skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Anyone can be a CEO. All it takes is a registering a business with the govt. The apt title should be: "... and still be a successful CEO".

The question is whether people want to be CEO, and is that what their life's calling is.
4) have proven than can last for 200 years, 5) less eye-straining than normal screens, 6) can't be remotely erased or blocked by third parties.
> One should note that crash safety ratings found on cars generally compare collisions with vehicles of the same size and weight. So it can be misleading when you consider the larger vehicles.

How does this relate to my comment? Or is it just a general observation that trucks may be a greater danger to drivers and passengers in smaller vehicles than said vehicles' crash safety results would suggest? In that case, I would agree.

> Also, what is your proposed solution?

Some starting points off the top of my head:

* Higher taxes/registration fees/etc on owning and operating large personal vehicles.
* More stringent licensing requirements for operating large vehicles.
* Restrictions on how large personal vehicles can be marketed, and/or cigarette-style disclaimers on ads.
* Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous stock vehicle configurations.
* Safety-focused regulation that effectively bans dangerous aftermarket modifications. And, crucially, enforcement thereof.

I could go on.
> His twitter post was clear, he was "considering" taking TSLA private.

$420 funding secure indicates he already had financing ready. Why has this mystery funder never materialized.

> Anyone who bought in at this news would have been buying in for < $84 per share (split adjusted). Current stock price is 600 per share+.

This is hugely problematic as a response. Elon Musk's behavior is unethical whether Tesla stock went up or down. The stock price should not be used as justification for previous lies. If we accept that, then we accept markets where people can gamble on a lie and things are fine if their gamble works out. That's not the business culture I want to create. People should be honest about risks so that they can be properly evaluated.

> The problem the SEC has had in trying to charge him is that folks feel like the SEC really ignore some of the clear scam behavior by big players.

Elon Musk is literally the second biggest player! Ignoring his malfeasance creates more people willing to emulate him.

> Fail to deliver? No issue. Broker bad behavior and theft? Light FINRA slaps on the wrist. Complaints about Madoff? Investigate the complainers. CEO talking about potential to take a company private publically - all out WAR by SEC!

You won't find me giving a kind word to the SEC's currently regulatory practices, but we need to recognize that corporate culture is made from examples. When someone like Elon Musk publicly flouts all responsible corporate behavior, and doesn't have an example made of him, then that is going to breed people willing to make the exact same decisions.

> He said he is considering something. It was not definite.

"Funding secured" is definite.

> Yes - people want to make this into a huge crime. But he explained in his tweets pretty transparently to most what his thinking was.

It is a huge crime. In the middle of trading, he decided to fraudulently claim he had a buyout offer for his company. That screws over not just short sellers, but any one who had calls above the $420 a share price. There is no universe where that is healthy for our markets.

> if you read between lines - the contempt court case got a bit of an eye roll from the judge involved.

He's currently in a court case for his buyout of Solar City, where he announced a fake product, used it as reasoning for his one public company to buy a company that he, his brother, and his cousin's had the largest stake in, and he, his brother, and his other companies (Tesla and SpaceX) were the largest bondholders in. This is a cartoonish set of conflicts of interest here. But apparently that shouldn't matter, because "stock price."
EU safety standards were originally derived from US standards, and yet our cars aren’t even close to the monstrosities you have riding around in the US.
You’re absolutely right! Thanks for the feedback.
I'm curious, where'd you get the 300b figure?
Assuming op found this via this, so odd they’re not posting as well:

https://pudding.cool/2021/07/rickrolling/
I'm more just, CBOE is not that big a company.
> For the overwhelmingly majority of owners, large trucks are completely unnecessary.

How do you propose to quantify "unnecessary"? And what would your solution be?
Maybe people would start to take better care of their health if they had to face pulling themselves out of a lower-to-the-ground car several times a day.

SUVs and trucks address the symptom, not the disease.
Thank you! I'll be looking into Galera then.
Just to weight in here, I completely got that also. I probably would have played somewhere in the mid-90s, when I was ~11-13.

