skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I disagree. Dropped out of community college, couch surfed late teens to early twenties, worked night stocking at grocery stores, phone support for Wells Fargo, and DSL tech support.

I suffer from ADD and depression(some anxiety). I drink too much too often as self-medication.

Yet somehow I'm grossing just over 300k this year not working for a FAANG company. It's incredibly easy for me to get a job and offers and has been for nearly a decade. I've received multiple offers after passing interviews quite hung over(hey, when your interviewing at a few companies interviews are bound to collide with drinks nights haha).

I consider my self extremely lucky that I'm somehow successful career wise despite myself. And it's a trope that people who are successful monetarily but have a lacking family situation look at those with a great family situation and believe them to be lucky. And vice versa.

Some people are able to quit smoking relatively "easy". Some people are not able to, or need to be exposed to the right method of quitting. Some never get exposed to the right method, and some try everything and still can't quit.

Sometimes I feel like we are all just riding out life experiencing something we have little control over. And what we believe we have control over, we don't actually have control over having that control. This outlook doesn't take away from trying to maximize my personal experience, but it makes me think more than twice before considering the difference between myself and others as "hard working" vs "lazy".

Just because it may be human nature to be jealous of those with success doesn't mean they weren't actually lucky. The best or worst luck anyone will ever get is probably the parents they were born to and the genes they inherited from them..
Bloomberg’s Studio 1.0: Ethereum Co-Founder Vitalik Buterin
An NFC ring can still require secondary authentication (e.g., pin) in some contexts. That would be application-dependent.

There are cases (e.g., mass-transit turnstiles) where this isn't desirable --- the intent is to maximise throughput. (The quesiton of whether or not validating or fares are a net benefit is also open.)

For a more secure facility, or payment system, tag + pin (and potentially other identifiers) would be preferred.
Google culture seems to be : they release a bad product and they make it worse. Android Auto is crap. Never worked
Just the network effect of, say, two degrees of Kevin Bacon here is interesting. When it gets to three, rather than directly be approached "hey old buddy old pal" what you would have to do is wonder what percentage of those folks are grifters, con artists, and your basic criminals.

I have a Cousin Tammy I've never met, who out of nowhere calls and tries to hit us up for money every so often. Two degrees. If Cousin Tammy knows some desperate people ...

You have to really weigh how much you trust each person you tell not to tell, and you have to also evaluate all of the people they might tell -- which is not an easy task. For example, I am estranged from my father who, if I went into why, most people here would easily agree, if not suggest pressing charges. Despite repeatedly asking my mother not to tell my father anything about me -- where I work, what I do, and so forth -- she does it.

Ergo, if I really want to keep something from my father, I cannot tell my mother.

Now, imagine doing this for everyone you know, plus a lot of money, which at fifty-five million dollars, which, in the words of The Way of the Gun "is not money. It's a motive with a universal adapter on it."
The people making the decisions at the time did.

"Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
That's fine. Most people don't want to have to re-enter their new credit card everywhere, so you can always call your issuer and ask them to issue a new card, but stop all subscription charges.
LinkedIn is one of my favorite social networks

- it’s got a clear purpose (business networking)

- it’s the new defacto resume

- it’s the new business card

- people frequently share only professional interests and don’t share political news

The thing is, I’m not sure, unless you’re actively networking, why you would even log in. Just keep it dormant until you need a job or to grow your network.
How Peter Singer lives is completely irrelevant to the argument. The argument stands on its own regardless of the provider.

Google "Ad Hominem".
I found the clip from the 2010 keynote [1]. Steve Jobs said, "We’re going to take it all the way. We’re going to the standards bodies tomorrow and we’re going to make FaceTime an open industry standard." I didn't watch the whole video, so I might have missed some context, but this lines up with my memory.

I don't see a web client being a move in that direction.

[1] https://youtu.be/eujypqKT8o0?t=5809
For sure, I understand. Was more trying to say that it is not necessary to visualize comments to enjoy them. Likewise it is not necessary to visualize a book to enjoy it. "For sale, baby shoes, never worn." I don't see the shoes, and I don't see the advertisement but damn if it doesn't make me feel sad.

