skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I used to be in therapy for Depression, and I am now Depression-free. That's another story.

I have moved to another state and I no longer have access to that therapist that was great to say the least. Eventually (I know procrastination again) I will seek out a new therapist this time just to address my Anxiety.

Thank you for your comment.
>Sure, she was not honest to investors.

... or the businesses that purchased the machines, and every average person who got tested with those machines and put their faith in the results, all because she was dishonest.

This is the healthcare industry we're speaking of - it's not just investors at stake here, it's everyone's health that she put at stake for the sake of getting herself rich.

Edit: Regarding prototypes in the wild; given that this is healthcare, I don't mind prototypes being used as long as the unknown accuracy of the devices is clearly communicated before they are used, and everyone getting a test understands that they're part of a clinical trial. This was absolutely not the case.
I run a small consulting firm, and the only people who do the books are myself and another individual. We the file via WebDAV.

I'm not sure how GnuCash would work in a large org.
> Why are ICU beds such a fixed resource?

Because resources are finite.

Not to mention, even if you have some extra to handle variable demand, exceptional circumstances are by their nature exceptional. It's irresponsible to carry that much more capacity when you'll only need it once a century.

Take for example the recent Hurricane Ida. There's still trash and debris to pick up. There's still damage to be fixed, houses to be rebuilt, etc. Insurance claims to process and pay out. Why?

Because there's going to be over 2 million cubic feet of vegetation to dispose of. Just in my parish. That's not considering the other parishes. Or other types of debris. There are trucks from several states and they've been working most days. And we still need to get rid of downed trees.

Because every house is going to have a claim. Every house is going to need some form of repair. Thousands of houses. All at once.

We aren't prepared to handle that sort of scale. And having the resources to handle that sort of scale is just going to languish when its not needed. It'll be waste.

Same deal with COVID. COVID is filling ICUs at a scale that is wasteful to keep on hand during normal operations.

And I'm sorry, saying they "need to innovate" is just the laziest criticism one can make. It exposes the fact that you have not thought of the problem at all beyond noticing the obvious lack of resources. Congratulations for noticing the obvious. How are they supposed to innovate? How do you know they haven't created temporary wards (they have where they could)? What does it take to make a site appropriate for an ICU ward? Etc, etc. There are problems that you don't even know exist because you don't know the problem domain. And that's ok. You're not expected to. But don't armchair quarterback the domain experts who have been working on this problem for the past year. It's not as smart as you think it is.
I think by now we should understand that it usually takes an order of magnitude more effort to counter-act a false claim than it takes to make it in the first place. If your proposed approach was viable there shouldn't be people around today saying that vaccines cause autism, as the original paper that made that claim has been debunked many, many, times. And yet, that lie is still extremely pervasive in society and directly causing harm to people.

Part of this is because of recommendation algorithms on social media sites like Youtube getting people into positive feedback loops. If you find a anti-vaxx video and Youtube recommends you two videos, one re-enforcing the video you've just seen (making you feel smart for having found and accepted the information in the original video) and one debunking it (which makes you feel stupid for having wasted your time on the original video), which do you think the average person is more likely to pick? Eventually the algorithm will "naturally" pick up that people watching anti-vaxx videos don't want to see videos debunking those views and will never show them to people watching anti-vaxx videos. The only way to solve this paradox is to blanket ban the anti-vaxx videos.
Saying "pregnant patient" instead of "pregnant woman" doesn't somehow stop us from learning about biological mechanisms related to sex. No one is denying that having XX chromosomes increases your risk of getting pregnant -- they're just saying that you shouldn't use language that incorrectly assumes than everyone in that situation is a woman. The absurd claim that people in medical schools are denying the existence of biological sex requires that you take everything said in bad faith and assume the dumbest possible interpretation. For example:

> > “Biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender are all constructs. These are all constructs that we have created.”

> In other words, some of the country’s top medical students are being taught that humans are not, like other mammals, a species comprising two sexes. The notion of sex, they are learning, is just a man-made creation.

When people say that biological sex is a construct, they're not saying that humans are actually sexless beings like angels and physical differences between men and women are just a lie made up by the patriarchy -- no one seriously believes such a thing. They're just saying that the way that we classify biological sex is based on our socially constructed ideas about gender. For example, children who are born with features of both sexes are often given surgery to make their bodies fit with the norm for one gender or the other so that they can grow up as a "normal" boy or girl. In other words, the sex someone is deemed to be is based on how we expect them to live in our society. Similarly, when trans people go through medical transition, some of their sex features change and others don't. Whether you view them as having changed their biological sex is a "is it hot in Athens" sort of question, and it's probably going to be affected by your social views on trans people. You might not view issues like this as sufficient to call biological sex a "construct," but you should be able to understand how someone might come to that view without believing outrage-driven fantasies about medical students thinking that sex is imaginary.
https://kidadl.com/articles/of-the-best-tyrion-lannister-quo...
To use this feature, you have to turn on Find My Network in settings (it is on by default), turning it on also means the device will report other nearby Find My devices like AirTags.

