skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not necessarily, young blood is always good. Having a single academic dominate the discussion is never good.
> Wow, you are very wrong on every point.

Maybe so, but you've offered nothing that would convince me or anything else that I'm wrong. "Wow, just wow" is not an argument.
In Europe digital humanisms seems to be the umbrella term... https://dighum.ec.tuwien.ac.at/perspectives-on-digital-human...
This sounds like one very professional crew giving advice to each other, but also very tired from the earlier fire alarm when they were sleeping.

Does anyone know why they press on with this spacewalk to continue with the second and third task of the day when it would be reasonable to get some rest and go out another day instead?

Is there some other good forum to discuss these kinds of missions?

Listening in, this reminds me of being outdoors and tired far from civilization in bad weather and knowing that good judgment and clear thinking is key to making it back, while also realizing that your judgment is getting impaired more and more…
Beyond exhausted. It's infuriating how these "experiences" are shoved down our throats. Often integrated deeply integrated into systems they should not be (and that we pay for) and turned on by default.
I've never used Facebook; what is the Facebook laughing face?
Banks are regulated through the nose (in most places at most times) to make sure they don’t mess it up. The money creation is a carefully choreographed juggling act where balls can’t fall on the ground.

The extra money created is effectively money someone doesn’t need right now (deposit) that can be temporarily used, and returned eventually, by someone else. When it works, it works very well, but when it doesn’t, banks go bankrupt and someone generally loses money (deposits are insured but then the insurance scheme loses).

It’s not a bad thing overall, our capitalist world would be impossible without it, but this money creation craziness is a necessary component.
What is known about the Russian Elbrus microprocessors?
Just yesterday, I wundered if we still have free markets and competition in some select but critical sectors. How could that even be measured? Is there a competition index for markets and industries?
Weird, I sometimes get the French translation of AliExpress (when my cookie expires I suppose) and I haven't noticed "China" being translated as Porcelaine in French. I wonder why it's different. Also now I wonder why I get the French version, since I live in Flanders (although I'm a French speaker).

AliExpress translations are totally incomprehensible though anyway. I really don't think they should show the translated versions by default.

(By the way, your second link doesn't respond for me)
Why does anyone live in California? Or the gulf states? Or the Midwest "flyover" states?

People live where they live. Not everyone can uproot themselves and their family to move someplace else with other, different issues
My impression is that the investors were simply rich and powerful, not necessarily the most skilled.

> All of the money Theranos raised came from private placements, fundraising that’s restricted to wealthy investors and disclosed to the SEC via an exemption from registration under securities laws called Form D. Companies can use a Form D to tell the SEC about their fundraising from investors, usually without further scrutiny, as long as the money only comes from “accredited investors.” Accredited investors are either individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 million or who consistently have made over $200,000 per year in income; companies that have more than $5 million in assets also qualify.

> Some well-known venture-capital firms did take a pass on investing in Theranos, because of Holmes’s unwillingness to share information about the blood-test technology and results and the lack of established scientific support for it via peer-reviewed research. The company and its board also lacked medical and scientific experience.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-investors-duped-by-the...
There is a well known comic/author who owns a vintage Back to the Future DeLorean in Austin, TX. I’ve seen him park his car at a few places around town and every time he does a group of people swarm the car like this.
Because people love taking photos, and this is pretty much the only kind of smart glasses that are technically possible at the moment.

Yes I have used Glass. They sucked.
FB as a company is already dead in their heart and soul, the world would be so much better without them.
I would say that most hallmark results in theory-heavy mathematics (number theory, algebraic geometry, topology, …) could stretch to at least a book length treatment if you wanted a mostly self-contained proof.

It sounds like the main difference with this theorem is that the writeup of the original proof was so complicated, terse, and error-prone, that very few experts even understood it.
I don’t see how does it relate with the interpretations of QM and QBism in particular.

Superpositions are not “less real” than basis states (if such a distinction makes sense) within a theory (psi-epistemic or psi-ontological) as far as I understand.
> I don't lie[1]

You've never lied? If someone found a lie you once said and put it in a comment like this, what would it signify?

I'm pretty sure Amazon doesn't always lie, just like you don't always lie.

> and cheat[2]

Same sentiment as above.

> and try to exploit everyone in my life[3]

Pretty sure Amazon doesn't try to exploit everyone. Lots of Amazon employees feel that way too.

> Hell, I even pay my taxes![4]

You don't take deductions when you can? If you do, how are you different from Amazon?

As an example, for years, I never deducted charitable contributions even though I could. How about mortgage interest?

Unless you willingly do not take tax deductions that you are eligible for, I don't see a difference between your behavior and theirs.

