skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Both were completely unsustainable.

They were sustainable in the sense that they kickstarted something the private market wasn't interested in doing at the time, and then made that knowledge available in a way that the private market could leverage and commercialize.

Same as the Internet. Companies didn't build the Internet, it got kickstarted outside of the market by the government and by researchers/universities, and then it was (partially) handed over to the market so it could be optimized.

In general, we don't try to get the government to be hyper-efficient. We try to get the government to fill in gaps that the market is unwilling to address, and to occasionally step in and regulate/subsidize the market when it goes off the rails. One of the biggest purposes of Capitalism is to use the market as an optimizer when possible.

But you're kind of jumping all over the place in these threads. I don't understand what this current debate you're having over government efficiency has to do with either inequality or Adam Smith. The original article's argument was that Capitalism does not require maximizing inequality, and that seeking to minimize inequality is not fundamentally incompatible with a Capitalist system. The debate over Socialism vs Capitalism has very little to do with that argument, the article doesn't even mention Socialism.
About a third of influenza infections are asymptomatic.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18230677/
same, plus being able to telnet your way through is refreshing
Why is everything so black and white in studies, hospital reporting and government policies? There are 5 groups of people. There's really more if you want to get detailed but here are the basics.

Vaccinated

Vaccinated then infection

Unvaccinated - Previous infection

Previous infection then vaccinated

Unvaccinated - No previous infection

Does anyone care about nuance anymore? Just saying vaccinated and unvaccinated is a disservice to the population

----

Other things to care about

Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with > 3 weeks between shots

Vaccinated with 2 mrna shots with 3 weeks between shots

Vaccinated with viral vector

Previous infection then vaccinated > 6 weeks after symptoms were gone
The government will not and can not look into the provenance of your belief.

Whether or not this is an 'actual christian belief' is not something the federal or state government can comment on.

If the man holds it sincerely then the state must take him at his word.

Edit: why am I being down voted ...? This is the accepted legal standard
Australia tried, but not as hard as New Zealand.
That doesn't imply government was required to miniaturize electronics.

The advantages of reducing the size and power requirements of electronics have always been recognized and improvements in it have been ongoing since the first devices.

After all, the transistor was invented by AT&T, not the government.
Do you think they'd roll out tyranny in broad daylight without trying to find a convenient excuse with which to fool the gullible? Of course they'll say it's to save lives. Just like the "think of the children" laws are always supposedly about protecting children. Like Apple and CSAM being obvious surveillance tools being introduced in the name of protecting children.
Quarantine has been used in all kinds of societies for thousands of years during times of infectious outbreak. It’s described in the Bible, and it was used in the USA during the Spanish Flu. What is the point of quarantine without systems to ensure it is obeyed?
> Suppose your reaction to discomfort is to retreat or isolate yourself from it.

Why wouldn't that be my reaction? Seems a pretty normal reaction to most discomfort. I lean into discomfort only when necessary and avoid it otherwise at all costs, that strategy has gotten me pretty far in my half+ century.

But even if we assume the proposition that people somehow become more withdrawn as they withdraw... what's the downside?

Perhaps your downtown really is a mess and they choose to avoid it. I'm guessing you're not a mind reader, and yet you've created a narrative that your friends have withdrawn due to their inability to handle discomfort and are now... what exactly, bad for the earth? (Recall, that was literally the proposition you responded to.)

Sounds rather arbitrary as well as subjectively punitive to me.

EDIT: This reminds me of me when I was in my 20's. I used to look down on people who went on vacation and stayed in hotels, or god forbid, resorts. I saw them as soft-headed sheeple who needed to be spoon-fed "fun in a can". Not me. I backpacked. I went to developing nations. In my mind, if you went to a foreign country, you didn't really "visit it" unless you lived among the natives and got your fingers dirty. I got giardia in Belize, was held up at gunpoint in Serbia, escorted by soldiers in Israel, woke up in a roach infested bed in a hostel in Thailand. ... But today? I want to snap my fingers and have someone bring me a cocktail while I sit poolside and sun my fat belly. I no longer enjoy wallowing in 3rd world filth as a means to establish me credentials. I want comfort because I work too goddamn hard for my vacations to involve police reports. So perhaps this is result of cowering away from discomfort, or perhaps it is just a change of priorities.
Emu4iOS
I suspect that by the time anybody suggested shutting down international travel (at least in the US), it was far too late to make a difference. The virus was already widespread, with no hope of containing it.
dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28501901
I spend many thousands on my AV setup so I'm inclined to max it out, even if that requires 100gb+ movies.
The workers still generate a perceived value which is what the investors are investing in even if the company cannot capitalize on that value fully in a given time.
Capitalists will coordinate to pay labor less. When labor is diffuse, this goes unnoticed and unchallenged. When labor organizes, they can fight it.