I can't quite describe how it works, but I still get something out of a visual description. If the author mentions a small red leather book and then later a large wooden book with a blue ribbon across it I get a different "sense" for lack of a better word. I have seen both things and know what they look like even if I can't form a visual picture in my mind while reading it. To be more precise I haven't actually seen a wooden book with a blue ribbon across it, but I have seen both of those items individually and know how it would look if they were combined. But I don't actually have a picture of it in my mind.
Something about there being old pilots and bold pilots, but very few old, bold pilots.
Most instagram ads are more entertaining and insightful than this article. Advertising is actually about educating the consumer for many products, and I think we're moving more toward personal ads that don't feel like ads. Sometimes you come across an ad that helps you or even changes your life. Things like new games, books or ideas. This article has nothing to do with the end of social media.
Well Bezos donated 12 billion already, and who knows how much more he will donate. He probably couldn't donate every year that amount, so if you say in 20 years it is 150$/20=7.50per year which is less than a dollar per month (admittingly this is everybody in the US). This is a lot of money for a lot of people but I still believe the total possible donatable wealth of non rich people is orders of magnitude larger than rich people (couldn't find good stats, was looking a while ago)
Measles is estimated to be about 300% more infectious than the delta variant, so if it surpassed measles it would be the most contagious viral disease known to man. It's already pretty close to what is assumed to be the "ceiling".
I recently listed to an NPR Planet Money podcast regarding the housing shortage. One of the points they mentioned was that the number of people joining construction related trade schools (plumber, electricians, etc) dropped because the construction industry was decimated after the 2008 crash. It takes 5+ years for someone to go to school, get an apprenticeship and become skilled in their trade. This scarcity is also impacting the ability to build new homes (apart from the zoning laws and NIMBYism that prevents building new high-density housing). The pandemic is more of a short term supply-shock which is exaggerating the situation.

Edit: edited to include year
Palestine is ambiguous. I assume you mean Gaza or West Bank?

To Palestinians the entire country of Israel is Palestine. Hence the chant from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.
>bluetooth will start skipping parts of the track, or will playback with a faster speed after a while

Sorry for laughing, but this is tech comedy gold :D
Because having an interface that works is so 1985.
Right, it's the second part of the fourth bullet that I was asking about. Basically, that it sounds like it isn't feasible for Google to avoid POST requests if they're being submitted from JS.
Bay Area doctor found with 2k images, videos of child porn: federal complaint
> If the most legendary game developer of all time thinks Roblox is fine, are you sure he's mistaken?

Isn't this an argument from authority? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Furthermore, the video made the argument that Roblox tries to mislead kids into thinking they can make money. In other words, an individual might be wrong in thinking the opportunities are worth investing time in due to the manipulative practices of Roblox.
Nah, one-time pad with government verification for third parties. Keep it rolling.
The main issue was that it was made my Microsoft. Microsoft is many things, none of them cool.
FaceTime is coming to the web

https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/7/22522889/apple-facetime-an...
Techmoan on yt has a load of videos about minidisk. And other cool and obsolete tech.
> Its not really that analogous. Theoretical physics is at least in theory still predictive, though it may be vert distant from the pragmatics of verification.

Sure, I intended the "cranked up a few notches" to cover the difference, but could have been clearer. Think things that don't even have a clear path to verifiability or testability, but continue to generate papers (string theory, maybe) but even more speculative.

> There are areas of political/economic science that are like that, but political/economic philosophy is predominantly normative rather than predictive (Austrian school economics, despite being called “economics” rather than “economic philosophy” and despite occasionally making fact rather than value claims is, and fairly openly admits to being, part of this.)

Absolutely! Part of the trouble is that to chart a course in politics or economics, you have to choose a desired outcome with winners and losers, so there's inherently a normative aspect to it. There's a whole lot of "ought" involved that's practically unavoidable. Throw in conflicts of interest and it's a hell of a mess. It's like if no-one had been able to agree on where Apollo 11's Eagle should land, and also they're already in flight, and also gravity doesn't always do what we think it does, and also several of the people involved are being paid to shill for particular landing sites, even if the spacecraft can't physically reach them within its fuel budget, but they've got some really fancy-looking explanations about the whole "gravity is weird sometimes" thing so maybe they're not full of shit?

To pick on the Austrians in particular (hey, you brought them up, not me, I only posted a complaint about their broad political sphere's style of argument without naming them :-) ) they've got a bad case of presenting their ethical egoism as also satisfying consequentialist approaches better than any other framework, just by happy coincidence. This should set off one's alarm bells at full volume, but it sure does help them cast a wide net when evangelizing.
Yeah that makes sense. I really think where this is running apart is that... like, a lot of the people driving the rationalist project are in environments where holding strategically correct beliefs isn't just useful but vital. Eliezer famously believes on a gut level that he once held a wrong belief and that if he had acted on that wrong belief, the world would have ended. I don't know how that relieves a tension, but I can see how it would make you really really wary of cognitive mistakes.

(I'm having a lot of fun with this debate too, it's really forced me to firm up my understanding of faith and reason.)

