skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Physical presence is orthogonal to extroversion.

An extrovert can manifest himself in video/voice calls and even email. He will be the one to contact people, plan meetings, ask how everyone is doing,... An introvert can be on site and not leave his office except to walk around see how things are going, not talking to anyone.

There was a study that extroverts actually did better under lockdown than introverts, because extroverts quickly found alternative ways of socializing. Introverts still needed to socialize, even if not as much, but after lockdowns cut the few ties they had, they had more trouble remaking them, being less experienced with social tools.
> Wouldn't toggling off and on 8000 times per second be the same as playing 8KHz?

Sure. But its not “tell the speaker to play an 8kHz frequency”. The speaker doesn't inherently play “one frequency”, it just toggles on and off when you tell it to. If you tell it to toggle on and off based on a function driven by the combination of an 8kHz cycle and, say, a 2.5kHz cycle it will do that, too.
GitHub Copilot Open Source Alternatives
Probably it was some incompatibility between Google Meet and Firefox ESR.
I knew what was coming but 10/10 did not disappoint.
What is lying, then? Startups very frequently pitch the "best version of themselves" to potential investors, it's (in my understanding) extremely common.

The problem with Theranos and now Nikola is that the industries they're doing it in have very specific laws that you can violate just by speaking/writing. That isn't usually the case with startups, and so when one founder stretches the truth about how far along their SaaS platform is and it's fine, Nikola rolls a car down a hill and their CEO gets indicted.

I just think there are some habits that come out of SV in particular that are fine within that bubble, almost expected really, but come out not looking very good if you try to apply that behavior/logic to a more scrutinized part of the market.
> Even for the flat Earth theory it's hard to dismiss it offhand. > I mean sure there are plenty of experiments you can do to show that it is pretty close to a sphere. But who do you trust to do those experiments?

All the various people who have done them, some of which can be repeated by anyone motivated enough, and all the technology that relies on it being the case. This was known to the ancient Greeks. One even calculated the circumference within a reasonable accuracy.
* Matching the wrong photon will produce only random noise.

Not really related to what you have commented, but I wanted to mention it:

Back in Earth, our communication protocols usually have lots of redundancy. Whatever redundancy you can get into the channel, it usually gets inserted at whatever cost it takes - slowing down things a bit here and there - but ensuring a proper message gets to arrive to the other side (at the receiver).

I'm far (FAR) away from trying to sketch here an interstellar quantum comms protocol, but I find certain that if there aliens out there deploying quantum networks, they almost certainly will have redundancy at the level required (to overcome entropy), to get proper messaging in the used channel.
The autocurated feeds are the main engine of the business, which is competing against the other apps for the User's attention (and perhaps also competing against all other aspects of the User's life)

These feeds are optimized for "engagement" first. That's business.

So, now, trying to fix the problem of false information, the arsonists have joined the fire brigade.
The jokes write themselves in this clown world.
I guess the exception would be when you’re modeling a graph.
Obviously there exist minority opinions on the Federal Reserve, including my comment right here. The point is between the mainstream of Democrats vs Republicans, neither one is calling to reign in the Fed with the vigor that Republicans harp on "government spending". Pointing out that the mainstream discourse completely ignores dilution done by Federal Reserve is not dishonest.

What is dishonest is framing congressional spending in terms like "within its means" while also ignoring the Federal Reserve's ongoing dilution. Rather, monetary creation by the Fed and the Federal Government needs to be judged by the same standard. The pro-spending crowd calls this MMT, and the anti-dilution crowd calls this Austrian economics.

I personally would prefer the libertarian philosophy of more sound money, less (centralized) spending, and growing distributed wealth. But since that seems to be off the table, MMT is the remaining consistent approach. It makes more sense than profligate welfare to banks while turning the screws on everyone else. And with the way the Fed's feedback cycle is set up, it will actually cause less inflation than what we're currently getting.
> You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence.

I have trouble following your line of argument.

You think that adenovirus based vaccines are proven to be safe and effective at scale. You don't think that mRNA has. But covid was the first time adenovirus vaccines have been used at scale. They're probably a reasonable risk tradeoff for people during a pandemic, but they have rare side effect causing blood clots that are fatal if not immediately treated, so i wouldn't say they have the ideal safety profile.

I think it would be logically consistent (even if i disagreed) to say neither mRNA nor adenovirus had enough testing. It would also be consistent to say both are ok or even mrna is ok but adeno isn't. However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing, the one that has worse safety & efficacy is great, the one with the better safety results needs more testing.