You are a complex person, as is a company like Amazon. Throwing absolutist statements about them is as problematic as throwing absolutist statements about you.
From the conclusion:

> This article has discussed how money is created in the modern economy. Most of the money in circulation is created, not by the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the commercial banks themselves: banks create money whenever they lend to someone in the economy or buy an asset from consumers. And in contrast to descriptions found in some textbooks, the Bank of England does not directly control the quantity of either base or broad money. The Bank of England is nevertheless still able to influence the amount of money in the economy. It does so in normal times by setting monetary policy — through the interest rate that it pays on reserves held by commercial banks with the Bank of England. More recently, though, with Bank Rate constrained by the effective lower bound, the Bank of England’s asset purchase programme has sought to raise the quantity of broad money in circulation. This in turn affects the prices and quantities of a range of assets in the economy, including money.

The discussion seems incomplete without mentioning government deficit spending. This is, after all, the premise of Modern Monetary Theory: that unlike households, currency issuers like the US federal government aren't under the same balanced budget constraints as households. Currency issuers can create money by spending it into being.

Budget deficits can be financed through the issuance of bonds, which look a lot like loans. But they can also be financed by just printing the money. The end result is the same, money into the pockets of people, but the implications are very different.

The MMT perspective is gaining ground, especially as the world's governments find it increasingly difficult to avoid deficit spending. A leading proponent (Kelton) proposes ditching deficit targets altogether in favor of inflation targets.
Rocket Lab’s order backlog tops $141M
then the battery in the glasses would explode
All the experts are bought and paid for by someone these days though. Who exactly are you supposed to be asking about something like this?

And if you look at Universities, well good luck. They have a known ideological bent that would cause recommendations that are skewed the other way.
> But if a person is supplied with accurate information

Unfortunately, this is often a matter of opinion, but not perceived as such, often completely sincerely.
So everybody who doesn't is either thoughtless or on the take. You are, at a minimum, not assuming good faith.

Thoughtless people are operating in good faith, but I consider them to be naive. I see no reason to assume good faith in all, that would be as foolish as assuming bad faith in all.

You can see the problems with the current system and still disagree with all the values and mechanisms that are proposed as replacements, thinking they are inadequate. That leaves you, by default, supporting the current system, not because you think it's the perfect system, but because you don't think any of the alternatives are better.

I presume by 'you' you mean you, not me. This isn't relevant to the first paragraph because I was critiquing 'people who insist that everything is working fine', not people who see and acknowledge problems.
Giving interpretation of things is a big part of what philosophy is all about, and philosophy is not exactly pseudoscience.
For music making products (hardware and software) it’s become common for influencers to get products for free without official strings attached. Of course a bad review will most likely stop the free flow of products to that influencer.

I’m not sure who’s being scammed more, the video viewer or the video maker.
yes but condor added a number of things that other folks later copied and (according to livny) didn't provide enough credit for, including (but not limited to) containers, glide-in, federation, secure communications, matchmaking (classads).
As a former mathematician, I would say the stacked layers get a lot messier closer to the cutting edge.
I agree that the term "REPL" is poorly chosen, since read-eval-print-loop equally applies to a Bash prompt. But in this case, it's even more than hot reloading, because you are making changes in the running application, not just in the saved source code.

With hot reloading, you can change the appearance or behavior of a button and see it reflected immediately. With a Clojure REPL, you can do that but also load in different data, trigger actions, etc.
Say what you want about the right, but they are a more unified and organized conglomeration. The left tends to dissolve into factions and disagree among themselves. Even in a Democratic held Congress and Senate, it's hard to get things passed where as the Republicans for all their faults seem to push through items after item, block judges from the Supreme Court, etc etc.

When it comes to these smaller organizations on the left, like "Antifa" they aren't even an organization, really. It's just a name, and you are Antifa if you say you are. The guy shooting at the WA state prison was just as much Antifa as the protestors in Portland, even though they had no connection or similar goals or values. This leads people to argue as to whether or not Antifa really exists. For some it does, and they believe they are in it. As a unified organization, not really.... welco.e to a lot of left "organizations".

It's hard to get things like a troll farm going when you can't even get yourself grouped with a single purpose.
"not simply give myself 20,000€ cash"

Only the ECB and national central banks can create € notes (by which I mean central bank cash money).

Nothing is stopping you from creating your own notes denominated in €, but these would be obligations (IOUs) issued by andrepd. Just like bank deposits, these notes are private money, not central bank money.

It might be tough for you to find a car dealer willing to accept these andrepd € notes, though.