It calls for unionization.
It means the system is asymmetric. The "masters" can collude to reduce wages, can ask for government assistance to weaken worker unions. But workers don't seem to have the same rights.
>...I think in Nordic countries (where I am from) have shown that relatively low levels of inequality ...

None of the Nordic countries have very low wealth inequality and both Denmark and Sweden are in the top 10 for wealth inequality.

Here are the latest available wealth inequality numbers for the Scandinavian countries:

Denmark 0.838

Finland 0.742

Iceland 0.694

Norway 0.798

Sweden 0.867

As a comparison the US is 0.852.

The entire range for the world (where there are stats) is 0.498 - 0.902

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

>...What we are arguing against is high levels of inequality, I think most understand that some inequality must exist. But that level is much lower than what you tend to see today.

I think you also need to put things in context and realize that the issue of wealth inequality is one of many variables that determine quality of life. For example, East Timor has one of the world's lowest rankings for wealth inequality at 0.565, but given a choice many people would likely prefer to live in Sweden which has a wealth inequality of 0.867.
If you've ever used the network interface InfiniPath -> TrueScale -> Omni-Path, the spark that lit the fire was an argument I had on comp.arch with Nick Maclaren, where I asserted that an appropriate endpoint design could minimize MPI overhead. I later sold a big supercomputer with this chip to Nick's organization.

comp.arch was a real gem. I learned a lot from reading Mashey's posts.
> confidentiality of vaccine status

The requirement to provide the information says otherwise.

Your sexual orientation is private information your employer can’t ask about, your vaccination status isn’t protected. Providing it can be required for employment.

Your third link even says: The EEOC confirmed “there’s no indication that there’s any federal law that would be violated by the employer asking this question.”. It also in most cases it can be a requirement for employment.
The biggest reason I don't care is that I doubt they are asking for or recording something from which they can reconstruct my fingerprint. They are reading it into a proprietary scanner run by a local gym (this is an assumption, but I'll bet its true). The scanner has some proprietary code that checks if my fingerprint matches the next time. It can't export a fingerprint file, it cant share it with anyone. If I'm wrong, and they are actually scanning some portable fingerprint image that is readily used either to provide and example for comparison to others, or so generate a fingerprint, then your comment applies. But my guess is it's just a local gym with a scanner and a database that exists in the proprietary scanner software.

I'd be much more concerned about giving my fingerprint to apple or lenovo or whatever device provider.

Incidentally, I could be entirely wrong. For example, if there is some Fingerprint-as-a-service company the gym uses that lets you create a portable ID based on your fingerprint, I would refuse.
Collusion among capital and leverage using state lobbying power etc..

Don't skip the chapters ... just as Adam Smith is misunderstood, so is the American Revolution by those who have never bothered to examine it from the outside looking in.
The borders are closed so it's a choice you have made to enter the country and require quarantine, you know what you signed up for it is made abundantly clear.

I think if you asked the majority of Australians they would say that they are happy people have to quarantine at the hotels and that they be guarded, since most of our outbreaks have been from quarantine breaches. So as far as a democracy goes that's right on track. Democratic doesn't mean individuals can do what they want, it means the whole community is involved in setting the rules for the community.

They weren't guarded by police at the start, but non-compliance and malpractice from the regular security guards had the community complaining about having such lax security.
I'm really sorry didn't see your comment earlier. I like your solution but am a little stuck on the limitations.

1.) It requires applications to specify the entire transaction in advance. ACID transactions allow you to begin a transaction, poke around, change something, and commit. You can derive the transaction by running it on a replica, then submitting to the primary, in which case this becomes an implementation of optimistic locking including transaction retries.

2.) As you pointed out the trick is to keep the array small. However, this only works if you have few conflicts. Jim Grey, Pat Helland, and friends pointed this out in 1996. [1] That in turn seems to imply a very large number of buckets for any non-trivial system, which seems like a contradiction to the conditions for high performance. In the limit you would have an ID for every key in the DBMS.

3.) Finally, what about failures? You'll still need a distributed log and leader election in case your fast machine dies. This implies coordination, once again slowing things down to the speed of establishing consensus on the network to commit log records.

Incidentally Galera uses a similar algorithm to what you propose. [2] There are definitely applications where this works.

[1] https://dsf.berkeley.edu/cs286/papers/dangers-sigmod1996.pdf

[2] https://galeracluster.com/library/documentation/certificatio...
I meant "emerges" in the sense of "displays properties of emergence".

