skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Search needs to be under-sensitive to return results people want. Often a search isn't for precisely the semantic information in the query, but for information generally about that topic (not to mention how queries are often not actually sentences, e.g. if I want to find a white bird with big wings that was eating a fish I might search "white bird wings fish". Maybe that's a bad example, I can't think of a better one off the top of my head but the point stands.)
how long before Google acquires Cerner?
I can't even take your comment seriously. Your argument is not advanced by your belief that Musk has accomplished more than all other humans.
If you don't know what flies have got to do with humans, discover Seymour Benzer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235899/
The donor's dilemma: to whom when so many are needy? I'd suggest donating to a reputable agreggator, such as the United Way or Red Cross.
> excluding down payment

Therein lies the rub. It’s true that inflation adjusted average monthly mortgage payments have remained surprisingly constant over the last 40 years [*], since as you point out, low interest rates generally offset high home values (and vice versa). However, accruing enough cash in the first place to afford huge down payments keeps a lot of people out of the market who could otherwise afford the monthly payment.

As an aside, the quality of housing stock has improved dramatically over the last few decades, so that roughly constant average monthly payment actually buys a much better quality product today than in years past. I’m not sure how much of this is accounted for in hedonic adjustments.

[*] with the exception of the early 80s with its super high interest rates, and the housing bubble of the mid 2000s, with its super inflated home values without a commensurate drop in interest rates
What's the yes-and version of that comment? Assuming you want to say basically the same thing then the answer to the question really is no.
The super wealthy keep their money tied up in lots of things, including real estate. It's called diversity and investing in lots of things is significantly easier when you're... super wealthy.
> Nothing here is morally biased: neither the algorithm or the data.

I think the issue here is the following progression:

1. Someone chooses and collects a subset of all data that exists.

2. They then choose an algorithm/generic-framework-of-a-model with the intent to apply it to the data chosen in step 1.

3. They then train the chosen algorithm from step 2, yielding a model.

What @darawk is saying, I believe, is that the algorithm/generic-framework-of-a-model chosen in step 2 is not morally/ethically biased/racist/etc. A human may consider the outputted model from step 3 to be so, however.

If the above is true, then the source of moral/ethical bias is the data chosen in step 1.

What untrained model/algorithm is morally or ethically biased? I know of no model listed in scikit learn, tensorflow, scipy, etc. that has hardcoded any sense of anything about humans at all...
I used to think 'no', but I think it pretty much can.

You can have 2 classes: property owners and non-owners.

The property owners have real estate that they can sell or collateralize to purchase different or additional real estate. This is why, for example, current California owners have no problem buying in e.g. Washington: even if a house in both places were $1billion*, they can just trade.

Obviously, non-owners may be priced out, but this doesn't affect the owners, and they, as a class, can ask for any amount to transfer the ownership.

TL;DR: In musical chairs, so long as there are no new chairs produced and nobody on a chair is forced to stand, there's no ceiling on the asking price for a chair.

*Neglecting transaction costs.
Like I said, an ideological agenda.
I agree that lumping Christians in is a problem, as is ignoring secular influence in anti-sex lobbying groups.

How might you edit the article to remove the "Christian bashing" while also being clear about the influence of Christian conservatism on the topic?

How can we make a clear distinction while also being clear about the anti-sex ideologies that come directly from Christian conservatism?

Is there a specific secular influence that is worth pointing out here that the article missed or glossed over?
Multiply this comment by x10000 and thats precisely what youll be dealing with as described exactly in this previously mentioned Reddit thread

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_...
It is nonetheless useful to rigorously understand exactly how and why common-sense patterns occur.

Also, I would guess that the speed and type of change being experienced as a result of human activity (that animals are responding to) is relatively rare and thus valuable to understand.
Can you elaborate on this? I think perhaps there's a gap between what the structure is "meant to be for" (meant by who?) and what's legal.
I think the biggest backlash is against the spam calls. IF I know the number, I'll be a lot less irritated by a phone call than if I don't.
I searched google for the word pocket, and One came up https://www.onefinance.com/features/
https://api.politifact.com/article/2021/aug/04/cdcs-new-evic...

It is being litigated.

> Five justices — the three more liberal justices, plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh — supported keeping the moratorium in place. However, Kavanaugh emphasized in his appended statement that he agreed to continuing the moratorium only because it was about to end. As a matter of law, Kavanaugh wrote, he thought extending the moratorium further was unconstitutional.
How would you do it? How would you kill a baby, a dog, an adult, and yourself in the woods while leaving no physical traces of those means? It doesn’t add up.
Used to be lower.
What was your experience? How did they treat you differently once they found out?
That was the more important headline.
No no, see, once you actually have money you stop caring about other people and just want to protect what you have. "Got mine, fuck you" and all that. At least, that's how it seems from all the advice that gets thrown around about people who suddenly come in to wealth. Weirdly no one gives advice related to the documented ways that people tend to change when they suddenly have much more money than the people around them.
You just help them without saying you got $55M.

