skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You know how smart the average person is? Consider that half of the population is less smart than that.

Having said that, who's to say that you are not the one that doesn't know how to follow a leader?

What I'm trying to say is that unless you have tried EVERYTHING you could to make things better, including helping your manager or at least communicating with them in all possible ways, it is not productive to call your manager incompetent.

We tend to think that everybody thinks like we do. They don't. That things are obvious and self evident. They aren't.

The best advice I can give you, if you really want to make the situation better is to get down from your high horse and work together with your manager to improve the situation. It won't be fast or easy, but it's the right thing to do.

If you tried all the above and it still didn't work. Them there is nothing left to do other than look for another manager or job.

If you want advice to a specific situation, please be specific in your question and you might receive some helpful answers.
This paper says we should abandon practices when they are shown to not work. I don't think anyone will disagree with that. But the original post made it seem like there were practices which were adopted willy nilly. But this paper just shows the self correcting nature of science.
Most, if not all SPACs.
My guess would be not cheaper then a conventional wood-framed house of the same size even if the 3D printer can probably be built for only a few thousands
I find this logic strange. As someone who's friend was killed in an accident where he was not wearing a seatbelt, this kind of logic makes the person who ran a stop sign at 45 miles an hour the "victim," and not the person who they killed.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I find it wholly uncompelling. And I don't exactly oppose seat belt laws either, I just find this justification, uh, perverted maybe? Bizarre? Utterly unconvincing.
This addresses only a small subset of the problem.
> If YOU decide not to wear a seatbelt, then YOU are the one that might to go out flying through the windshield. Your choice.

This of course assumes there’s no one else in the car. If there is, then you turn yourself into a 80kg human meat pinball moving at between 20-80mph, bouncing around the inside of the car. In this case your pretty much guaranteed to kill or seriously injure the other occupants.
> Especially sometimes when the most toxic users were also some of the most popular users.

If the "toxic" users were the most popular, how do you know you were not the "toxic" one instead? If the community is supporting the "toxic" material, how could it be "toxic"?

In my experience, it's not the toxic users that's the problem. It tends to be the toxic mods. You can ignore toxic users. You really can't ignore the toxic mods.

I also have a problem with the term "toxic". It ultimately means "something I don't like". Mods should never ban "toxic" content. They should ban illegal and perhaps non-pertinent content. But that's just my opinion.
I have another way to look at the same thing. Ruby/Rails as a development language/framework is great and no doubts about it. I used it for many years. Would I recommend it for any new project / startup now (other than a simple CRUD with a handful of users) - No.

Shopify or Stripe are huge companies with massive codebases in Ruby, perhaps so complex that they are better off making investments in Ruby performance rather than re-writing their stack.

In fact, the very fact that these companies have to spend so much time trying to make Ruby work well tells me that something is not right.

For a startup which has limited resources why should I wait for 10% improvements in Ruby performance every 6 months, when I can already get on the rocket-ship of performance that is - Node.js or JVM or even Elixir. Kotlin for example even writes a bit like Ruby, has some decent frameworks available and will give me magnitudes of performance on top.
> mRNA vaccine is only active in your body for a few days.

Isn’t the point of it to confer long term immunity? Specifically, it aims to alter the immune system, probably one of the more complicated systems our body has. Immune system disorders are no joke, they can kill or significantly reduce the quality of life. So there is a potential area for things to go wrong.

There is also the case of any long term effects triggered by the short term presence of mRNA. What if it lands in different types of organs, could that cause cancer in 2-3 years, other serious chronic condition. Not by the mRNA still being transcribed there but by some other unintended interaction or lasting damage.

I just don’t understand where the absolute confidence that it’s safe long term is coming from.
>we don't have any ethical qualms with using violent police power to compel people to consume a pharmaceutical product where the manufacturers have literally no liability to the consumer for any adverse reactions,

Where, exactly, is anyone in the US "using violent police power to compel people to consume a pharmaceutical product"?

At most, folks are being required to either get vaccinated or regularly tested in order to keep working. Which is AIUI, at least under US labor law, absolutely legal.

So I ask again: where, exactly, is "using violent police power to compel people to consume a pharmaceutical product" happening?
Can one agree that black lives matter, without being a white supremacist: yes. (good so far)

...without needing to support the tactics of the "BLM organization"?