There are limits on what an economic system can and can't look like, as it's an emergent property of individual human behaviour, which is itself limited by (immutable) human biology.

You can't, for example, have an economic system where farmers simultaneously have all of their output seized by the state and also work hard to optimise their operations and greatly exceed expectations.
"assuming none of these documents are actually disinformation" that is always a possibility, the government does not have a good history of telling the truth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse

Goto controversies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airst...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Tice

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study
Save developer time with useful modules – AnyMod
I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts.

On the other hand, if such abuse becomes more prominent and causes more interference with how business gets done, then you could imagine a scenario where one-off beliefs are much less favored, and the state has to get involved in figuring out whether the belief is actually religious, or if it's just some random thing you believe that you attach religious significance to. (Distinguishing minority religious views from this will be extremely difficult.)
When social media companies are trying to make the media as addictive as possible to keep you scrolling and viewing ads, and employing psychological exploits to do so, it's not quite as simple as 'people can just choose not to use it'.

It's hardly a free choice when they're actively undermining your ability to choose freely.
Take a look at Berlin's suburbs street view and you'll see the answer, which is still have places for bungalows, but dont have excessively large roads and driveways to get there
We have to flatten the curve, that must be our first priority. Once we are done with that we can consider other unimportant things like health
That conflates two very different things. One is the absolute state of the poor. The other is the difference between the poor and the wealthy.

Improving the state of the poor does not imply it is necessary to prevent others from doing much better.

Just like if your goal is to decrease auto travel times from Seattle to LA, removing air travel is not the answer.
It can be a law for ten years. Doesn't make it less of a shitty law.

And I think the outrage is useful. It will mobilize people until it boils over into action, if enough people do it when it actually counts. This is when it actually counts. Everyone has spent all their Outrage Points on useless shit some actor or celebrity said about something no one will care about on their deathbed, but so few are saying anything about this totalitarian nightmare.
This is a philosophical debate not a practical one. If you donate $100M to fight malaria in Africa no one really cares if you doing it because you are “objectively good” or because it’s expected of you due to your status or you simply want to one up one of your billionaire friends.
Regarding WTC7
https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structur...

See page 109 for conclusions
That's part of the exemption process: you still need to prove that you aren't likely to have covid.
I have also never heard about it and am shocked that I have not given how high the death count is.
Auth Without Complexity – Userfront
Limiting the amount of new experiences people are able to have reduces their quality of life, period.
> What's striking in Smith's writings is how strongly he opposed high taxes on any group

Where is this? I see Smith lay out 4 general maxims, not of which mention the level of taxation.

1. proportionality (everyone pays relative to their income)

2. Non-arbitrariness (everyone knows what they have to pay based on establish rules)

3. Timeliness (people are taxed then it is easiet for them to pay)

4. Efficiency (you don't have to spend to much administering taxes and the taxes don't prevent economic activity)

I also see specifx examples where Smith advocates for the benefit of specific higher taxes to discourage inefficient economic behavior (in this example, high lease renewal fees:)

>> By rendering the tax upon such fines a good deal heavier than upon the ordinary rent, this hurtful practice might be discouraged, to the no small advantage of all the different parties concerned, of the landlord, of the tenant, of the sovereign, and of the whole community.

Indeed, there seems to be a strong theme throughout Smith's discussion of taxes that they aren't wholey good or bad, but should be judged primarily bu the degree to which they suppport the above maxims.

If you have sections to cite where Smith condemns high taxes, I would be curious to see them.

Edit: One particular case where Smith argues against high taxes is on commodities, but that is explicitly justfied because Smith views that particular type of tax as violating maxim 4:

>> High taxes, sometimes by diminishing the consumption of the taxed commodities, and sometimes by encouraging smuggling, frequently afford a smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate taxes.
> why not low skill workers get paid $1million and the management get paid $1k instead, since workers are out numbers and they can easily win the bargaining fight?

This is explained in the same paragraph. Adam's theory is that the wealthy business owners collude against the workers while at the same time lobbying for laws that make it illegal for workers to combine. He says that these conflicts frequently play out violently and rarely end well for the workers.

This is explained in in Wealth of Nations in Chapter 8, "On The Wages of Labour."

More generally, Smith seems not to have been read by many economists, or at least his theory is rather different from what is ascribed to him by textbooks.
Cable connections are typically asymmetric, but the average user doesn't max out their connection 100% of the time. Even if you have a 100 Mbps down 10 Mbps up connection, your average transfer rate might be 5 Mbps because most of the time your connection is idle. Which means you can feed it from peers with an upload cap of 5 Mbps, in theory, if they kept their uplinks saturated all the time. Or an upload cap of 10 Mbps if they all kept their uplinks half saturated all the time.