Like, is their something i'm missing about your argument? What basis are you making this judgement on?

> Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one,

How so? I'm pretty sure its not. A straw man is a specific type of invalid argument.

To recap, you said

> From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety.

And i said (ad absurdum) that the same could be said of flat earth. Flat earth is nuts, so if your argument applies equally to them, it must be incorrect. Therefore that line of reasoning should be discarded.

> There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws

Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic

> Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything

Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious.

> The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious

This is kind of besides the point. But no that's not true. The smallpox vaccine is understood to be high risk and is not reccomended for most people. Risk is cost vs reward, so it was a very different story in the 1800s.

My main argument here is not that its safe or not safe (even though i believe it is). I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic), and i guess more generally if you're not going to be consistent in your own evaluation you should just listen to experts.
The second itself is a recent division.

Originally the Babylonian clock split day and night each into 12 equal segments -- thus the length of an hour was different at night and day, and varied each day.

The concepts of minutes (small part) and seconds (even smaller part) is quite modern -- about a thousand years old, despite being broken into 60 (those Babylonians were quite influential!); once you do that you can continue into even smaller fractions but it was all pretty abstract.

Seconds only became interesting about 500 years ago when the clock technology could finally represent them, but they've only been useful for the last 250 years or so.

So having .1 s (not .1s!) be interesting 130 years ago is itself interesting, and reflects the state of technology (not science) of the time.
Something like 20% of the population will feel motion sick with no known way to combat that. It’s still a screen strapped inches away from your face, with no good input outside of video games. It’s an intense proposition, and requires a level of pay off to be worth it even if you have great resolution, fix issues with distortion, looks, passthru, etc.

Where as I have a supercomputer in my pocket that’s a pleasure to use, always accessible, cheap to expensive, and directly manipulatable. Even the blackberry (aka crack berry) was far more popular than VR ever has been. I just don’t see it outside of certain games and niches, and I’ve tried.
You're right; that's a better description, and I was wrong to suggest that he 'acknowledged the truth' in any strong way.

I think my feeling here is in the general vein of Alex Tabarrok's "a bet is a tax on bullshit" or Brian Caplan's "bettor's oath". I'm just happy that he's paying up and not trying to weasel out of the bet. Losing can be painful --- I'm sure losing $10,000 like this stings a lot --- and I want to be sympathetic to that reality: if he can't be magnanimous in this moment, he should at least get some kudos for the fact that he seems to have shut his mouth.
Out of curiosity, what was the impetus for filling the sunken living room?
Not exactly ot, but I enjoy following Venkatesh on Twitter (https://twitter.com/vgr). There is a fair bit of self-reflexive/recursive terminology to sort through, but I guess the best way to put it is that he's just a promiscuous thinker--and the amount of in-the-clear thinking he does throws its fair share of sparks.
Limiting use to basic sensing might make sense. My recollection is that in San Mateo County, California ShotSpotter was used with the specific qualification that it was only to trigger responses and not to be used as evidence. It ended up being a game changer in dealing with the significant problem of guns being fired in celebration. It is true that this happened in mostly minority areas, but that isn't necessarily an excuse to put people in danger with inappropriate use of firearms. For a time whenever there was a shooting police would show up and there were significant problems with vehicle exhaust backfire triggering responses but that went down over time, especially as the shooting stopped.
Scary Pockets' laid-back version in 3/4 with Reeve Carney singing is worth a watch, very relaxed and very intense at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQnoZUR6fvY
These game engine configurators are great fun. The graphics are like Forza. Aston-Martin has one that lets you configure and see right down to the thread color amd stitch style on the leather seats.
I just don't get why it's confusing. The wind creates basically a fixed RPM motor (assuming constant wind speed) with some amount of power.

If that power is great enough, you drive the wheels through some amount of gearing to get the speed you want. Like that a bicycle wheel travels farther in one revolution than the circumference of the circle of where the pedals are.
Denim pants and shirt at the same time. Ahh the 80's
I can't remember the exact number any more, but I was some big round number like a billion or something'th person to ever enter Disneyland, in I think 1989. They gave me a Sony Walkman.
I would advise getting your blood sugar levels checked, high blood sugar has a negative effect on eyesight, and given that during pandemic many people have cut exercise and may have started snacking more. There is a strong correlation between type 2 diabetes and vision problems.
I woke up at 3AM AEST, when preorders were supposed to go live.

Hit a 502 bad gateway page, which disappeared after refreshing 3 or 5 times.

Put a playdate & cover into my cart, joined the queue -- which let me in to pay a bit under two minutes in.

