefer private with no choice.
Some of those gamer groups are more profitable than others, even if it comes at the expense of other groups. Consider why there are so many women-specific clothing stores.
I don't have anything offhand anymore, it's more from a variety of sources over the whole past year. But from what I've seen most people cite, and the way you mentioned NYC, I'm guessing the charts you've seen are single location over time, rather than results across comparable locations (which is what I'm remembering - one example, months ago there was a test someone made for fun that showed you case/death outcome curves for various comparable locations and you had to pick out which one(s) did or did not have measures taken. I didn't save the link and have been looking for it on and off since then, but haven't been able to find it).

The problem with those one-location-over-time ones is that quite often people don't take into account the incubation period and testing delay - for example, in Illinois cases started dropping the day stricter lockdowns went into effect Nov last year, which means it wasn't the stricter lockdown that did it because the effects of the lockdowns would've taken 2-3 weeks to show up in the numbers.
The kick, I'm fine. Getting the 909 snare on the Rytm is impossible for me, and hitting the original Amen Break kit's snare on MODO Drum is proving difficult (and yes, I've brought the tempo back to the original bpm) but still not close :(
World of Warcraft, the cash cow product, is getting content delayed according to one of the devs:

https://twitter.com/JeffAHamilton/status/1419115702569472003
Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/

> Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.
I'm just sick of seeing pintrest and quora as the top 8 results :/
I play a game with google search: I take something very mainstream like a movie title, let's say 'Reservoir Dogs'
And change something in it, to say 'Reservoir Cats' for example.

Google search 'reservoir cats' and it will completely ignore what you actually search for in favor of the mainstream result. The effect is basically that you can't sesrch for 'reservoir cats'!

Even putting something opposite or unrelated to the highly mainstream result will have no effect.

Its completely entirely ridiculous and makes the search engine seem like a facade.
I made Google Maps but for Zelda Breath of the Wild
We probably will, now that my employer has made noises about allowing remote work from anywhere. My spouse is a citizen of an EU country where my employer has an office so we might just move there.

If the NIMBYs want everybody who wasn't alive the last time housing prices were "cheap" in Seattle to GTFO, I suppose that's the only thing we can do. Because there's no damn way I'm scrimping and saving to pay seven figures to someone whose sole contribution to that property was that they were born before I was and got there first to stand in the way of everyone else.
Any and all government payment programs are vulnerable to that.
You mention the high prices you face as being problematic. If you can’t afford it why don’t you move elsewhere instead of requiring everyone else around you to take a hit to their lifestyle to accommodate you? You want taller or more buildings, but that would change parameters like traffic, noise, crime, character, and so on that others don’t want to deal with. Many long term residents have lived in- and contributed to- their neighborhood and city, through good and bad times, to turn them into the desirable and attractive areas they are now, and it seems reasonable to want to retain that. Why are their desires invalid while yours are so valid?

The attitude of feeling like you are owed great housing in a great location at a great price feels like entitlement to me. And I get it - we all have our own things that we feel entitled to, myself included. But there’s an entire country’s worth of desirable places to live in. You may not have the exact job or conditions you want in all of those locations, but I am betting you can make life work in many other places. Being mad that people who have built a particular community and lifestyle want to preserve some key parts of it doesn’t make sense to me, because I understand why they want to protect those things. You’re asking them to lose something they value so you can gain something you value, and I don’t see why you feel you hold a moral high ground.
Money doesn't come from rich people. Most money nowadays comes from the state. Rich people might have it temporarily, but it exists independently from them. (Of course many states are controlled entirely by rich people, but at least theoretically that doesn't have to be the case.)

Of course money itself is mostly an abstraction. It represents the value of human creation, and you don't need rich people to create value with and for other humans.
The problem is that developers won’t build affordable housing unless they’re heavily incentivized to do so (why take a big risk to build something if you won’t profit from it, developers usually aren’t charities) but in practice lots of development get blocked for not having enough affordable units while simultaneously not being nearly subsidized enough to incentivize it. In fact SF’s permitting process is so arcane and silly that just thinking about developing anything will cost you millions in legal fees, let alone the insanely high price of the land, so the payoff better be good.

In practice people crying for 100% affordable housing are in reality demanding that nothing gets built at all.
There are definitely more potent drugs floating around afaik, fentanyl being a real bad one.