And you can still get 100 Mbps downloads that way by downloading from multiple peers at once, which doesn't change the average transfer rate required from each peer because then twenty people upload at 5 Mbps for 10 seconds instead of one peer having to upload at 5 Mbps for 200 seconds to transfer the same amount of data.

But the asymmetric link speed is artificial anyway. There is no technical reason they couldn't make fully symmetric cable modems -- in fact they did so in DOCSIS 4.0, though it's not widely deployed yet.

The main reason they're hesitant to offer it is, ironically, that P2P isn't sufficiently widely used. Because then hosting is scarce and people will have the incentive to do high volume hosting on their own connections. Which is bad for the ISP who offers a fast uplink, because they rely on over-subscribing their connections to offer the prices they do. If you give someone a fast uplink, it's quite easy to saturate it 24/7 by serving files to millions of users. So the ISPs don't want to do that.

But if P2P distribution was the default then that wouldn't be a problem because nobody would need to do that. You'd upload your thing once or some small number of times and then the users could get it from each other instead of millions of people all trying to get it from the one host. Everyone could have a 100 Mbps uplink and the average upload speed would still equal the average download speed, e.g. 5 Mbps, because that's all you need when the load is evenly distributed.
Approximately no one in Australia has 'natural immunity', because approximately no one here has had COVID.

Those people who are advised by their docotrs not to get vaccinated are few and far between, but it turns out the current vaccine push takes those figures into account.

The people who deem the risk of COVID lower than the vaccine are just straight up incorrect. They're either misled or just deliberately contrarian, and I don't care what they think.

All autonomy is important, except where that autonomy would endanger others in society.

> If you are vaccinated you are mostly protected so why worry over those who do not get vaccinated?

If they also opt-out of taking up hospital care necessary for treating those people who didn't refuse a vaccine, honestly, I'd be okay with it. But we both know that won't happen. It'll end up like the US where there are people dying in the ER because there's no room due to COVID cases, and I do not want Australia to end up like the US.

> Have you seen the movie 'Babe', the one about the pig which acted like a dog? [...] Don't be a sheep, Australia has enough of them already.

All of this is very ironic, given that the group you are implying are the wolves are the ones taking livestock medication.
Comirnaty is the brand name of the Pfizer vaccine.

According to this article, all of the major vaccine trials studied PCR positivity, not deaths/hospitalizations. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/371/bmj.m4058.full.pdf

> The first question is whether the right endpoints are being studied. Contrary to prevailing assumptions (including those of a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner8), none of the vaccine trials are designed to detect a significant reduction in hospital admissions, admission to intensive care, or death.9 Rather than studying severe disease, these mega-trials all set a primary endpoint of symptomatic covid-19 of essentially any severity: a laboratory positive result plus mild symptoms such as cough and fever count as outcome events (table 1).
Buying a new car is even a big deal to many professionals in six-figure jobs. And not every vehicle category has a realistic EV or electric bike equivalent yet.

I'm all for aggressive policies to encourage the change, but like you, I don't think outright bans are going to be doable in the short term.
Writing a meaningful commit message (2018)
This seems like a simple case of different people finding different things unintuitive.

My theory is that many people have a mental model of colors that maps roughly to the hue and value in HSV, so for example terms like "dark orange" is a value followed by a hue. Now suppose you understand brown as a "dark beige", that's suddenly confusing because beige introduces saturation and you cannot map beige back to orange without thinking about saturation.
Do you come from part of the world where politicians and government workers are working because of selflessness or is this a vacuous comment not intending to communicate anything worthwhile?
Sure, if you can attend the church conference of "My brother-in-law runs the place" they will find you an opportunity.
I don’t understand what is “stock” in this scenario.
Because it’s no longer about the vaccine.
Which I guess makes it C++? Is there a line you can draw between the two besides “it uses x to compile”
I dislike C++. But I will say it has come a longggggggg way in the past 20 years.
Making and fixing things is a very rewarding way to spend your time. A great way to develop your maker-fu is to join your local Hacker/makerspace:

https://wiki.hackerspaces.org/List_of_Hacker_Spaces

The availability of equipment and expertise at a makerspace allow you to accelerate your learning, enhance your skillset and create things better and more quickly than using just your own gear and learning from YouTube.

Perhaps more importantly, a Makerspace turns making into a social pursuit. You'll meet new people with a genuine interest in your projects. You may even be able to help others learn things that you're already good at!