As the GP mentioned, people, even family members will start treating you differently (nicer if you start giving them your money, worse if you don't). That's IMO a valid excuse why you didn't want to tell.
are they burning wood chips and painting themselves green ?
How much do you donate annually? 10 Million people donating 100$ per year is substantially more than he could ever donate.
I’d flip it the other way: Google decided to remove the benefits of portability, similar to how Zoom removed the benefits of being able to use their service without installing a client first.

FaceTime is limited to Apple devices until iOS 15 allows anyone with a browser to join a call, so you’d think they’d be emphasizing the benefits of portability more.
Sweet username.
What if their money issues are their own doing (they live way above their means)? If you give them money, you're an enabler.
I feel it's not useful to separate out the content creators from the network itself. Most of the "bad" things we see in today's social media are byproducts of how these networks behave as a whole. Put differently, how Youtube functions today is the result of the interactions between Youtube's algorithm to maximize profit for Google, content creators' drive to get more views, and consumers' desire to find more addicting things. You change one piece of the network and the network will behave very differently.

I find this to be very hopeful, because it means we can design and form networks that elevate people, not lower them into mindless zombie states.
> I'm not convinced that is a responsibility that belongs to private corporations.

Private corporations are, by and large, the entities which execute their business using these algorithms, which their employees write.

They are already responsible for business decisions whether made using computers or otherwise. Indeed, who else would possibly manage such a thing? This is tantamount to saying that private corporations should have no business deciding how to execute their business — definitely an opinion you can have, it's just that it's an incredibly statist-central-planning opinion the end.
I don't think you need to win the lottery to be in this situation. Imagine having a cushy job in a FAANG company, where your base salary is probably more than what your parents make combined. It is in my case.

I made the mistake of telling them (roughly) what I earn and it definitely has changed the way they interact with me. I get remarks about my 'wealth' and that I can easily drop $10K on something frivolous. I get other remarks that compare their hard job to my 'easy' job that has catering and long lunch breaks. No one asks how my mental state is. No one asks whether I take my work home with me at the end of the day. No one asks how many hours I put in. All they see is a family member that will drop a ton of cash on a nice vacation or a larger house.

Word of advice: don't tell your family how much you make either.
> Less Wrong relative to a presumed-ordered natural world

The "natural world" doesn't have beliefs, the world itself cannot be right or wrong, it just is. So the question again is, Less Wrong relative to whom?

> To the end of shaping this world to be more in line with one's preferences.

And what if one is unsure of one's preferences?
What is the point of writing a letter like this to
a money advice column?

You're right: there's no point in writing a letter like this.

But also: did somebody actually write this letter?

This is pure speculation but I'm about 99.99% certain that 99.99% of letters to advice columns are wholly fabricated by those who write the columns... right?
Maybe link to the original article?

https://www.theverge.com/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-projec...
> It is incredible to me that climate change is still considered to be nonsense by so many people.

No need to be incredulous. Any issue that is politicized by default will cause polarization of beliefs on the subject. If you haven't realized this by now, take a look at covid.

Because climate change is politicized, your political affiliation changes how you view the issue (because your political affiliation affects your trusted sources of information in the world):

Extreme left: "Humanity's only hope for survival is to colonize Mars. Climate change will have apocalyptic consequences for the planet in the very near future, and earth is pretty much doomed. Nothing short of an authoritarian new world government can hope to approach sequestering the amount of carbon we need to reverse the effects."

Far left: "Climate change is THE biggest threat facing humanity. This problem MUST be prioritized at all costs above all other problems, NOW."

Middle left: "Climate change is real, but what can I really do? I already drive a Nissan Leaf and recycle. Our best bet is to transition to renewables/nuclear and hope for technological breakthroughs in the future."

Middle right: "Climate change is probably real, but taking drastic action seems unreasonable considering how long it's taking to see daily life impacted by it. At this rate, society will crumble due to in-fighting before it crumbles due to climate change."

Far right: "Climate change might exist, but the earth's climate has always changed. Just ignore the alarmist/fearmongering liberals, they are always freaking out about stuff that just isn't that deadly for the average person."

Extreme right: "Climate change does not exist. Let's go coal roll some Teslas."
"I'm an outside consultant to beach resorts and other interesting places."
This reads/feels like an AITA thread on reddit. I used to enjoy the MarketWatch questions until I reached a tipping point where I believed they were all fake. Sigh.
AFAIK, neither bleach nor boiling help with cyanotoxins in the water from algea.
Humans do not need cell service to survive! This tragedy does not change that.
It's somewhat early days, but workable. The search term you probably want is "Blazor Desktop". It's basically Blazor Server but served to a local webview instead of a remote client.