As far as I knew, forums didn't even exist at the time (Of course, there probably were forums, and of course mailing lists and usenet were around before that, but I didn't know about them). It really just fit the humour style of the game, not taking itself too seriously. To be honest, it was far from the funniest joke in the game.
From the PDF, these are some of the security vulnerabilities that the static analysis came up with:

Use of the exec function

Insecure permissions for files

Binding a socket to all network interfaces

Use of hard-coded passwords in non-function contexts

Use of hard-coded passwords in function arguments

Use of hard-coded passwords in default function arguments

Use of hard-coded temporary directories

Using pass as a catch-all-style exception handling

Using continue as a catch-all-style exception handling

Running a Flask web application in debug mode

Use of insecure deserialization

Use of insecure deserialization

Use of MD2, MD4, MDS, or SHA1 hash functions

Use of insecure ciphers such as DES

Use of insecure cipher modes

Use of the insecure mkt emp function

Use of the possibly insecure eval function

Use of the possibly insecure mark_safe function

Use of the insecure HTTPSConnection with some Python versions

Use of a file scheme in urlopen with some Python versions

Use of pseudo-random generators for cryptography/security tasks

Use of the insecure Telnet protocol

Use of possibly insecure Extensible Markup Language (XML) parsing

Most of those can be used securely (e.g. the mark_safe() function is specifically intended for context where the user understands what they are doing - some people may mess it up, but its presence does not indicate a security vulnerability). So the "at least one issue is present for about 46% of the Python packages" number doesn't worry me too much.
No, not exactly. From [1], the XY problem is "you are trying to solve problem X, and you think solution Y would work, but instead of asking about X when you run into trouble, you ask about Y."

So person is trying to solve X, but asks

"How do you do Y?"

"Why are you trying to do Y?"

"Well, I want X and Y seems to be the solution"

"No, to solve X you want to do Z."

In this case the asker nicely gave their X as part of the question, but the bulk of the question was still about trying to move forward on their mistaken "solution" Y.

1. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-x... (and note all the other answers saying the same thing.)
Indeed, but millions of humans have lived for millenia in places where grass does not grow easily. It's a different culture in so many important ways from the one found in areas with plentiful water, and has evolved over thousands of years to deal with "the world as it is".
I think there's also a tendency for the targeting of any given scam/psyop/sales pitch/etc. to make targets look foolish to non-targets. That is, the more narrowly targeted it is to bypass your bullshit filter, the more obvious it seems to someone else. So they walk away from hearing about your situation thinking that they're too smart to be fooled... only to fall for something that was designed to bypass their bullshit filter, possibly without even realizing it.
> The technology stack to support Google Glass is almost entirely distinct from the technology stack which supports in-phone AR. Maybe both are AR, but then all that means is it's not a particularly useful term, because it can mean things that are entirely different from both a technology and user perspective.

Bullshit. The technology cinemas use for their stereoscopic 3D is totally different to the technology used for Samsung’s 3D TVs, and different again from the Nintendo VirtualBoy which is also different from Google Cardboard. Yet all of the aforementioned are stereoscopic 3D.

Not every technical term depends on a technical implementation.

> So I think we need to define terms

It is a defined term. You just seem intent on moving the goal posts for some reason.

> (But moving about a bit of furniture through the camera view on your mobile phone is very different to something like magic leap, or oculus passthrough).

I agree. But 30 years after the first time I tried VR and the whole industry is still basically a novelty. Whereas AR is already providing practical value to millions (eg Google Translate) simply because it is more accessible and has more scope for useful utilities.

Which brings us full back circle to the very point I opened with. ;)
I would have bet against it too! But I would have lost. It’s very much counterintuitive that such a contraption could work. But it does.
It gets weird when you realize that if trucks are unnecessary and stupid, but SUVs are ok, what you're reading is an argument that trucks are OK so long as they have a covered bed.
The view of "if we just implement it right" it will be fine is a fallacy.

These organizations represent immense power through influence. By their very existence arises the conflict power and truth. If you can have influence over the fact checkers, then you have influence over truth. Who would you trust to form such an organization? Where is the oversight? Who monitors the monitors?

We are seeing what "reasonable censorship" actually looks like. It is an oxymoron.
> Given the last case, and the current make up of the Supreme Court, it’s probable this will be over turned.

It's worth noting that the prior decision was not about the merits of the law at issue but the conduct of the particular state officials involved in the particular case.

Going beyond the last case, its a case where expansive (or selectively pro-conservative-Christian) reading of “religious freedom” opposes the right’s usual preference on federalism, so if be cautious about any prediction based on ideology of the justices.
Right, the system is a weird hybrid that isn't funded by government. It is funded by profits of their actions like a private entity. I'm not sure what else to call an entity that is funded by its own profits if not a private entity.

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve):

It is governed by the presidentially appointed board of governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB). Twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in cities throughout the nation, regulate and oversee privately owned commercial banks.

The federal government sets the salaries of the board's seven governors, and it receives all the system's annual profits, after dividends on member banks' capital investments are paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2015, the Federal Reserve earned a net income of $100.2 billion and transferred $97.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[24] Although an instrument of the US Government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
Facebook is removing content because that is ground they want to stand on. Removing content feels like censorship, so it lends itself to political grandstanding in their favor. Millions of people get upset and demand that Facebook handle all content neutrally, which is exactly what Facebook wanted everyone to think in the first place.

