skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Elon Musk was worth more than $20 million before taking over Tesla and SpaceX. Jeff Bezos was worth more than $20 million before Amazon started AWS. Sergey and Larry were worth well more than $20 million before Google launched Gmail. Jack Dorsey was well more than $20 million before starting Square. Stephane Bancel was worth much more than $20 million when he became CEO of Moderna. Steve Jobs was worth much more than $20 million before starting NeXT or Pixar, or returning to Apple to build the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Andrew Carnegie was worth more than the equivalent of $20 million before US Steel. John Rockefeller was worth more than the equivalent of $20 million before starting Standard Oil. Edison was worth more than $20 million before starting General Electric. Howard Hughes was worth more than $20 million before starting his aviation business. Carl Bosch was worth more than $20 million before commercializing nitrogen fixation.
good stuff. thanks for sharing
Ask HN: Good React courses for a complete beginner?
Someone in my family wants to move into software development and I'm in a position where I could probably get them a job as a junior dev if they were able to get the basics under their belt.

We're using React so some experience developing React apps would be a minimum requirement for the role. They know a little HTML, but are overwise they're complete beginners.

Can anyone recommend a course (free or paid) which can help introduce the basics of HTML/CSS/JavaScript alongside React? Or would it be better to focus on HTML, CSS & vanilla JavaScript first?

I've been doing this so long I'm not sure I appreciate how difficult it might be for sometime to jump straight into React. Has anyone got children or family members who were able to pick up React without first learning HTML, CSS & JavaScript?
If you want a Phd get a Phd. If you don't want a Phd, don't get a Phd.

There are costs and benefits to either course of action. Neither is right or wrong.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with companies seeking candidates with Phd's for research roles either. They have financial interests too.

It's not unfair because it is not unreasonable.

Good luck.
I have not visited r/NoNewNormal but have participated in r/LockdownSkepticism , which I think is a valuable dissenting voice. You can think covid is a serious problem while questioning much that is done in the name of combating it.
I haven't fact-checked the article yet, but the fact that this is an area with low-hanging fruit and the apparent expertise of the team leads me to think we should have some confidence here.

Cf. from the OP:

> Our clinical director, Professor Paul Farrand, was the architect of using Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavioural therapy at scale in the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), and the author of one of the first international textbooks on the subject.
I agree that popular news and media outlets are hype driven and not typically concerned with helping people form an accurate and well-informed opinion.

> like no warnings from any experts at all

Citing the OP, one important takeaway is the warning that the Lambda variant may lead to breakthrough infections and further variants:

> Because the Lambda variant is a VOI, it might be considered that this variant is not an ongoing threat compared to the pandemic VOCs.

> However, because the Lambda variant is relatively resistant to the vaccine-induced antisera, it might be possible that this variant is feasible to cause breakthrough infection
Really? So you think Trump was wearing his pants backwards at this rally?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-wear-pants-backwards...

Snopes says he wasn't, and shows evidence why. That's just "pure, unadulterated bias" though, right? His pants are on backwards?

Otherwise "I see Snopes as pure, unadulterated bias" would be such a broad generalization it's meaningless!
Accessibility is probably a good way to discern is gui usable for a particular use where one needs accessibility. It's an interesting feature to have for many. I don't ever read it as a way to disparage the gui (guis after all are quite hard to implement - any experimentation no matter how playfull is probably more than welcome in this space).
I know this is somewhat frowned upon here, but a strongly-worded op-ed complaining about mostly-non-specific "media" coverage of a non-tech, non-startup-related topic really seems like a poor fit for this community.

I'm not saying to not discuss it, obviously, and it isn't the sort of thing I'd normally flag. I'd just humbly ask folks (as a generic community member) to take some extra care to avoid starting or fanning flamewars.
It's a critical point.

After thinking about it (circa 2008ish?), I switched to the BBC for my base American news source, then check both US liberal and conservative media if it's a topic I'm interested in.

If you really want the facts, you shouldn't have any opposition to objectively reading someone from the other side, trying to make their case.
Is this Rust only or is there bindings for C?
But the fucking sub was recommended to me on the app! I clicked, went in there, posted a comment or two to enlighten people, and bam! Banned from /r/india! W.T.F.!!
the juce combobox uses a texteditor widget, so it actually deserves that name.
You won't hear about it unless you had problems like I did after I did all kinds of people telling me same.
"a simple feel-good story" - am I the only one who feels manipulated? It could have been eg "Man makes toy bears...". When I see something like "Dad makes teddies..." I stop reading. Give me the details, and I'll draw conclusions on my own, thanks. Related, I struggle to find objective media; I thought The Economist would be hard nosed objective economics - nope, had to unsubscribe; I figured the FT must be the answer, only interested in money and profits, facts only - nope, unsubscribed.
Well, if the credibility of the content depends on its having been witnessed or analyzed at all, this should be immaterial.
I agree, the problem is much more intricate and solutions need to be far more nuanced than “tax everyone down to 20m”.