.NET 6 will have some convenient ways to do this in WinForms, WPF, and MAUI. But if you're willing to go off the beaten path a bit, it's not too hard to assemble the bits on your own (serve up Blazor on a background thread, consume it in your web view control of choice).
Sequence models go beyond co-occurrence.
Double digits PB/d is way more than 10Gb/s. 10Gb/s is about 100TB/d, so off by two or so orders of magnitude. So, OK you say, let's bond 100Gb/s links or something, but you need machines that can do that, too, and now you can download one copy of one day, per day, of data -- maybe, plus you need all that storage for that one very very vulnerable copy. Can't be done.

Big data is hard to deal with. You can't just download the stuff.
The mutation that helps Delta spread
I feel kind of dirty gossiping, but I also feel like Low-Key's story is a bit fishy. He's "the good child" who didn't tell his parents about lottery winnings that certainly would have been enough to, at the very least, give back to the people who raised him; however, he DID go out of his way to convince them to write his sister out of their will (we have no idea if the "horrible things" she supposedly did reasonably justified being disowned).

It's his money to do with what he wants, of course, but it feels as if we're hearing only one side, and that of a party who feels guilty and is looking for extrinsic support for their behavior. I'm trying to understand why someone who felt no qualms would post this publicly.
Why does it follow this pattern, at least in the docs, where the user is supposed to subclass Scene and provide a construct method? How does inheritance help here? Wouldn't it be simpler if instead users can make Scene using their own abstractions and functions in whatever way they feel is appropriate?
> it's pretty obvious the second half is false

It's really not. As I said above, people are not identical. Yes, evolution doesn't produce perfectly consistent results. However, absorbing nutrients is the direct foundation for the only thing that matters in the process of evolution: reproduction. You can't reproduce if you die from lack of nutrients. Given how much of humanity's existence has been staving off starvation and famine, any improvements would be heavily selected for, and would quickly spread.

As an extreme example, if you could survive on an apple per day, the next famine that rolled around would leave you pretty free to repopulate with your superdigestive genes, since most everyone else would be dead.

> You went to the trouble of mentioning CICO and then totally forgot about CO!

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make in this paragraph. Even if some people "run hot" or they have some magic gut that lets them survive on an apple per day or whatever, it's still a fundamental truth that if they're fat, they're eating too much. Yes, someone can exercise more or whatever to change their output, but the reason they're currently fat is because they're currently eating too much.

> It's self evident that CICO is true. It's just completely worthless for providing any insight. Very much a thought-terminating cliché as originally described.

Yes, no, and no. As described above, there really are people that think "I eat just an apple a day and I can't lose weight!". CICO is a baseline for saying "no, that's impossible". It's not a thought-terminating cliché, it's making sure that everybody is on the same page of accepting basic science.
Or any other country, really.
> The job description of contemporary journalists, and especially journalists at the New York Times, is to build narratives™ and use them to influence the world. That's what you'll learn about pursuing a modern journalism degree, and that's what will get you career success at the Grey Lady — doubly so since the Trump election.

No, you're conflating different things. That's the job of an op-ed columnist, which is what Nicholas Kristof is. And frankly, that isn't new. It's been true since the invention of newspapers. An op-ed columnist the equivalent of a modern-day pamphleteer.

The news section is different, and it's job is to report facts. The news and opinion sections are run as totally different organizations in well-run newspapers, because their objectives are so different.

Also, City Journal is even more ideological and biased than the New York Times.
> why do I want to pay off my house?

Because its the poor-man's version of F-You money.

It instantly and dramatically lowers the monthly takings to have to make to keep your household going, and noticeably shifts the balance of power in all financial negotiations in your favour.

Try it. Trust me.
And your theory is that a progressive journalist is calling the shots as Mastercard? I'm pretty sure MC would look a lot different if that were true.
Did you have to pay a gift tax for each friend?

Did each friend have to pay income tax on the money/property you gave them?

How was the house actually paid for, did you give the friends cash or did you buy the house for them and somehow gift it to them?
Therefore he should not donate any? I don't see where to go from this position.
I have a thing where I made a "bunch" (not a lot for Westerners, but people in other countries can do it too) of money online and a couple blogs publicized it. It is not something I could hide as it is very public if you look correctly.