Tried to check out, was told they didn't ship to Australia: Already knew that was wrong, because their FAQ said they did.

Refreshed, couldn't check out. Refreshed, couldn't check out. Tried the Apple Pay option that appeared for the first time on my third attempt, got "Try Again!"

Eventually, after removing the cover and frantically smashing refresh a few more times, I got my order through for the "late 2021 batch".

Not exactly a lovely experience, but it feels like Panic did what they could.
Go uses duck typing. "Interfaces," such as Food or Animal, declare sets of functions that must be implemented in order to qualify as an object of that type. So a "Food" thing might need to implement "beInjested()" and "spoil()", and Animal "run()" and "die()". If, for type "Chicken", there are "beInjested(Chicken)", "spoil(Chicken)", "run(Chicken)", and "die(Chicken)", then a Chicken can be used anywhere a Food or Animal is wanted.

edit: You cannot, however, explicitly declare that a "Chicken" is supposed to be a Food and/or an Animal. And you can't directly inherit implementations; to make Chicken directly use a generic function you need to do something like implement "baseSpoil(Food)", and then have the body of "spoil(Chicken)" explicitly call "baseSpoil(self)".

As mentioned in another reply, there is a shortcut. You can declare that the Chicken structure includes (anonymous) Food and Animal fields. Then, if you call "spoil(myChicken)", Go will automatically replace it with "spoil(myChicken.Food)".
As cities fill tech gaps, power of smart cities unleashes
There are quite a few interesting applications should this ability be harnessed in water.
Even if DHL has a ... reputation, routing all phones to a five eyes country seems a bit suspicious to me...

But hey, call me paranoid if you want ;)
Don’t think that’s Firefox. And what does it matter, really? Who cares how fast you can get to the wrong place, realize this looks not quite anything like the screen you are thinking of and have to message a coworker to see if they had bookmarked the screen you really want.
> You claimed deceptive advertising - now you’re switching to a different argument about safety and risk, which I think is also wrong.

It is both as I have always said. So you think it's worth putting the lives of other drivers at risk whilst using beta software that was deceptively advertised as "Full Self Driving" (FSD) by Tesla Inc. even when it is shown to be still not ready, than a company (Nikola Motors Corp.) and their CEO that is also deceptively advertising their entire products and technologies to investors?

What is the difference exactly on the lies and fraudulent claims made by both of them? There are none.

So your claim that:

> Elon Musk is obviously different. [0]

Is false. There are no exceptions.

Perhaps the only difference is that one involves a risk of death which that is irreversible and 'far more serious' than the other which I believe that both companies and their CEOs should be under serious investigation over their claims in their products.

Read all the comments again, since at this point you have ignored all of them since you are still defending the indefensible.

> None of your stuff is in good faith though so there’s no point to more discussion.

Are you now able to admit that the advertising of the FSD system and the fact that it is no where near 'Full Self Driving' capability which was bought in by Tesla customers also does not work or function as advertised?

On top of that, using a beta product that may get confused of malfunction poses a serious risk of death and has killed drivers or other passengers in the past, needs to be under through serious investigation by the regulators?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998552
I'm basing my experience on people I know who got infected. So are many other people who got vaccinated.

People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.
That’s backwards.
But it seems Intel did end up pinpointing the error. The last link in the article ("Since then, Intel has removed the faulty driver from their website.") points to https://downloadmirror.intel.com/30190/eng/635390-TA-256.pdf which says "The driver instability was caused by an incomplete backport to i40e from the upstream kernel." Frustratingly, it doesn't give any more detail than that.
Googlers give tour and coding demo of Fushcia OS
Does that work on windows?
This seems to be the opposite of what people have described in the past. With the start being incredibly hard as you basically need to follow a wiki page step by step to work it out. But after a bit you can find a method that pretty much makes the game unlosable so you have to start implementing your own restrictions and artificial difficulties.
No one has been confused I don't think. I saw the considering the $420 buyout, I took it to mean just that.

The short sellers around tesla have been pathetic. Note I don't own any tesla stock, but the short seller hype train is just ridiculous around tesla. How there has been no action there is mind boggling.

He's a crazy guy willing to take crazy risks - look at SpaceX -> they are operating COMPLETELY outside all norms.

Despite these "huge crimes" - no prosecutor anywhere is prosecuting. The SEC efforts basically fell pretty flat - their contempt attempts also fell flat.