I was thinking the other day about companies and the impetus behind patents. I agree we want Elon and Jobs and Bezos to have ownership and run the show, like they do now, and with as much “wealth” and power as they have, exclusively, for some amount of time. But I’m not sure if we want the mass of power they accrue to sit around indefinitely. Once the head leaves, as you saqy, the company is entirely different. Society does not really benefit from a scenario where say Jobs accrues tons of wealth doing great things and then leaves this zombie beast of a company lying around continuing to suck money out of people and transfer it to shareholders.

So I think something like a limited exclusive right to profits might work. You (a company) can profit no questions asked for say 14, extendable to 28, years if more time is needed and/or you’re still under a certain size. After that a company gets turned into a non profit. It may still operate and pay employees and staff and whatnot, but it may no longer pay owners out the wealth that it accrues. It either has to spend that wealth, pay taxes, or lower prices so that it’s not taxing people, essentially. Obviously this needs more ironing out but I think it is possibly a compromise that is radical enough to combat the large and dangerous wealth vacuuming machines that companies turn into while still preserving the incentives structure that drives capitalism.
If you want to create a user-friendly experience, how about making it so that I just plug my car in and it charges?

No phones, no apps, no access cards. The charger recognizes my car, the car has the billing info, done.

Sigh.

It was such a massive ball drop when the plug standard insisted on having the plug + car detection of the plug being inserted work in all conditions, but then failed to account for the simple fact that billing also needs to be solved.

It's like they thought of it as someone inserting a gas nozzle, or that the electricity would be free.

And now we've rolled out how many of these?
Some forms of immunity decrease your ability to transmit to others, which protects those at risk, so it's not just about self-preservation.
Wasn't there also a sofa shortage, caused in part by a foam shortage?

https://slate.com/business/2021/07/furniture-shortage-couch-...
Pfizer chief Albert Bourla: ‘We are the most efficient vaccine machine’
https://archive.is/jO5P4
I'm no more a fan of billionaires than the next guy, but is this argument not extremely hypocritical:

“Billionaire Jeff Bezos could personally pay for enough vaccines for the whole world, yet he would rather spend his wealth on a thrill ride to space. COVID-19 is turning the gap between rich and poor into an unbridgeable chasm” - millionaires.

Millionaires could personally alleviate so much suffering in the world, yet they would rather buy... Nice houses, cars, and whatever else millionaires buy. You could extrapolate this argument all the way down even to those in objectively unfortunate circumstances. It's turtles all the way down.

These pleas seem motivated more out of virtue signaling than anything else.
A not as large but still significant number of people (including myself) also got vaccinated, then got infected anyway. It's certainly not a simple choice between the two, taking the vaccine reduces your risk, it does not eliminate it.

Note, I am NOT saying that the vaccine isn't worth getting, I am very glad I got vaccinated, the infection sucked as it was with my immune system primed to fight it off. I don't think I would want to experience the counterfactual where I had been infected without vaccination.
That's a fair point, which I honestly hadn't quite put together when I wrote that. Still, falls under the "lots could go wrong" category.
Current vaccines aren't as effective against catching Delta, they are very effective against symptoms, hospitalization, and death, so everyone must get vaccinated.

Being vaccinated to the point where you don't become part of a flood of patients overwhelming the healthcare system is a good thing. The vaccine making COVID a mild virus to the vaccinated is a huge success given that we don't really have great treatment options for serious cases other than hoping your body fights it off.
One explanation for this CSAM thing is to muddy the water about content scanning using an unassailable goal so that apple can give the Chinese and Saudi governments what they want and not get the same degree of criticism.
I think we're also increasingly seeing journalistic "power" consolidating on the coasts, in the bluest of blue districts (of course the most prestigious newspapers have always been coastal, but they've grown in prevalence while regional newspapers have fallen). This means that journalists for the largest publications are overwhelmingly far more left-wing than the rest of the country.
Blacks in the south were more or less slaves until 60 years ago. Slavery still exists in the world today. Your opinions reflect a totally sterile mind.
"We know conclusively that large unvaccinated populations do lead to the emergence of more virulent strains."