"The bank creates zero-cost virtual cash"

Making loans changes banks' reserve requirements, so they're not zero-cost.
The video I linked to in my original post was directly relevant to this other take on Peter Pan and philosophy.

I'd like to understand why my comment is being downvoted by you and others?

Did you think the comment wasn't relevant to this overall post?

It feels like it is simply because I mentioned Jordan Peterson and anything that mentions him must be downvoted because he has been declared bad. Okay then.

Given I mentioned Jordan Peterson again, you should probably downvote this comment as well as a thoughtcrime.
How to build a search engine with Ruby on Rails
The problem is that the way people write proofs, you don't go axiom by axiom. You might evaluate an integral in one step, or make an argument that some sequence is obviously asymptotically less than a function. Pretty much every step in a human proof requires a computer proof generation step to verify.
It was common to use a briefcase and build an Apple-1 into it - https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Origin...

However, you still had to carry the CRT screen (unless you knew that a TV was available where you wanted to use it :)).
Maybe I’m old or have the mentality of an older person, I don’t know… but this seems very deeply unappealing to me, even though I have looked at bluetooth-enabled sunglasses before with potential interest. My subjective take-away is that Facebook’s hardware release attempts are always tainted by the company’s previous behavior (rightfully so) and they just come off as pretty uncool regardless of the marketing angle even when they partner with insert brand name here.

Oculus stands alone in that they offer a product that’s good enough to get some people to ignore that and all the potential future Facebook-initiated awfulness that will inevitably come down the pipeline. Even then I’d happily buy a Facebook-less Oculus device, though I understand that the financial realities of VR R&D kinda necessitate having them there.
On the two-beam version, do not pull both triggers at once!
In the absence of copyright things like the GPL would have no power - a company could take your work and bundle it into their product and never contribute anything back ever.
I have had two close friends quit recently, within a few months of each other. They both blamed management and especially Ivan Krstić.
Completely understandable. Why have a museum for an event that never happened?

/s
This place does seem to work both sides. This down towards the end of the piece:

"But the company does not only have right-wing clients – they work as well for ‘the other side’. On May 10, the company was ordered to suspend activities in favour of TVP until further notice. From now on the troll farm focused on the Twitter account of the deputy head of the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD), Andrzej Szejna. He is a successful lawyer and election candidate."
Story: Third Party in Marriage 2 by Yaradua
I'm with you -- this makes no sense to me. Banks pay for their operating expenses using ... their operating cash! Most of it comes from return on reserves, fees, and the like.
This strikes me as a negative tone but... if your dream is to play college football, why is it a bad thing to play college football at a division 3 school? Division 3 doesn't necessarily mean bad either. There are olympic medalists from division 3 schools. And some of the schools are very strong, including MIT, U Chicago, and Johns Hopkins
YouTube is better than the FTC at this. There are very clear rules for any sponsored or paid content and channels can get deleted if they don't follow it.
I'm curious, if his claim is correct, (and it seems like, from domain experts in this thread and others, he is), why has he seemingly not been recognized for his work, so consistently?

Also, assuming he is correct, what other alternative does he have for getting recognition? Everyone says this particular approach is obnoxious (making blog posts, interrupting conferences), but what non-obnoxious approaches are there to correct a deeply-entrenched mistake about NN-development credit? (I am genuinely curious here, I don't know enough about the CS research field to know if there is in fact alternative forums/channels to address something like this more politely).
Isn't this logic some sort of survivorship bias? (OK, the "problem" persisted for a hundred years... Let's just wait for another hundred, and then we'll see?)
I don’t think the incompleteness theorems are nearly as wordy - this translation of Gödel’s original paper is under 40 pages after subtracting the introduction (not part of the original).
They want young people walking around as face recognnition agents (eventually). Roaming as swarms that gather and submit data to the mothership.
As I see it, the problem is essentially an antitrust issue, but our notion of antitrust hasn't evolved since the early 1900s to cover the realities of today's economy. Whether a company has complete market domination is a red herring used to dismiss other types of market failure.

Cartel behavior does not involve monopolies. Vertical integration of supply chains does not require a monopoly to be a problem. Markets are defined in a way that makes it look like on paper the leader doesn't have a dominant position simply because they don't have 100% market share, but it hides that market share doesn't tell the whole story. Facebook should have never been allowed to buy their most promising competitors in Instagram and WhatsApp, for example.

Intentionally confusing the market for phones with App stores is an example of a problem that 20th century antitrust never had to deal with. Just because two products look the same doesn't mean they compete with each other if there are other reasons, such as identity politics or vendor lock-in, which cause people to not treat them as replacements for each other.

