skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To begin with, no reasonable person is saying there should be a completely even balance in proportions of race in any field, for exactly the reasons you point out. The problem is that in reality, certain "merit-based" programs such as workplaces or colleges don't also align with the racial demographics of the general public, and it's a discrepancy that should make you ask "why?".

The problem with a blind "merit-based" approach is that it doesn't make any attempt to understand why what we'd expect in a perfectly egalitarian world isn't what we see in reality. Studies on biological differences between race and gender show no or very small differences that can't fully explain these gaps. Other factors, such as a family's wealth, do show significant changes to the opportunities provided to a person during their lives. As it so happens, we can also see (from the US Census data you bring up) that there are wealth and income disparities between race.

And now we're hiring/accepting college students/etc. Of course we want to only hire qualified people, but a disproportionate number of people of certain races were not given the opportunity to get those skills already. So we're stuck in a cycle where the people most likely to succeed are the ones who are already in this cycle of success, often due to their parents having been given those opportunities as well. So in order to actually _meet_ the expectations of racial composition (because as mentioned earlier, perfectly egalitarian expectations would be close to the proportions in the general population), we simply can't turn a colorblind eye to people's race. Breaking the cycle requires attention to be paid to people's race. Merit ignores context.

The hard part about this is that it comes off as saying that you should treat people differently because of their race. And that's pretty much what it is. It would require some level of sacrifice by the privileged, at least temporarily, in order to bring everybody back to equal footing. And humans are not good with things that don't seem fair.

On a different note regarding gender, there is not particularly strong evidence backing the argument that women simply "naturally gravitate towards other kind of work". Studies have shown some psychological differences in preferences of the kind of work, but it doesn't not explain the disparity we see in STEM as a whole. Of course, there are not the same multi-generational explanatory powers behind gender as there are for race, but there are other factors, largely rooted in the ideas that there are both explicit and implicit societal expectations for women that lead them towards other kinds of careers.
I think the point is that the with PoS, you're proving you have the coin itself, which costs nothing once you have the coin. Changes things a bit.
I cringe a bit when I hear “beautiful typography”. Usually, this means style over substance. It is way easier to shave yaks about the way something looks (and feel productive doing it), than it is being concerned over the last 10% that takes content from good enough to great.
But it states that they can, which makes the website legal. They aren't required to, but they are allowed to.
I really despise when corporations choose to censor their customers and users. I don't care what the content is if it's technically legal.

If it matters at all, I am neutral about abortion.
> That's more than a year or two into the internet (and even the Web.)

Around 1998 was the time when Microsoft started pushing it out of the geek space into mainstream, but AOL and CompuServe were still around. This was when Microsoft pushed the "Active desktop" and other things.

However the Internet still was of united use for most people. eBay was founded only in 1995, Amazon in 1994. And global expansion took time.

People still used 28.8 Baud or 56k Modems. ADSL wasn't broadly available, yet.

Sure, some companies started using it as a communication network between offices, universities and geeks used it. But all in a relatively small niche.
ULA stops selling its Atlas V, setting path for the rocket’s retirement
People are saying that this is a very difficult problem to solve. It is not.

The problem is not classifying people as "animals;" the problem is classifying people as a known stereotype. Make a list of every animal/thing that correlates to a known stereotype in humans. Then program your AI to never classify those animals/things.

It is not a big deal if your AI isn't able to detect gorillas. That doesn't really affect UX.

I will add that just because it is an easy problem to solve does not mean they should solve it. An AI classifying someone as something else should be something to laugh at, not take offense to.
Have you also noticed odd phenomena coming from Canadian education? I was quite shocked by seeing years ago recordings of debates or conferences involving academicians on the stage of university halls, in which the audience behaved like hooligans in a stadium: "guts, guts, guts, guts, yeeeah, booo...".

In one, the two academicians acted with an appearance of moderation in the exposure of their ideas, but the appearance was really acted, and overacted - look down, hesitate, mumble, modulate, "mhmh, we just believe that this and that"... The website of one presented very violent depictions of said ideas, including cheap mockeries in drawings (again with the implicit, "this is what you think and feel and is sensational to you if you are one of us").
> Can't you set up your own DoH server with its own domain name, get a Let's Encrypt certificate for it, then point your mobile device at that?

Yes. But what’s the angle here? You trust “ISP(s) hosting your DoH server” but not “ISP providing phone connection?”

Might be a legitimate reason for that, but ultimately as with all these discussions it’s just a matter of who you’d rather give the data to.

And your ISP will still be able to see from SNI for the most part so… it boils down to “my ISP can see anyway (via SNI), should I also let someone else see (DoH provider)?”
some types of comments are redundant.