I like to have my phone findable after power off, but I am still not sure whether I want my phone to report other devices.
Good perspective. Thanks.
Decentralized Social Media Raises $200M
You are not alone. The authoritarian threat and government overreach problems are IMO orders of magnitude more important and concerning than the virus. I will almost certainly be taking a stand and be terminated by my employer over this within the next few weeks.
While a good point, if the content is important to you, then you should take appropriate measures to back it up.

People should really consider storing their data only on a cloud provider that they don't pay for as equivalent to storing it only on a single USB stick.

Even storing it on a provider you do pay for should be seen as equivalent to storing it on a NAS located in your house/office: it's somewhat protected against hardware failure, but still not "backed up". Instead of fire/theft, your concerns should be account closure/compromise, or the provider just going out of business.
Regardless of transportation cost attribution, the electric vehicle fees are meant to offset transportation funding, which ICE vehicles pay largely via federal and state fuel taxes. And which we as a society have decided is a political decision, separate from direct use/cost. Otherwise we'd have just stuck with everything being a toll-road.

Equating the marginal increase in pavement maintenance costs (due to trucks and heavy-loads) to the overall costs of building and operating a highway is also entirely wrong, but that's a bit tangent the point here.

I'm usually the first to point out the outsized amount of damage and wear attributable to heavy vehicles, but it's still a marginal increase of only one cost component in running a public transportation network.
It's more like $300+ dollars but there's another, more important point: hard drives fail. If we're talking about YouTube creators who spend hours producing culturally relevant content, we're going to want a much more robust backup strategy than simply throwing it on an external hard drive.

Is it possible for a home user to build a storage system with high availability and off-site backups? Sure. Will it be affordable and convenient? Extremely unlikely.
I've been working on this for a while and it's just about good enough to show people now. It's pretty much working and renders ePUB files pretty well. It's using an ESP32 board with an e-ink display.
This sounds very naive to me. Maybe it works for your specific use case but it is never that easy most of the times. What happens if the user has your application on two devices? What happens if you want the server to update this data? What happens if the data involves multiple users?

What you're doing here is not much more than a backup.
I agree that JP Morgan likely has a better understanding of the economy. However, they have a proportionally higher interest in manipulating the economy to their ends.

Recessions are half psychological, and JP Morgan would get hurt far worse by most recessions that might happen than AT&T by a recession.
Absolutely. But there are very few (no?) "experts on expertise". Which is what you need to be in order to make decisions about _which_ experts to trust in a field where there is plurality / majority consensus on some issue among those who are experts in the field.
Internet and electric companies don't have international political influence, nor major monopolies.

I'd rather have an honest discussion about dealing with a global crisis instead of having some asshole decide he's right and shut everyone else out - surely you can imagine the damage caused by a dictator who's wrong?
High Tech Genesis Inc. Is Hiring-Ottawa/Montreal/Toronto
Happened during the 2012 petrol crisis: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-1...
time to reclassify the slap chop as a prosthetic device :)
YouTube/Facebook/Twitter have proven that anonymized free speech doesn't work. You have no way of knowing if the discourse is being generated by trolls/bots/foreign actors.
Except people will take any and all things that happen as conformation of their beliefs. YouTube leaving a video up is support, YouTube removing a video is the conspiracy in action.
Paradoxically, but somehow yes, you should then nurture serious doubts about the situation - censorship means somewhere, something is clearly wrong. If a reaction is wildly disproportionate, you should raise suspicion. If the reason alleged for the disproportion is "what would be the reaction of people", you (though maybe not you specifically) should flee as if chased by the devil.

Your terminology is confusing: there is hesitance. The hesitant want clear, trustworthy information. Lack of clarity over the clash of what is seen and what is narrated reinforces hesitance.

The censorship of those who claim the impossible easily hits those who claim the possible, and the first can be used as a strawman against the second. This is one of the practical reasons why your «moral imperative» is invalid: these months showed that you cannot set the threshold.
Here's a good study about the risk of myocarditis (it's very low). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

There's a lot of misleading information out there about myocarditis that makes the risk sound much worse than it is.

Yes adverse myocarditis reaction is a risk. But it's something like 1 in 17,000. 1 in 500 Americans have died from covid.