Then why were the experts saying that virulence should go down over time at the beginning of the pandemic? It seems that either side would just be conjecture.
What is your point? There are other countries that implemented strict restrictions and also saw very low death rates during the first and second waves (China, New Zealand, Australia).
An example being SPLC labeling ex-muslims as hateful "islamophobes".
His great hair won’t make up for the gross overreach they’ve made.

Maybe they should try and Think Different(TM)?
I can see you have (probably justifiable) beef with FDA regulations, and the politics they play. But the posters worry is real. CBT is offered as a therapy to many mental disorders. It can indeed be done by yourself, so in theory it makes sense that you don’t need to regulate it, but it sits right at the border of that demarcation if you ask me. Questions about whether it should be regulated is valid, and the answer offered is also somewhat valid though perhaps not opportune.
Polygraphs are now generally considered junk.

Someone should be working on ML lie detectors that would be more accurate for a substantial fraction of the population. Few people could defeat it, and there would still be false positives that have to be considered for. Maybe only use the results to clear people and not to convict which should only be based on other evidence.
Snopes is fundamentally trafficking in "trust". People refer to them with the question if something heard or seen should be trusted. Plagiarism is fundamentally a violation of trust: it represents work as original when it is not. If trust is violated in the production of the work, why would you believe that the facts presented are themselves trustworthy? Even if the plagiarist doesn't desire to mislead factually, they've already taken shady shortcuts to save some time... why wouldn't they also take shortcuts on diligence or verification? The problem is once trust is lost, you can't take for granted any measure of reliability given that trust verification is their product.
News literacy is a skill that’s just as important as critical reading. Thankfully, I don’t think that implementing curriculum should be too difficult, given that in many ways, it’s a complementary skill.

Now I don’t know if we add it into the SAT / ACT, but it should at least have some dedicated time set aside for it in History/Language Arts courses.
> ... what looks later as a slam dunk / sure winner acquisition is anything but for those involved during the process

Exactly.

> ... it would've been interesting to get to understand Google's motivation for doing this deal. My understanding is that Google understood mobile was important and given that, at the time, network operators had a lot of control over mobile software, the fear was that they could control access to the search engine and, hence, exclude or take control over Google.

That's sort of hinted at in the article:

When Android met with Google, Larry Page observed that it would make sense for Google to acquire the small company, to help them build a platform that would enable Google to enter the mobile market.

Perhaps we all need to buy the book to find out ...
If you ignore 99% of the systemic risk you can find a few tiny “positives”. Less cold days? Really? Yay existential threat averted
>I was referring specifically to the incidence of blood clots, not necessarily any AEFI.

Most people are concerned about having any sort of serious AEFI, and not just blood-clots.

So comparing rate of incidence of blood clots to car accidents to imply vaccine safety is a bit misleading in my opinion.
Some excellent points. As you say, what is the difference between a book on CBT (as mentioned in the original post "bibliotherapy" is known to be effective in peer-reviewed studies) and a CBT app? And at what point do you draw the line between these two (assuming the claims made are equal)? I feel this is a question regulators globally are somewhat grappling with currently, and it's clearly going to be an focus going forwards in this space.
I clicked your first link:

"Kamala Harris said that she'd happily take a [hypothetical] vaccine that doctors and scientists recommend — but absolutely not one touted by Donald Trump"

That's a far cry from what you said. She's not referring to an actual "Trump vaccine", as that didn't exist. She's saying that if Trump recommended something and scientists didn't - as was the case for hydroxycholoroquine, for example - then she would quite reasonably avoid it. Trump didn't recommend vaccination until March this year, by the way - long after scientists had weighed in, the first vaccines had been rolled out, Trump himself had been vaccinated, and he was no longer president.
Somewhat related, I heard an interesting podcast recently by Corecursive about Sqlite and they mentioned how Android was so far ahead... excerpt:

> This was back in 2005 or so, and we were in meetings with Android, and this was before Android was a thing... they had a prototype of their Android phone, and this was before iPhone... but we were debugging something with SQLite and we were plugging into the phone and we were running the debugger on a workstation which was pretty amazing. Nobody else could do that... here we were, we were debugging an application in GDB on a phone that was on the public network, and this was utterly mind blowing. Nobody at Motorola, nobody at Symbian, nobody at Nokia had anything close to that, and in that one moment, I knew that Android was going to be huge.
https://archive.is/PCVtm

"An analysis of data of 700,000 company devices by the cyber security
group Code42 found that there were about 65m attempts made by staff to
exfiltrate source code from their corporate network in the three months
to the end of June, up from about 20m in each of the previous three quarters."