These days I write my code as comments first and then write the code.

But for example this one

// If either token bucket capacity or refill time is 0, disable limiting.
if size == 0 || complete_refill_time_ms == 0 {
return None;
}

The comment is the same as the code. It is pointless. Instead I might say under what circumstances I expect them to be zero or why Im disabling limiting when they are zero.

This one is great, though at first glance I cant relate the actual code to the comment, at least I understand why the code is there.

// We still have burst budget for *some* of the tokens requests.
// The tokens left unfulfilled will be consumed from current `self.budget`.
tokens -= self.one_time_burst;
self.one_time_burst = 0;
What's your proposed signature of collect? You have to put a turbofish or type annotation because collect works with any collection implementing FromIterator, not specifically Result. Would you have it only work for Vec?
(1) Women are perfectly capable of supporting policies that have materially misogynistic outcomes. I agree some of the mainstream rhetoric doesn't emphasize this in the interest of pithiness and such, but this strikes me as an odd complaint. (2) You seem to imply that some scientific definition of when life begins would offer a clear cut solution... but whatever we pick involves some kind of value judgment, right? And anyway, e.g. most voters (of all stripes!) in the US support some right to choose in the first trimester and do not support it in the third trimester, so "first trimester abortions should be safe/legal/accessible" seems like a fine place to start, and go from there
A black dwarf and dead planet, tidally locked, would still describe an orbit. So long as that functions, any means of being able to signal the positions of the two objects would serve to indicate the orbital period.

Solar emissions are not integrally central to the clock. That source of entropy can be eliminated.

Tidal losses are not integrally central to the clock, that source of entropy can be eliminated.

What are we left with?
Dime (YC S21) is hiring a full time software engineer
There are a surprisingly high number of hateful people on HN. The community is still worth it, but man it's tiring to wade through the ignorance sometimes.
> These changes are happening because application requirements have changed dramatically in recent years. Only a few years ago a large application had tens of servers, seconds of response time, hours of offline maintenance and gigabytes of data. Today applications are deployed on everything from mobile devices to cloud-based clusters running thousands of multi-core processors. Users expect millisecond response times and 100% uptime. Data is measured in Petabytes. Today's demands are simply not met by yesterday’s software architectures.

Is this true? There are surely more companies than before, but is most of the programming done for applications like this? I always thought that at any point in time, the vast majority (~70%) of developers are working on internal applications with users ranging from a few to a few thousands. Is there any hard data on this?
This part, I assume:

"""GoDaddy expressly reserves the right to deny, cancel, terminate, suspend, lock, or modify access to (or control of) any Account or Services (including the right to cancel or transfer any domain name registration) for any reason (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion)"""
I just noted that it seems to straight forward to extend machine via drivers and at least there is one for parallels. Also rancher seems to maintain a fork of machine itself so it seems unlikely to die as an alternative...
> If you like Section 230 as it is, don't test it.

What do you mean?

Section 230 means GoDaddy isn't liable for hosting this site or a site by the Taliban.

Are you saying GoDaddy is testing 230? Or that if 230 is repealed there will be more actions like these from other hosting providers?
True, but you make it sound like a legal operation.

Edit: By legal, I guess you mean legally allowed. I thought you meant as in an official legal capacity
I don't support restrictions on abortion for the same reason I don't support vaccine mandates - bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right that must be upheld. That said, infrastructure utilities like AWS, GoDaddy, and others are exerting their own political bias into their services. We really need new laws and new regulation to prevent this. We need to start treating people's political positions as a protected class across the board, and also recognize that existing fundamental rights like free speech cannot be exercised if giant companies censor others. Even if there are multiple companies on the market, their affinity to Silicon Valley means they carry the same political biases, and often act in unison when it comes to censorship and deplatforming - as we saw with bans of Donald Trump or Parler. And no I am not interested in building my own hosting service, and no I don't think private companies can do whatever they want just like private power utilities can't.
Section 5, heading ii from Godaddy Legal Agreement:

"You will not collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content (as defined below) or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another User or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent."

Later, in section 10:

"GoDaddy may remove any item of User Content (whether posted to a website hosted by GoDaddy or posted to this Site) and/or terminate a User’s access to this Site or the Services found at this Site for posting or publishing any material in violation of this Agreement, or for otherwise violating this Agreement (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion), at any time and without prior notice. [...] GoDaddy may, in its sole and absolute discretion, remove and destroy any data and files stored by you on its servers."

https://www.godaddy.com/legal/agreements
Poison Control Centers Are Fielding a Surge of Ivermectin Overdose Calls
Right, Gawker posted pornography made without a subject’s consent. Then when they were sued about it, they kept the illegal pornography up on their website despite a court order.