All these things are issues which government should legitimately be regulating, and at one point did regulate. But there is no will left to do that anymore, and the poor quality of our politicians is partly to blame for it.
I hope the writer of n-gate is fine. Nothing since mid-july.
Sorry, this is because of the traffic right now. what you're seeing is a counter for how long the current prediction time is vs avg prediction time.
Tell that to everyone who saw the George Floyd video.

I watched an excellent interview with Khary Payton where my ideas on surveillance really changed. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4

I think socially there’s a difference at play between recording in general and headwear for it, specifically.
> Banks are regulated through the nose (in most places at most times) to make sure they don’t mess it up.

Eehhhhhhh........ Sounds like that isn't working out so well is it? x) With the only difference of course that if _I_ fail my obligations I don't get a taxpayer-funded bailout financed by cuts to people's salaries and pensions, instead my house gets reposessed and I go live with my kids to a homeless shelter.

But anyways. So give me similar rules: asset/liability ratios, cash flow minimums, the works!, to determine how much I can create by this mechanism.

> The extra money created is effectively money someone doesn’t need right now (deposit) that can be temporarily used, and returned eventually, by someone else.

That's not true in fractional reserve banking, and we're actually well last that, we're into no-reserve banking now.
"I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone with them on. Would stay away from any strangers with them on."

I imagine a lot of people will choose to only cavort with people who have hidden audio recording devices, as opposed to visible video recording devices. At least until we all get used to this in 2-4 years.
Yeah, it's annoying, especially since I've told Google explicitly the languages I know.
I do suppose that a lot of people haven't set their languages, and the automatic detection works well enough, most of the time.
Most of the mass of an atom is concentrated in the nucleus. I don't want to dig out a calculator, but you probably couldn't easily measure the loss of 1% of your electrons.

Aside from the ensuing cataclysm, that is.
> You really think someone as big as EasyJet would get that right.

Well even Apple has a wrong translation on the iOS keyboard in French. The "Return" key is translated as "Retour" (generally meaning "Back" rather than "Carriage return") instead of "Entrée".

It might have changed in the last years though, I don't know.
I learned:

- maybe = vielleicht

- probably = wahrscheinlich

- definitely = bestimmt

But a big part of the gap between being able to speak in a language and being able to comprehend a language is that there are often plenty of ways to communicate/translate the same concept. It's much easier for a learner to say "vielleicht" every time they mean to indicate "maybe" than it is for a learner to learn that "vielleicht", "eventuell", "möglicherweise", etc. all basically map to the concept of "maybe" (which of course conceptually maps to its own set of English words - "maybe", but also "perhaps", "possibly", etc.).

It gets even hairier because word choice is highly culture-bound and the semantics are not guaranteed to be the same as the top dictionary definition. "Could you maybe take a look at this?" is not really asking someone to "maybe" take a look, the asker definitely wants them to take a look, it's just a construction that carries a deferential tone.
Who says we’re fine with ubiquitous cameras? I certainly am not fine with it.
Interesting to see the parallel crackdowns on the glorification of separatism in both USA and PRC this week, with the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue in the former Confederate capital, and now this.
I didn't bother since you didn't provide any arguments either.
I really wish the US and Europe would get *lls and punish China for breaking the treaty with Hong Kong and the UK
Digital replications of paintings are perfect. So it’s just as easy to say:

If I buy an NFT, I have a monkey as my Twitter avatar. You don’t (not the same monkey, anyway).
This is the issue. If you are already down a rabbit hole of beliefs you are going to keep seeing articles from news services biased towards your way of thinking. Things that continue to constantly confirm how you feel about the world.

In an ideal world news organizations would just provide both sides of a side, but unfortunately in todays world news agencies seem incredibly polarized and twist stories to suite their agendas. This now makes personalized news feeds even more scary and further contributes to the kind of polarization we see happening now. People seem more divided then ever in the last 20-30 years.
I should probably add that I know everything I've said isn't convincing to a skeptic. Ultimately it comes down to: I know I can think of the quantum state as being really real, and that will work totally fine. I find that style of thinking is effective for me, and intuitively compelling, so I do it.

Every once in awhile I'll run into someone pointing out the philosophically fraught underpinnings of assuming reality is real or whatever, and I basically won't care because my goal is to be effective; not to be Descartes-level-certain about everything.

An example of something that would make me care is if QBism contained some key conceptual trick that made problems easier, and gradually many papers started using it because of this advantage. Or, of course, if there was an experiment distinguishing between interpretations.
The central bank is the part of the government that can issue money, and it's included in the explanation.

With regard to its effect on the money supply, the rest of the government is no different than any other borrower since it can't (or at least doesn't) directly issue currency.