I get an absurd number of scam attempts, some of them very customized. Someone tried to fake a family stamp collection (I collect stamps). Also, random people who looked me up would introduce me when I met them with other people as "the guy who [did $thing to get $amount). Even people in North America. And we are talking about 30K ish here.
He should help his sister out by willing all his money to a religious cult deprogramming organization like Cult Awareness Network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Network
Purify when you can, absolutely - but if you have to choose between a stream and a spring, take the spring. Not guaranteed to be safe, but if it's popping up out of the ground, it's more likely to be safe than flowing surface water. Also, always consider what's up-stream.
> It’s a soft paywall, protected only by cookies and JavaScript, bypass-able by using private browsing/incognito mode.

Not true. I tried that.

> They generate nice shareable url like this one for this article: https://archive.is/y58Py

This is helpful.
> if I ever encountered an animal on a plane it would probably be one of the worst experiences of my life.

If this is true, it sounds like a phobia, which is arguably itself a disability.

> I've met way too many people who treat their "fur babies" better than the actual human beings around them.

I sympathize with this in a way, but I urge you to recognize that your phobia may render you unable to understand or relate to the deep bonds that humans can form with their animals. These connections can be every bit as deep as those with other people.

> Based on this I would support banning animals on airlines.

If you're saying that your disability (i.e., you zoophobia) should be privileged over all other disabilities that might require the use of a service animal, then I think that's an unreasonable stance that, while common, won't ever be given credence in actual policy formation.

Even if someone isn't disabled and their animal companion isn't a service animal of any kind, I don't see why your disability should automatically foreclose their rights to have their companion with them.

For example, I have a friend, a single woman in her sixties with no family and no active social life. Her only companion is her little dog, who is far and away the most significant emotional bond in her life at the present time. If it happened that my friend had to travel and also had bring her dog with her, current airline policies would not automatically force her to put her companion in the cargo hold in deference to your phobia, and I think this is a fair compromise when the animal is small and well behaved.
> One aspect I find frightening about interpreting prositution as a "real job" is that women could be denied unemployment benifits if they reject a job that would involve them selling their body and their consent.

Imagine vegan denying butcher work. It's not wildly different, I guess? I think that laws should allow some flexibility in choosing work, when it comes to unemployment benefits. And questionable jobs should not even be offered.
Can you elaborate on "The enabling factor is that Visa/MC do not actually verify cardholder name"? Are you saying that you've got a credit card under an assumed name?
This is reminiscent of questions in the MtGox bankruptcy about whether debts should be denominated in crypto or in equivalent real-money value at the time.
By your logic unless Roblox corporation created computers they shouldn’t keep all the money, either.

I’m not sure why anyone would defend a dollar amount above $1. If you have money in you should be able to get it out immediately IMO.
Definitely consult a lawyer, but it is legal in some circumstances in some states to (for example) anonymously claim lottery winnings or buy real estate. See https://www.natlawreview.com/article/using-llc-or-trust-to-r... for more information.
The hazard of which is greatly overstated. You are probably fine drinking the vast majority of alpine springs if there aren't livestock grazing nearby. I rarely bring purification and I've never gotten sick.
I learned this the hard way once when I tried to get rid of a $5 subscription I didn't understand with Discover. I naively figured I would just request a new card and that would be that... Nope, it's like a direct debit or something, they are linked to the actual account, despite being setup through the card. Totally broke my head to the point I actually talked myself into closing my account, which was another mistake :(
Look up Case-Shiller home price index. In most markets, home values are much higher than they were in mid 2000's.

[1] https://wolfstreet.com/2021/07/27/most-splendid-housing-bubb...
I work on globally scalable and extremely complex systems.

Specifically, the ecosystem. I test it for enjoyment purposes.
> He attempts extraordinarily ambitious things that very few other people would even dream of attempting.

He makes stock plays. Then he lets everyone pick-up the hype for him. This is a very real skill, and he is excellent at it. It is not the same as accomplishing things.
The Programmable GPU Core (2011) [pdf]
You personally have a demand for fusion but the market makers don't see enough of a demand or reward vs risk to invest heavily in it. When they see enough of a demand / reward they will invest.
A company in my hometown makes parts for defense aerospace, the oil industry, private military contractors, and hyperscale data centers.

Are they spying on your Azure servers? Unlikely, they make hose reels and related round metal things.

Sometimes little (or big) companies like that get involved in weird lines of business because they buy other companies for the contracts.
I'm sure it varies from MVNO to MVNO, but most of them are deprioritized before the carriers direct customers during congestion.
(2019).

anything new on this?

IIRC was a known thing and surely was already discussed on here somewhere then.
actually, the most avid hikers i know usually are overconfident, and underestimate their water needs. I always carry excess water, even after years on the trail, and always have to give some to my even more well traveled companions.
Controlling children's social environment to direct them into emotional dependence on corporate stimulation is really harmful. Unfortunately MasterCard doesn't seem to be working on that problem.