I don’t like Peter Thiel, but to be honest I think more companies need to be Gawkered when they flagrantly ignore the law.
Rich Hickey on sprints (30-second clip): https://youtu.be/zPT-DuG0UjU
Crypto firms snap up ex-regulators, but some struggle to keep them
As far as I’m aware, there’s no such thing as “public space” on the web.

Ultimately, data is always served from someone’s private server somewhere.
Even the Catholic view on birth control, which is essentially that it interferes with "putting your life in God's hands", isn't anywhere near it's stance on abortion, which is that life is sacred at the moment of conception.
That's what I figured- some sort of personal information violation. I wish they gave a specific clause with the message of termination, though.
Right wing libertarianism obsesses over property rights. The original left wing libertarianism rejects property rights as incompatible with maximising liberty.

Dejacque, the father or libertarianism criticised Proudhon, the father of anarchism for being a "moderate anarchist, liberal but not libertarian", but strongly supported his infamous "property is theft".
Aren't college admissions policies in the US a widespread, institutional example of "equality of outcomes" thinking?
Who is "they", your confirmation bias or the poor media sites you get your information from?

GoDaddy clearly stated:

"Violate a GoDaddy rule that says website operators may not "collect or harvest (or permit anyone else to collect or harvest) any User Content or any non-public or personally identifiable information about another user or any other person or entity without their express prior written consent." GoDaddy's terms of service also say that customers cannot use the web hosting platform in a way that "[v]iolates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity."
I'm saying that censoring political discourse using Section 230 is a sure-fire way to get politicians mad at you and start thinking about how to amend Section 230 so you can't do that ever again.

Using Section 230 for means like this is potentially very self-destructive and self-defeating.
I think feminists are perfectly ok with burning a man in effigy. But that’s ok, we can get some masculismists behind this quest for equality! But what about children and the elderly...

Hell why limit it to humans, dolphins in there wet little world are getting off light here. Lets burn them, let’s burn them ALL! HA HA HA!!!

Which hopefully answers that one.
Speaking of source code comments, antirez (of Redis fame) wrote a fantastic article[0] about that topic some time ago and I still recommend it to colleagues whenever they make the hollow statement that "code should and can be intelligible on its own, without any comments".

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210226004600/http://antirez.co... (I still don't understand why he deleted his blog)
Porn (providing it meets 2257 standards) is legal, yet it’s against the terms of many web services. Even though I consume porn, I still think it’s reasonable if operators decide they don’t want it on their platform.
How is that fusion relevant to the orbital motion of bodies?

As I've suggested elsewhere in the thread: imagine a black dwarf and dead planet in orbit.

Clock or no clock?

Entropic or not entropic?
Raising money at demo day is somewhat correlated with success, but many companies that had trouble raising seed funding go on to become huge, and many companies that were hot at demo day fizzle out.

Early-stage fundraising success is a function of how many investors think the company is promising. Investors work hard on learning to judge accurately, but they can't see the future and they are often wrong. They can be wrong both by adding random noise to each judgement, and by being systematically wrong in their investment thesis.

If you could figure out with high accuracy which startups would succeed, you could:

- make $100B in 10 years

- increase the world's rate of technological progress

- reduce the vast waste of creative manpower at doomed startups
This particular AI failure mode keeps surfacing, but seems to be fixed rapidly when it generates bad press. How do they actually correct it? Teach it some more granular categories of living things? Slap a sensitivity filter on top of its output?
They're organized functionally, and are one of the only companies in the world that seem to have cracked this at scale. I've always been super curious how that works in practice.

This article argues against functional organization (as in most cases organizing functionally increases your coordination needs within a company).
Agreed. Obviously I won't be using GoDaddy. And I'm not a pro-lifer, I don't agree with the law.
And lots of random messages via 'net send'
A Sermon No One Will Hear
On which of them? Classical liberalism and libertarianism, be it left- or right-libertarianism are nothing alike.
I had the same question.

So I learned to develop web apps. Now I realize I wouldn't want a non-tech co-founder unless they have significant business experience.
Choice of colors makes it very difficult to read, even on a 4k display.
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/invincivlepvt/">Logo Designing Jalandhar</a>
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28414361
That doesn't mean you should have the right, if you are a large enough platform, to rule the place at your whims when the content being posted is legal.