The study mentioned in the article:

https://www.code42.com/blog/incydr-scoop-data-exposure-jumps...
I feel this. If you ARE going to solve your problem with infrastructure, then get ready to descend into the madness of infrastructure-as-code. One way or the other, you are going to end up having to codify it.
There is some new information in this interview, notably that Craig actually gives a rough number to the amount of positive hashes required to flag them for review on iCloud is approximately 30 images. I don't think this had been mentioned previously and it's not something I think people creating this sort of system would normally want to share publically, given that understanding the system in place is the first step in bypassing it.

The other thing he mentions is that there are auditable systems in place, at least by security researchers. He doesn't really disclose how it is, just that there are ways for a third party to investigate any changes to the system and any sort of tampering to the hash database.

He also firmly denies that he considers this technology a backdoor.

But once again another Apple executive is saying that the primary reason for the backlash is confusion or lack of understanding of the technology, which, while there is a lot of uninformed people on the subject, fails to acknowledge that there are people that do understand the technology and still have objections to it.
It's not hyperbolically "fine", but unless you're living a rustic nearly off-the-grid life, you're regularly enjoying modern goods dependent on the fossil fuels industry for transport, fertilization, packaging, plastics, energy – from essentials like food up through luxuries.

Perhaps you try to minimize your consumption of obviously fossil-fuel dependent products. Still, most complex highest-value products – like everything computer- or medical- or entertainment- related – only became possible with the massive surpluses-over-subsistence, & advanced fields-of-practice, that fossil-fuels enabled.

Humans are getting smart enough to now massively decrease the energy intensity of many high-value activities, or leverage energy sources with fewer (but not zero) unintentional or unmetered negative spillovers.

But it took the lucky bonanza of fossil fuels to get humanity to here. (I suspect it even took that bonanza to train up enough minds for you to be aware, & angry, about an oil-spill that's (likely) thousands of miles away from you – instead of totally focused on a short life as a subsistence farmer.)
But I can't create new views to align with the imbeciles posing as mods!
Nice spin.

The study you cited https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(21)00756-X.pdf is specifically called out in the paper I linked, because it only looked at reactions to the Wuhan strain, which is effectively extinct.

"In a recent publication, Li et al. (Cell 184 :1-17, 2021) have reported that infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein facilitate virus infection in vitro, but not in vivo. However, this study was performed with the original Wuhan/D614G strain. Since the Covid-19 pandemic is now dominated with Delta variants, we analyzed the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of these variants."

I'm sure this post will be taken down shortly, so I wouldn't worry about it.
https://www.codecademy.com/catalog
https://www.codecademy.com/search?query=react

Those 2 places would be a good place to start to learn HTML/CSS/Javascript, then move forward into React
Stop by the comment section of the NYTimes' Facebook page sometime. Now that people can't read the articles without paying, the fights start off of the headline alone.

I subscribe, so I see the NYT's on-site comments, which are of far better quality.
That sounds hilariously demoralizing. Talk about Pavlovian training in the wrong direction, every time I find a way to boost the value of my company, I have to sign more of it over the government.
> This is less likely than dying of COVID in any age category. 0.00025%.

Is this not apples and oranges? The odds of a Covid patient dying from Covid is higher, is it not, than the odds of a person dying from Covid?

That is, one must take into account the chances of catching Covid in the first place.

If there is a nasty disease with 10% mortality, and a vaccine with only a 0.001% chance of mortality, there would not be sufficient information to decide whether to take the vaccine... instead, you would also need to know your chances of catching the nasty disease in the first place over some period of time.
A Modest Proposal indeed, and so commonsensical it's a wonder it hasn't been implemented already!
> I think most people agree that natural immunity is as good as a vaccine.

This is a place where "most people" are wrong. Natural immunity is globally inferior to vaccinated immunity.

Vaccines are safe and effective, and it's easy to document that you got a shot. Receiving a vaccine is helpful even if you've recovered from infection naturally.
> The value for the chickenpox (and other R0s in the slideshow) came from a graphic from The New York Times, which wasn't completely accurate.

If anyone from the CDC reads this, please reach out. I've seen some spicy Delta data on TikTok.
Yeah, this headline seems egregious in that it's not just sloppy, imprecise, or inaccurate, it's purposefully meant to mislead you into believing something that isn't true. So, a lie.
95% of us aren’t American. And while I would never blame Americans for voting for an American government specifically on the basis of what they promise do for American citizens and without regard for the consequences for the rest of us, the overall effect on the world to which rich Americans can flee has been more up than down.
We're an AI/MLOps company solving business problems in highly regulated industries. We've got positions in a few cities on the East Coast. Feel free to reach out if you want to talk details: t.shank@striveworks.us
Love that expression.

I recently read this about it:

https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/what-the-...
What you get out of college is entirely up to you.