I imagine it would be tough to get the kind of recovery programs and health professionals in place Quickly, purely because of how much time and effort it takes to set up these programs and source the people who can help. Especially since it takes med school or some other specialized training.

I think an effective program would rely on incentivizing people to go through the relevant schooling, maybe providing some sort of expedited program too? As well as a wholehearted and comprehensive drug recovery program endorsed at all levels of the local government.
I have been struggling with the same issue recently. Results are much more narrower and they seemed to be leaning towards consumer goods items. Though I don’t remember when I ever bought something coming from Google search.
I imagine this works as long as you can say no, requiring good financial management and marketing skills. Easy to say no when you are turning away work.
Whittier, Alaska, a community under one roof (2015)
I suggest changing the title to clarify that "SF" refers to San Francisco, which is currently unclear. (I initially read it as "speculative fiction" aka "science fiction")
Don't be silly. There's still plenty of starry eyed hope and misplaced loyalty to run a death march through the holiday season.
Lupin III has been airing new series semi-consistently up to the present, but I believe each part is a separate production.
It's baloney, but they must mean something more than that.

"Roughly one-third of US shoppers are Costco customers," says the article, and Asian Americans are 5.7% of the US population.

I'm not sure how you'd get that 5.7% to be the "average" of any one-third of American shoppers, unless you're tying it to something else.
Show HN: Speakyo.com A different take on an anonymous public message board
Nevertheless, neutral buoyancy works as I described.
> I always wonder at how criminals that otherwise might seem movie-like masterminds are caught as a result of mundane mistakes and outright stupid moves like this.

I always think of this very thing. BTK, for example, was caught because of metadata found in a Word document he mailed into the police on a floppy disk.
For those dismissive of the content in comparison to current books and websites, bear in mind this was written in 1910
Thank you so much for this comment! Would love to talk to you based on your experience at CareDash here! I see that you have a large network of therapists and have built a pretty impressive B2B directory.
Given that plants growing at a faster rate due to increased CO2 seems to decrease their mineral density, I wonder if there is a similar effect here. There is no mention of micronutrient content in the original paper.
At worst it can do worse than nothing.

For a big chunk of the population vaccinating is very safe because the virus is very dangerous. A vaccine doesn’t have to be very safe for a disease that kills on the order of one in a thousand off otherwise healthy adults.

Being very young or already having contracted the virus significantly alters it’s risk profile. With a virus several orders of magnitude less deadly you have to start being much more careful that the vaccine is provably considerably safer than doing nothing. That’s not hard when you’re trying to beat 1 in 1000. It is very hard when you’re trying to beat a one in millions risk.

There have been concerns and side effects. Much less amplitude in signal compared to the virus, but still big enough to halt briefly a few of the vaccines, still enough that small children don’t get emergency authorization, still enough for a few warnings about immune reactions.

It is very rational to take a one in a million risk to prevent a one in a thousand risk. It is very rational to pause before taking a one in a million risk that could very well prevent nothing.
Pfizer authorizes $1B for oral Covid-19 treatment
The goal is human rights and profit.
People typically don't turn to caffeine as a way to cope with a traumatic life.

Plus, a couple hundred years ago, we worked literal countries of slaves to death just to have simple spices. Your arguments aren't very intriguing.
I'm completely missing what makes this "the most enjoyable way to write"?

I think you need to give users some more context on what your vision for how writing should be, and what is missing at the moment.

You say "don't spend time on formatting", but is that really a problem most people are having? You've got it as your #1 feature.

Also, who's downloading an app to edit a document?
I don't see enough to get me interested, and a download is a pretty big barrier to getting users these days.
Sure, don't hire the non-vaccinated. But my question is:

"Who are the unvaccinated hurting, exactly?" if not themselves?

All the reasons you gave me are examples of harm from government rules trying to, it appears to me, save people from themselves.
Absolutely correct. Printing excess money does not cause inflation. Disrupting supply chain does. Especially with USD which has virtually unlimited appetite.
If anything good comes out of this covid, it will be remote work and universal basic income (since we already tested that printing more money causes no major issues)
I think this is a perfect example of why it is necessary to effectively communicate the relative tradeoffs and costs of option A and B when someone asks you to do something.

And to also also questions to dig into what they are really trying to accomplish, and why they are trying to do it that way.
I could be more productive using my own frameworks to build stuff but I don't think I'll get paid for it though. Such is life.