> But if I were to use the term in this instance, I would claim that disentangling one's preferences from internal conflict is the first step one should take prior to tackling the problem of rationality (because we need to know what we even want to get done before we figure out how to do it). This involves interrogating our beliefs about what our preferences are and why, which is something that the rationalist focus on the "world" seems uniquely unequipped for dealing with.

I agree with this take! Though I think it's less that this is something rationality cannot do as that, well, Eliezer when he was writing the Sequences, had an overriding belief that put all his other preferences at risk. This tends to focus one's attention on strategy. :)

The most illuminating post on this, for me, is https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SGR4GxFK7KmW7ckCB/something-... . You see this notion of "rationality is a tool to come to conclusions when the conclusions really really matter" all over his writing. I especially like the phrasing in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wustx45CPL5rZenuo/no-safe-de... :

> No one begins to truly search for the Way until their parents have failed them, their gods are dead, and their tools have shattered in their hand.

Which implies that to most people, the pursuit of individual rationality, possibly even above mental wellbeing, is counteradaptive.

(Man, does Eliezer have a way with words though.)

(To me, personally, the idea of holding wrong beliefs is like a persistent itch or annoyance. I do not have a driving need, but I also have few attachments. And, of course, I am a nerd, and this is all nerd cocaine. All that sums up to create an ideological space in which I am comfortable.)
One of the first papers I read in this area was very interesting in this regard (https://crim.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2017-1.0-Berk...). I think the challenge is that a business (e.g. COMPAS) can certainly take a position on what definition of algorithmic fairness they want to enforce, but the paper mentions six different definitions of fairness, which are impossible to satisfy simultaneously unless base rates are the same across all groups (the "data problem"). Even the measurement of these base rates itself can be biased, such as over- or under-reporting of certain crimes. And even if you implement one definition, there's no guarantee that that is the kind of algorithmic fairness that the government/society/case law ends up interpreting as the formal mathematical instantiation of the written law. Moreover, this interpretation can change over time since laws, and for that matter, moral thinking, also change over time.

I think the upshot to me is that businesses, whether it's one operating in criminal judicial risk assessment or advertising or whatever, don't really make obvious which definition (if any) of fairness that they are enforcing, and thus it becomes difficult to determine whether they are doing a good job at it.
100%, not sure why you're being downvoted.

Humans are really skilled at making fast comparisons between things. Unfortunately, that means we tend to make superficial comparisons. We then over-generalize while ignoring most evidence we don't like.
The relationship is different. They are seeing a side of them they didn't realize existed.
This was already taken care of by saying that he won/made a million. So that would mean there is no money left for Auntie Venessa.

So his reply could literally be "I gave you a mil. Pay some of it forward."
Nix, Guix or Spack do that correctly.
Context: I filter nearly all purchases I make through my credit card. This card is in place as a proxy to frontload transactions through as well as it helps me budget in a net sense. tldr: I don't need to microscrutinize my budget because if my monthly budget approaches certain thresholds then I know something is wrong, given all purchases go through this singular budgetory mechanism.

Someone got hold of my card and started a series of multi-thousand dollar transactions on Amazon.com. I noticed this almost immediately because of the above and mint.com -- which provides category-based budget alerts. I contacted my credit card vendor and told them these were not my purchases and they immediately cancelled the card. I was given an interesting tidbit of information: "Despite the card being cancelled you can still use it. We will roll transactions to your new card over the next x days, and those transactions will be scrutinized to ensure you are no longer experiencing fraud from other sources. Amazon.com, however, cannot be purchased from at all until you have a new card."

In this way, I wasn't fucked from buying groceries, but I could tell the definition of "cancelled" was much different from what I thought it was.
This probably is exploitative at some level. Although for my son, he has made a handful of very low budget games. And he's gotten paid in Robux for them. He was actually pleasantly surprised when he got his first payout. Probably the equivalent of a few dollars.

While he can't cash out his Robux, it turns out not to be so bad for him since he likes Robux. On his last birthday his biggest as was for Robux.

As far as gaming development platforms, it is probably the best I've used. I'm not a pro game developer, so I've used simple stuff like Unity. But I have found Roblox to be a really easy platform to get started with.
> I realize that many people do not have the option to just go and drop a couple hundred bucks on an additional phone and then add another $100/mo to their budget for the service.

I'd never pay a monthly fee for a work-only device. If they give me a work-only device, it should come with a data plan. If they don't give me a work-only device but want me to sign over access to my personal device, then I'll use an old device and just use wifi. No way I'm paying a separate monthly fee because my employer puts me between a rock and a hard place.