The real issue with Facebook is the editorial decisions they make about promoting some content over others. It’s totally optional and is also a powerful form of censorship. A link that shows up in no one’s “algorithmic timeline” is worthless, even if it is not actually removed from the platform.

The essential lie is that the algorithm is neutral. It’s not; it is intentionally biased to favor Facebook’s goals: increase ad inventory and the data used to target ads.
Thanks. I also have my MacBook set up to stream to the Oculus.
How else would ISO make the “beelions” of dollars they need to fund the Universe?

Oh, sorry. They don’t need to fund the Universe, they’re supposedly an NGO for setting international standards that is funded by the governments around the world, right?

And they shouldn’t need “beelions” of dollars to do that, right?

Seriously, the whole funding/cost structure of the ISO is something that has annoyed me for decades. But I don’t see this situation changing any time soon — if ever.
Hm... Some of these might be better described as "Worse is Better", particularly the floating-point one.
It's worse than this, though.

You pay whether the doctor killed you or not. Roughly a quarter million Americans are murdered annually by preventable medical errors, and nobody cares. Furthermore, your estate gets full billing after they kill you.

Connecting billing to outcomes would go a long way to fixing this disaster of a system. It would help align incentives for these sociopathic quacks to stop murdering their patients en masse.

You pay: $reasonable_amount if your oncologist gets your cancer into remission, but you pay precisely $0 if the attending physician didn't bother reading your chart because they had to tee off at 3pm and then grab dinner at Fleming's with their mistress, so you got the wrong medication/procedure and you're confined to a wheelchair for life, or dead.

I can't think of any other profession, other than attorneys, where outcomes aren't intimately tied with compensation. Doctors and nurses, as modernity's new Gods, need to be brought down a few pegs with regard to this extravagant privilege.

... to say nothing of the fact that they are worse diagnosticians than a buggy Expert System written in Perl by a drunk college student in 1994, but because they are human, we should rely on them to make life or death decisions. But that's a discussion for another day.
The point is to force courts to build out case law.
It very well may be an explanation of the truth, and there's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you mean by "validation" then that's great! But if you mean that whether a claim is "valid" depends on any one person or source's position on the claim, then you're back to that bad epistemology I described.
Europeans are much, much more comfortable using taxes to drive policy.
Q Conference
It’s not all that different. The argument basically comes down to one of speech and artistic expression. Hear the government is requiring you to support a position with your speech and artistic expression. This is completely different from, say, housing. Refusing housing to someone based on their sexuality is clear discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake, to build a website, to support a position to disagree with, is government coercion of speech. I have absolutely no problem with the same sex marriage, transgender rights, any of that, but I do have a problem with the government forcing speech and expression.
It's not a new problem.

20 years ago at a national park with signs "don't feed the wildlife" with a parent teaching her 3 year old to feed the wild life within 3 feet of such a sign. I said "do you see the sign? why are you doing this?" She scoffed, pouted, and ran with her child to her car and drove away.

We treat her like a child because so many adults act like children. They seek what their parents never gave them, and unfortunately keep barking up the wrong tree, but you can't just refrain from sugggesting they not feed wildlife or it leads to mayhem.

Today we have so many humans defecating in the lakes near Maroon Bells that the park might close. For at least a decade that park has a "pack it out" policy, including your own poop. There are that many people pooping in the woods, and it's not good enough to dig holes. People so infantilized they lack the emotional coping skill to poop in a sack and pack it out, so they swim out in a lake with numerous "do not swim" signs and take a dump.

People are fucking stupid. If you don't tell them this, they think it isn't true, and the rules for for someone else.
Not at all. It's the exact opposite. In that case, they didn't have access to the planes that crashed. In this case, they do.
I agree that minivans are very useful. There's also cost to consider. When I was looking, the basic minivan was at least $5k more than a basic work truck with extended cab.
> Assuming op found this via this

Anyone can look at the view count on YouTube.
Do you live in a world with spherical cows? The human body isn't that efficient. Getting down into a car if your body is old or packing a lot of weight requires exertion as does getting back out. And the average new car buyer probably has at least one of these or is married to someone who is.
That’s true, thank you for pointing that out, it was about process, but the cases are going to keep going and I think the supreme court will probably take this one up if anything to settle the issue.
"If you believe "the vaccine turned people into the Hulk", thats a mental health problem."

Then half the population is mentally ill. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot of issues we are dealing with...
The “cake guy” case ended up being decided on case-specific conduct of state officials, not the merits of the law, leaving the fundamental question of the federal constititutional validity of the state law to a future case.

This is (provided no case-specific issue provides an excuse to avoid that issue) potentially that future case.