There is a real argument that, in a more ideal world, YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. would be viewed as infrastructure and regulated as such. Imagine if your power company refused to provide you power because they didn't like that you ran a gas-powered car plant; regardless of their ability to provide for you. Or if your telephone company refused to service you because they didn't like what you might tell your friends or that you were the head of a political party they didn't like.
Yes, that's what I'm trying to convey. I know YC prioritize differently than me, and that is fine. Just felt like it used to be more aligned before.
http://www.uniquethings.in/
There’s an amazing number of “but people are primates” comments. Correctness here includes specificity. If person and primate are both candidates, then primate isn’t a correct answer to what this is trying to do. You wouldn’t react to the phrase ‘treating women as objects’ by saying people are objects, right?
> The second one is ok, but please don't follow the first one as a good example, it takes away the ability to scan the code.

IMO if at all, this type of comment ("Why was X designed this way") should go to the very bottom of the file (maybe with a very short comment at the top of the file referencing it), so it doesn't bother anyone who works on the code on a regular basis. And one could (should) also decrease its verbosity.

EDIT: Confused first and second example
Analogies are dumb when it comes to abortion.

The point is if you decide a mother has a right to cut the umbilical at any time, the fetus will die regardless during most phases of pregnancy (the ones where abortion is legal in the US.) So now you get to decide given death is a certainty, what is the proper act. I could be persuaded the current mechanisms are the wrong choice. Would you propose to just cut the cord and let the fetus starve in the womb?
These models typically don’t have hierarchical labels like that, and they apply a softmax to their output - which means /one/ label will be considered correct. (A softmax means taking the exp of your predicted scores, then divide by the sum.)
That was way more interesting than I expected. Apparently, ritual sacrifice of humans in which music is played, probably to drown out the cries of the victims, goes back millennia to many ancient cultures in every continent that almost certainly had no contact with each other. And the author speculates there is a "Purge" like thing going on with continued violence at rock concerts and violent deaths of musicians themselves bringing a sort of collective catharsis to stave off even worse violence if we didn't let our ya yas out somehow.

I was just expecting to hear whoever originally organized this festival watched Wicker Man one too many times or something. But I suppose Wicker Man itself would be a manifestation of this older tradition.
[T]he Earth['s] spin was set up by the primordial configuration of the solar system.

Valid point, and a possible out.

Your other suggestions could be eliminated with the tidally-locked black darf / dead planet thought experiment. Here you'd have bodies about as inert as we can conceive of bodies being, keeping a regular time.
This line in the story struck me: "visitors to the kinds of cocktail bars found hidden behind bookcases"
Anyone been to any of these upscale clubs? Are there literary references to such places, or is it mainly fictional imagination?
I've been wondering for decades if privacy advocates are ever going to go back and examine the dystopian proclamations they've been making to see how many actually turned out to be true.
I took a look at your project! It's very interesting. I hope it works out! I think the problem that you're working on is probably very difficult to solve.

Yes, evalRSS lists content in reverse chronological order in your feed by default. The "top" sorting options just filter out the entries submitted before the last n days and order by total votes. I think that displaying the number of comments each entry has is an excellent idea and I would definitely consider adding a read/unread status message to the entries.

To be completely honest, I have a bias against complex recommender systems because they frighten me. I'm not sure how to build one without assuming that people have some kind of static preference function, which feels like it can't be correct. So, I've been leaving content prioritization as a problem for my future self to solve. There could very well be some fancy mathematical technique to account for this, but I wasn't a good enough student to be familiar with it.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the possibly controversial beliefs I was referring to were such as - "we" haven't been acting as if it was airborne, that there is a sharp distinction between droplets and airborne particles, and that the precautions that are appropriate are as you listed and the others are mostly useless.

Airborne particles are indeed in the CDC FAQ; I don't know how far back that goes.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
Speech and bearing arms are only constitutionally protected in criminal law this is civil law, which the Constitution doesn't apply to[0]. And the supreme did rule that abortion is constitutionally protected, at least thats my understanding of roe v wade.

So parent's arguments stand, if this law stands, free speech and gun rights could be aborted (hehe) by just making them civil cases and giving people the right to sue.

edit: In fact, democrats have tried to do just that, by giving gun violence victims the right to sue the gun shop and gun manufacture. I (and bernie) have opposed such bills, for the same i (and bernie) oppose this bill. its a shortcut around the constitution that shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[0]: its not as simple as this, but thats the jist of it. this is why a civil case can result on the state forcing you to give up money/property without a ruling by a jury, and why the state can force you to pay if you want a jury in such civil cases, but can't in criminal cases. As another example, civil asset forfeiture gives the state the power to take your property without a ruling by a court, let alone a jury, with no need to prove anything, instead requiring you to prove legality. criminal asset forfeiture already exists and requires both of those things, but isn't used in favor of the civil version.