The presupposition that BLM is a single, organized monolith begins to wander into the grey area. Local orgs spring up. Most often, this goes unreported on. When the white+neoliberal news organizations find a "BLM group" that does something they can skew, THAT one gets all the media coverage.
Github has a sponsorship program for open source developers.

https://github.com/sponsors
People Share Their Accessible WFH Setups
> small minority of people in Silicon Valley gets to dictate how the rest of the world sees information

if you think that minority is confined to silicon valley and "big tech" i think you'll be in for a rude awakening, but in this case youtube removing anti-vax videos when its obvious disinformation is a good thing imo
> they're also extremely homogeneous ethnically

Japan, yes. Singapore is actually very diverse.
Agreed. The dog picture actually looks acceptable in jpeg format at 19kB (original 123kB).
Escape depression
Decentralized p2p video ftw!
So YouTube has no rights and must distribute all speech? Who is going to compel them? Government?

You can't have your cake and eat it. Which way is it?
have you tried driving in the rest of the world? The US streets even in the north are pool tables compared to most of the world.
Southwest Airlines and Walt Disney World Resort Unveil Commemorative Aircraft
Life is a game. This is your strategy guide
Cambly (YC W14) is hiring product managers to break down language barriers
> But eventually, someone needs to do the work to convince people "science is trustworthy."

It's harder than that though.

Science is complicated, frequently messy and often adversarial, and that is how science makes progress.

There is no single narrative for scientific truth -- even when there is overwhelming consensus, science places high value on the coherent arguments at the margins.

This scientific embrace of complexity has been weaponized against us.

"Society" prefers a clear narrative they can comprehend, and science does not always provide it.

The media used to be relatively responsible stewards of the narrative, but that is very much no longer the case. (not the blame the media -- the media is us)
I guess, if your statement wasn't researched and peer reviewed, it'll be considered misinformation...
Because they're monopolies.
The problem is that Youtube is big enough, and carries enough of the global conversation, that we think it should be a common carrier. (Think of the phone company back in the day. They didn't care if you were literally the Nazi Party of America, they carried your phone calls just like everybody else's.) People kind of think of Youtube that way, even though, legally, Youtube isn't playing by those rules.

But there's also this two-faced evaluation of Youtube. When Youtube blocks the other side, people say "private company, First Amendment, they can carry what they want". But when Youtube blocks their side, people at least feel the violation of the "common carrier" expectation, and get upset.

So maybe it's time for us as a society to decide: Has Youtube (and Facebook, and Twitter, and Google) gotten big enough and important enough that they should be regulated into some kind of "common carrier" status? Or do we want them to continue as they are?
Software is unlike mathematics in that mathematicians won't work for free.
Not sure if related, but we recently made a new, fresh Windows image for our fleet on a Dell laptop. It auto-updated to include Dell’s “Freefall protection platform” or some such Dellware. I uninstalled it and didn’t think more about it. When we started deploying the image, all machines would auto-install the Freefall crap.
> You can run a better journal for free than what you can get from Elsevier.

If you staff and pay for it.

You're also forgetting that the entire point of Journals is so that research institutions don't have to think about how to dole out the grant money. In addition to actually creating an entire new journal, you also have to make sure its "reputation" is better than the existing journals, or nobody will use it.
> Do we know if the mRNA vaccine has any long term effects?

Phew, good thing we've got non-mRNA vaccines available.

The vaccine "hesitant" are not rational actors. They have some position they decided on and use post-hoc rationalizations to defend that position.

Their irrational positions have contributed to the current situation of clogged hospitals, increased deaths, and the continued need for costly mitigation measures.
Insiders Are Good at Trading
THIS is the right answer and the right thing to do. Kudos to you.
All: if you want to read all 2500+ comments you'll need to click More at the bottom, or like this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060&p=2

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060&p=3

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060&p=4

etc. (Sorry for the annoyance - comments like this will eventually go away.)
WSL2 is paradoxically the best and worst thing to happen to desktop Linux.

It is the best thing because it makes Linux so easy to install and get started with on Windows PCs which dominate the market.

It is the worst thing because desktop Linux users are no longer forced to dogfood and fix laptop hardware issues, and so these issues will continue to go unfixed, and native desktop Linux installs will thus continue to suffer.

Case in point: I've used desktop Linux for more than 20 years and I recently moved to using WSL on Windows because I love having all my hardware devices like my photo printer "just work" on Windows and I love getting great laptop battery life.