The conflicts with solar city were crazy - they were also public. I thought it was a terrible deal - but that was public too. If you think Elon is bad for tesla and you own stock vote him out by running your own board slate. But he has a vision for a fully integrated solar and powerwall type product no barriers. You get an app, the sun charges the battery. They had and have ideas around charging cars mixed into that. Not sure if it's a good idea - plenty of competitors coming for Tesla, but they may be able to deliver something here with their solar / energy AND car companies. And the trend is towards this type of integration - so he gets to take a crack at it.

And a heads up, if these solar city folks win their case - guess who is going to get the money. Yes, TESLA! I've followed the case a bit. Not super impressive (aside from the plaintiffs attorneys vomiting in court! What was going on!).

Importantly, you are Elon, you own 22% of two companies - Tesla and SolarCity with highly overlapping missions. You want to integrate solar / energy / cars. I mean, what would YOU do. Go do a deal with some company in China the way others have tried? These folks saying it's such a bad idea / deal - what was their much better proposal? Elon already knew the Solarcity board and management etc etc. I really am curious what was the amazingly better option to get where Elon wanted to go. Easy to criticize, harder (much) to do.
It is not merely an afterthought as there has been some progress. Hoods, for example, now have to prevent pedestrians from falling onto the engine block which is an improvement. Really big problems like roo bars need to be reviewed, even for cop cars.
Of all the random internet memes and love affairs. I am always grateful that the internet chose this one early on. It just as easily could have landed on Selena Gomez, or insert other artist who has catchy ear worms - but might not have aged so gracefully.
Consider playing rimworld. Its the same idea with less depth but a whole lot more approachable.
Nah, the problem is OOP polymorphism that conflates too many separate things. If you have a language that can actually express "implements this interface", "has this member", and "delegates this interface to this member", then you don't need traditional "extends" inheritance at all; sometimes you want to do the exact equivalent (and you can), but most of the time you want to do something narrower.
Please tell us more about the increasing worldwide infantilization.

How do you measure and track it? What trends in the measurement have you noticed over time that makes you says it's increasing?

Also, can you say more about which groups think they are the single source of truth?
Free speech issues are never simple - but their solutions is never found in the extremes. We've already, as a society, compromised free speech to make exceptions for discriminatory speech and violent destabilizing speech - we're already compromising how available all information is and it's necessary to have a functioning society.

Right now the US, specifically you guys - most of the rest of the world is handling this better - has a huge issue with false information around vaccine efficacy and dangers. This issue must be resolved if you want to be included in an open world once again - some level of censorship is going to be required.
Cancel facebook
The Open Cap Table Coalition
Link straight to Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIT1ISCioDY
Occam's razor, you mean; Hanlon's razor is the one about not attributing to making what could be explained by stupidity
They've archived past weekly reports going back to 1999-2000 (not sure if that's when the weekly report started or just when the archive starts), although the formatting and specific information has changed over the years. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/pastreports.htm
It can be disparaging to say that someone is doing a thing because they got paid to, when they were not in fact paid to. Even when that thing, by itself, is not bad.

In this case it implies dishonest astroturfing or similar, especially when you talk about whether their statements were "grounded in truth". (Which is different from whether Ruby did well years later.)
There have always been rules like this. Turn off your lights when the air raid siren is running, for example. What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights.
> there is zero chance the FB CISO at the time was aware of who these representatives allegedly were

We also have zero evidence the people this guy talked to worked for Facebook. He could have been duped. He could be lying. It could have been two curious employees acting on their own.

What we can say is this guy lacks professional integrity. Throwing potential or actual clients under the bus in public is a sleazy move.
I don't think there's as much survivorship bias as you're suggesting - we do, in fact, have the airplane wreckage to inspect, it is just that frequently after-action forensices doesn't happen. But the point is valid.

I think lists like these are primarily useful for evaluating how unfamiliar networks are managed - if you spot anything on the list, likely some bot or volunteer-sysadmin already beat you to it.

And if your scanner doesn't know to look for something on the list, it is probably time to renew your support contract or find a new tool.
I like the way Django stores passwords:

pbkdf2_sha256$260000$theHashDataGoesHere

The algorithm comes first, then the number of iterations, then finally the hash value.

This makes it possible to increase iterations or even switch algorithms upgrade and re-hash existing passwords automatically later on when users sign in. Django handles this for you.

Another good reason to use a mature, extensively tested mechanism for authentication rather than rolling your own from scratch.
The last chapter suggests a few places to go next after reading the book:

http://craftinginterpreters.com/optimization.html#where-to-n...

I have absolutely nothing planned after this. I plan to not have any plans for a while. :)