Also, MVNOs are $20/mo, not $100.
This is great, do you use anything under the hood? D3/ThreeJS?
That was basically what I was thinking as well. There's a reason that Mobileye's camera only solutions tend to have a lot more cameras than Tesla does. Stereoscopic vision would be a big help, and tesla only has it in some directions and with relatively low resolution.
> Do you agree that eating less than 2000 calories a day when your body only needs 2000 calories a day will result in weight loss?

The human body's caloric needs are not fixed at some number of calories per day; the human body's caloric needs adapt to inputs. You can lose weight by starving in the short term, but over the long term it is an ~extremely~ ineffective method of weight loss. There's been a lot of research looking at this over the past 10 years, and it is basically unanimous that the calorie defecit model of weight loss doesn't a really work. The number of very overweight people who have returned to and maintained a healthy weight through counting calories is vanishingly small. A good introductory source on this effect is Why Diet's Make us Fat by Susan Aamodt, but a google search will lead you to many studies.

My personal recommendation for improving overall health for very overweight people would be, first off, to focus on a goal of physical capability rather than weight loss. Excessive fat is a hinderance to most physical acitivty, so you will lose weight naturally as you progress. This has the benefit of being a positive goal rather than a negative/mixed one. Many people lose large amounts of weight after getting cancer; few become better boxers.

As for diet, here are some simple rules than I find improve physical capability and promote healthy weight: 1) drink water 2) quit sugar/sweeteners 3) eat when hungry, not for emotional reasons 4) more cooked green vegetables and fish. In my personal experience, rebalancing psychological relationships with sugar/sweetness and chewing/swallowing is much more effective than counting calories.
Where is the demarcation line between "legislating morality" and simply "legislating"? Murder is morally wrong, aren't laws against murder thus legislating morality? I don't claim to know many christians, but the phrase "legislating morality" isn't in the common vernacular of those I know. They advocate for what they believe in, and advocate against that which they oppose, the same as anybody else.
Saying that the fact that the deaths and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians is harm is "false" is just jaw-dropping in its callousness.
The reason why is the cold war. India/Pakistan almost did. Only a few nations have it and fear of reprisal stops others.

We don't use it because we don't have to but we would if we needed to.
Ya, if you don't acknowledge the luck involved in things like getting that good job, it can offen imply everyone else is just lazy and it's hard to be congratulatory when most people just don't have the circumstances work out for them.

It could come down to your first job working out super well, paying well, and maybe you also happen to not find it extremely depressing. It helps if you're parents are still together and didn't have their own mental health issues, or less likely it helps of your family is so screwed that you had no other option than sacrificing yourself fully for money. That carries you forward. If however anything happened to impair that, you could be screwed.
Y'know, I've been building up my own "regular 'ole JS/TS talking to a .NET backend" solution lately: https://github.com/rgwood/MinimalWebView

It's nice and lightweight but the friction of .NET-JS interop is constant. Blazor Server (hosted in-proc and served up to WebView2) is the nicest solution I've found so far but I'm very open to other suggestions.
Housing exists at a particular place, so there is always scarcity of location. More people would want to live across the street from (say) Disneyland than can physically fit, so a market will exist no matter what.

If you mean cheap or free housing should exist as a public works project, that is possible... and what you get without a profit motive is Soviet style apartment cinderblocks.
A real stylist can do that, but very well may not. The question is not whether an algorithm/AI can beat stylists at the 90th percentile of how great they are, it's whether it can beat stylists at the 50th percentile.
Since the deadliest virus mutations kill their hosts, weaker virus mutations can spread (without killing their hosts) more quickly.

US deaths peaked in January 2021, before Delta became prevalent in the US, before substantial vaccination, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/#graph-...

US daily vaccines peaked in April 2021, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/us-daily-covid-vaccine-do...

India (origin of Delta) deaths peaked in May 2021, when their vaccination rate was less than 5%, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/india/#gra...
Exactly - low interest rates mean higher house prices. The UK gov paused stamp duty for six months, so guess what - there was more money to spend on the bid price.
Thanks.

Part of the entire project is to see what the response is, and how it responds (if at all) to different communications methods.

Challenging assumptions, let alone slaying sacred cows, is a fraught task.

And to correct a misapprehension: it's not that the 1970s-era office phone ecosystem was better. It's that it was different than the set of affordances and features of present comms devices and systems embody and the underlying design understanding evidences.

In the earlier Reddit piece the article references, the immediately preceeding concept addressed was Chesterton's Fence. Many here are eager to move it.
Replace Your To-Do List with Interstitial Journaling to Increase Productivity