It looks like the Thinkpad X1 Carbon is the only killer laptop you can buy with Linux preinstalled that has a 4K UHD screen option, but Lenovo makes the buying experience extremely frustrating. Lenovo overprices Thinkpads most of the year and then occasionally does killer sales. And Lenovo has lately been suffering 4 month shipping delays on many Thinkpad configurations. I'm sick of wasting time waiting for the sales and then trying to buy before the reseller bots buy up the deals. So I bought a non-Thinkpad Win 10 laptop instead and I run WSL on it for my Linux needs.
I'd probably just throw it onto the pile in my trading account and watch it grow until I'm too old to enjoy it.
Isn't this logically inconsistent? The vaccinated should be protected by the vaccine, and thus little to no threat should exist.

Ah but the vaccines are leaky you say, the vaccinated can acquire and spread the disease, and they can do so asymptomatically. And to that I propose a question: are the vaccines definable as effective, that being the case? If you're so positive of the vaccine, shouldn't your whole family unit be vaccinated? Children aren't very susceptible to the disease. Once boosters are deployed to the aceding population, will that cause a paradigm shift? Once a large proportion of children are vaccinated? Once we hit the constantly moving target for "herd immunity"?

No, it's all or none. It's arbitrary. It is not logically consistent. It is government policy in a nutshell.

People die constantly. Attributing causality exclusively to COVID19 is asinine. Even using an aggregate like excess mortality is a fool's errand. It's been clear since the beginning that comorbidity in combination with COVID19 is what typically causes death. Any numbers pulled to evidence how deadly COVID19 is are fraught with interdependencies and overlap and hardly present a true to life picture.

It's naive to think you can save everyone. It's okay that you're afraid.
It would look like this: people get dragged out of their houses by armed men, and are forcibly injected while screaming and being held down. "We also send people off to war" is not a sufficient argument for removing the right to bodily autonomy.

Edit: oh, and probably you wouldn't get to see any videos of it online, because it's anti-vaccination content. Haha.
Not the parent, but this study seems to be the best RCT of mask effectiveness so far (N=350,000):

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...

Cloth masks showed no statistically significant reduction in the spread of Covid-19. (surgical masks - different story)

Yet I'm still surrounded by people - wearing predominantly cloth masks - that are full of outrage for the maskless. I've not heard any updates from the CDC on this issue.
Prayer doesn't prevent malfunctioning kidneys, yours or those of random strangers, as far as I know. So, it doesn't work.
Should we ban car commercials? Cars kill lots of people.

Should we ban soda commercials? Obesity kills a lot of people.

Here’s the issue: if your entire value system is based on extending life at any cost to other values, you’ve already lost. Full stop.

This entire thing is one giant flashing sign that says “Modern human beings are scared of everything, even as they live in the safest times ever.”
thought experiment:

what if YouTube existed and was as popular as it is now, in the early 00s, leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, and there videos attempting to prove that Iraq did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction, and YouTube was deleting these videos?

wouldn't it be suddenly obvious that these videos must be taken down immediately, accounts banned and that platform owners are responsible? or would you advocate for free speech and watch as the algorithm encourages more and more people to question the Bush administration narrative, parroted and perpetuated unquestioningly by the media?
If you won the lottery would you keep working for 2 weeks?
Indeed. I began obsessively downloading and archiving every video I think worth watching more than once. My catalyst was noticing many of my favorite content creators removing their old content after deciding it either didn't match their current audience or decided it was too edgy for the current climate. One guy deleted a decade of videos after someone pointed out he said f*g in one of them.
My understanding is that seat belt law compliance (90-95%) is higher than compliance with speeding laws (minority of drivers), and speed laws are the same weight of infraction or higher than belts. Based on that, I don’t think opposition to the law is about actually wearing seatbelts, at least not anymore. Certainly open to correction, though.
"Compressed morbidity" -- it's the way to go!
> The question of "this is important" is tricky

This question is not tricky. It is weighty and scary.
If it was tricky, there would be a puzzle you could solve to answer it.

Instead as you say it must first involve listening because people have the freedom to choose what is important to them.

Otherwise, you might assume that people place a highest value on sustaining human life. This can fail if you go to New Hampshire and encounter a person who value liberty more highly than life.
Not only that. It really helps your eyes to look at other things and more importantly, at things at different distance.

Plenty of studies for that, too.

(not strictly for "outside" though, you can also look out of the window regulary, it is so that your eyes refocus and relax )
Your risk from the vaccine is lower than your risk from Covid lol - because you know the Covid disease creates fully functional viruses whereas the vaccine only incorporates a small subset that cannot reproduce. Why you would want the fully functional version is beyond me.
You premise that they remove only false information is wrong,

"vaccine producers are immune from liability", is not false but is anti-vaccine ... its taken down.

When reports about problems with AstraZeneca were coming out, those were tagged as misinformation, today most countries no longer give out AZ vaccine.