Also potentially not; the Supreme Court has been deflecting cases raising similar issues since Masterpiece Cakeshop, and I don't see any change (e.g., a conflict between the Circuit Courts on the issue) that would be a strong basis for believing that would change, though its also possible that the number of such cases or change on the Court could be sufficient to motivate taking this case.
It would be the same sort of coercion when government compels companies to serve black or disabled customers for creative or expressive products, regardless of any deeply held spiritual beliefs about black or disabled populations.
Can Smart Contracts Make the World 10x More Efficient?
In middle school I set the video as my AIM status, then someone in a grade above me messaged me with a rant about how it wasn't funny.
I had a related idea in 2009, building a Twitter bot called @sorrymom.

The idea was you tell it something “bad” you have done, and she reassures you it is okay.
I sold a SaaS that was making around that amount in ARR. I used an M&A firm that was specialized in selling bootstrapped SaaS businesses. We ended up getting more than 10 offers which drove up the final price and allowed me to choose the best fit. I would have never been able to go through the process alone and get the multiples that we got offered.
I was there for the first duck roll. Good times
Not to steal views, but the 4k enhanced version is crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-YBDTqX_ZU
I hope both sides are satisfied with the outcome, cause in my book they both lost!
Dumb question, but simple searches for "iOS", "Apple", "macOS", get zero hits. Can conclusions be drawn from that?
Yes, there's this insane urbanist crowd that thinks every quarter-ton pickup is a tool of satan, and endlessly repeats asinine statements like "a minivan is a better cargo hauling platform" and "you can haul a boat with a Honda Fit."

We get it, you hate pickups. But they're really useful. And no, I'm not going to help you move...
I haven't looked at it much but it doesn't seem like a reliable enough treatment that one wouldn't want to be vaccinated. It seems like there are a bunch of different drugs that have shown to be effective but none are in the ballpark of two doses of Pfizer or Moderna
I've been tracking it since it's inception: bit.ly/IqT6zt
Would have been a quality submission even if it hadn't actually reached a billion views.
Interesting. I wonder if it's a visibility thing, or vehicle geometry, or traits common to the typical minivan driver, or what.

I would expect to find that they are not as dangerous to occupants of other vehicles as trucks and larger, higher-riding SUVs, which is half of what I'm talking about here, but I could absolutely be wrong about that.
Avalanche Bridge
Incorrect. I am not a lawyer, but serving a customer is not a form of speech or expression. Making a website and decorating a cake, are forms of expression and speech.
Ask HN: How does your marketplace handle VAT?
We're creating a new marketplace startup, intending to have people from all over the world purchase (digital) items from other countries also all over the world!

I'm struggling on VAT however. We're not in a new area, so I'm hoping that somebody from HN can point me in the right direction. Reading about this it looks like I have two options:

- I have to limit where my buyers / sellers can be located purely to countries I'm registered in for paying VAT.

- I register for vat in all countries.

- I have to find the 'minimum taxable threshold' for each country. If it's a reasonable amount of money, I include that country as allowed and wait until that country has earnt some amount below the threshold before regisitering for paying VAT in that country.

The latter option seems the best, but finding the value for four countries took me 20 minutes earlier. Doing it for all countries is going to take too much time that could be spent improving the service, etc. Is there a simpler way?
Isn't it a carbon sink?
Can anyone give me one good reason a programming language should bother with dependency management?

When a programming language tries to ignore dependency management, like Go and Python did for too long, an ecosystem will soon spring up of a bunch of informal third-party tools for managing dependencies, all of which are only partially compatible with each other. It works better when the designers of a programming language include dependency management in the design and promote one official way to do it, like C# or Rust.

(I say this even though in general I prefer Go and Python to C# and Rust - you have to respect what the different tools do better.)
Creating large domino art displays
Today, 4chan was referred to as "techie culture."
Rick did a great AMA four years ago. A redditor asked him "Will you ever give me up?" and he said "Go fuck yourself." https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/56cdgm/ama_im_really...

He seems like a neat person. His success is well-deserved.
Was anyone here around when the song was first released?

Always wondered what people thought of it back then
This 8 descriptor per packet limit is HORRIFIC. I debugged and fixed this issue on FreeBSD when we first moved to the new iflib based ixl (i40e's name on FreeBSD).

They had a routine (ixl_tso_detect_sparse()) which was AFU. I wrote a userspace unit test that proved it was AFU, and then fixed it. I fed them back the routine & the unit test, and they hilariously left my commented debug prints in the routine.

https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/412b5e40a721430a...

And their 100GbE NIC has the same limit, which is just so sad. All these fancy features, and they cannot handle 8 segments per emitted packet on the wire.
A new car. They had a flashing banner, but it went unclaimed for some reason.
https://xkcd.com/570/