Theyre suppressing truthful info, why should you trust anything they say?
It's not the default setup and not trivial to do, but Docker has had the ability to run the daemon as a non-root user for a few years. The standard .deb and .rpm packages even include scripts to automate the transition for you on Debian and RedHat Linux variants. See https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/rootless/

The only thing podman gives you that docker itself can't is running without a daemon at all.
“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.” George Bernard Shaw

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

"If you believe that the arguments against slavery in their time and against Jim Crow laws more recently could only have been expressed when people had the freedom to voice unpopular opinions, then you can’t now say that free speech is inherently dangerous." Stephen Pinker

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.” Noam Chomsky

"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.” Frederick Douglass
This was in the context of reinfections, read the context of the comments and the article. The argument being made is that because someone got infected with COVID, they should not need to get a vaccine because natural immunity provides better protection, which is clearly false per the CDC. You are less likely to get reinfected or wind up in the hospital, per the article: "The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection. Additionally, a second publication from MMWR shows vaccines prevented COVID-19 related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. As cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise, the data in today’s MMWR reinforce that COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID-19."
The Jobs presentation thing did work - much of the audience bought into it early on - combined with the hefty bonus points of her being a woman in Silicon Valley that the media was desperate to elevate as a path blazing icon (so desperate they entirely drank the kool-aid and acted as a valuable reinforcement pillar for the fraud, and largely failed to investigate if Theranos was legitimate).

Jobs had follow-through, he had real products that often lived up to his pitching. His salesmanship was merely half the equation. Holmes only had a poor clone of that salesmanship, with none of the product. Had Theranos had real products, the approach she used in trying to quasi copy the Jobs image/presentation, would have served the promotional purpose effectively, as the media loved it.
Not in an article explaining why those limitations exist at all.
My preferred policy would be to only remove speech which is actively calling for violence.

This fits in line with a common conception of what we view as reasonable limits on free speech.

Removing speech of people sharing their beliefs about the risks and rewards of putting substances in their bodies or other medical decisions doesn't meet this standard.
Even though I’m glad it’s back up, it sucks that it takes things being publicly blown up for Google/Youtube to do anything about their users/customers problems.

Earlier this year my Google ads account got banned after not having used it for more than a year. The reason given was some vague message about violating their terms. Which terms or why? They didn’t say. Which ad or campaign? They didn’t say. Tried an appeal, rejected by a robot, tried again, rejected by a robot again.

So they still ran the campaigns back in the day, they took my money, they didn’t say a thing, but then a year later they auto-ban my account? smh.

Man I feel so powerless sometimes.
https://www.managingcommunities.com/2015/06/04/lego-universe...
> If you're claiming something that hasn't been demonstrated through peer-reviewed scientific research, then you're offering your opinion.

By that standard, this entire website and most of the software industry is misinformation. In fact, most political speech is misinformation.

> If you're pushing a narrative that implies that you shouldn't get vaccinated, then yes, that's "anti-vax".

GP is saying that the conversation is, and should be recognized as, more nuanced than that. There sure is an undercurrent of people making narratives but that's not a new problem. The left and right have weaponized narratives to the detriment of this country ad infinitum. If you're arguing we should only have evidence based discussion and that anecdotes and opinions don't matter, then you have new problems. The new problems will alienate and harm anyone that your current telemetry (and understanding) doesn't reflect. To me, that's an age-old problem where some value technocracy while others value bureaucracy; my personal opinion being that both are valuable but they need a distribution model in government that optimizes for problem solving.

> If you're publishing your opinion, or if you're discussing your research before it's been peer-reviewed, you have the responsibility to make that clear, and even to point out that it does not agree with the current scientific consensus (if any exists).

I agree, but it seems GP was indicating this doctor was doing just that and was still silenced.
I like the dither aesthetic and underlying message, but it's possible to compress the first image of the dog (123 kB) to 64 kB with MozJPEG and still maintain the same quality.

Modern compression algorithms with native lazy loading will probably offer the best of both worlds.
We were promised rural broadband! 2 billion of rural broadband.
Apparently the author's point is that image compression is useful, but dithering and then using lossless compression instead of using lossy ones sounds like rather poorly reinventing lossy compressions.
Still unfolding, but Lordstown Motors looks like exactly that.

https://hindenburgresearch.com/lordstown/
Build an indoor turf field so kids could play/practice field sports in the winter.
This is a very dangerous slope, especially because you are so willing to dismiss the conversation under the assumption that you know best/everything.
+1 on Wulf's book. A good weekend read!