Even if you're young and healthy, we have no idea the long term risks of contracting a serious case of covid. You have to factor that into the risk equation.
There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead. And it's not like that option is unfathomable to the media. When the truth is aligned with their agenda, they are already experts in "fact-checking" and pointing out where their opponents are wrong.

The rules of debate say it's always better to refute the main argument and to address their issues. If you resort to ad-hominem attacks, appeal to authority, or just plain censorship, to me it is a confession that you do not have better information to add to the debate. Which implies that I'm right.
From my experience with these projects and people running them, most are just grift designed to extract money from EU programs.
ITT: Hacker News comment section continues to boast about how awful they are
Level of virality and black box algorithms.
I turn off my phone but never that way. It either runs out of power or I hard reset it. Either way I don't want it spying on me.
> The bad idea exists today and is spreading, does limiting that spread actually cause more harm? Is there evidence of this or a study to support it? In schools, we suppress all sorts of bad ideas.

So this is sort of meta isn't it? The easy phrase that sounds good gets a lot of traction, but actually proving whether it's true, long term, is a difficult problem!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law - I'm not calling BS on the phrase we're discussing, just that we don't know!

Meanwhile back in the real world, a friend of ours died of COVID yesterday, leaving behind a husband and son. Pretty sure she was not vaccinated. She was relatively young and in good shape.
It's as funny as it is true. At times humor gets deeper than serious talk. Thank you for the comment.
On one hand, you can claim that YouTube is being proactive against what they perceive to be a problem and that's something.

On the other hand, they don't choose to be proactive against copyrighted material - they just comply with the law when the law comes knocking and that's that. It simply doesn't make sense for them to allow the law to do its job in one place and then be overly proactive in another. At the very least, it undermines their argument that they're only doing this to comply with the law. They're not. They actively want to censor material that they don't agree with and they'll use whatever excuse they need to do it.
I have to be honest and say that my faith in the capacity of people to think in a free speech totally open environment was severely tested over the past 5-10 years. Things like Qanon, flat Earth, antivax hysteria, the meme-driven return of both "right" and "left" totalitarian ideologies from the early 20th century that should be completely discredited, and so on have made me wonder if most people simply can't handle exposure to unregulated content as they lack the ability to think critically. I've actually wondered if most people might not need to be protected from unregulated content in the same way that people need to be protected from exposure to lead, radon gas, etc.

The human brain simply didn't evolve in this environment. Throughout 99.9% of human history a person's ideas came from the tribe or neighborhood and came with the context of culture, social relationships, and physical body language cues. The brain did not evolve to process a context-free meme stream connected to an algorithm trying to keep you "engaged."

If only a few people had fallen for this nonsense that would be one thing, but I witnessed mass conversions of millions of people to ideas that are more absurd than the craziest conspiracy bullshit I read on Usenet in the 1990s. This is stuff the people who are crazy think is crazy.

It goes beyond shockingly bad ideas too. I've seen an alarming rise of discourse that resembles word salad spewed out by a primitive Markov chain text generator. It's terrifying. It almost looks like exposure to open discourse is causing brain damage in some susceptible fraction of the population. Some subset of people seem to have lost the ability to process or generate a coherent narrative or structured system of ideas. They just spew memes in random order. It's less coherent than classic new age babble or Orwellian "newspeak."

I still lean in the free speech direction pretty hard, but my faith is shaken to the core. I honestly and non-hyperbolically wonder if the right carefully crafted AI-powered social media boosted propaganda campaign couldn't convert double digit percentages of the population into homicidal maniacs or cause a mass suicide wave killing millions.

BTW this and not "Skynet" is the scary thing about AI. The most terrifying AI scenario I can think of is AI-assisted demagoguery or mass stochastic terrorism powered by big data. Think "adversarial attacks against the human neocortex."

Attacks only get better.
I don’t know about a fab, but the design principle I have heard from people making better use of residential and agricultural water is not trying to get it to a complete 100% closed loop, but to get multiple uses (yields) out of it as it flows through the system.

In a residential setting, it is typically a single-use where water purified to drinking water standards are used to flush toilets and water the lawn.

The idea here is to make better use of inputs and outputs. The folks in the Earthship projects just outside of Taos, NM build residences that cycle water 3-4 times before it goes out through a septic field, which feeds vegetation.

In none of those cycles, are the water re-used for the same purpose. You don’t try to purify grey water from bathing to reuse for bathing or washing, and instead, it is treated onsite through plants to reuse for things like flushing toilets. Water transports things, so what you look at is what is the waste being carried and how can that “waste” be used as an input for something else.

In the case of the fab, it sounds as if the major waste being carried is heat, via evaporative cooling. As I have mentioned in a different comment, that likely changes the microclimate near the fabs. So one area to look at are what kind of yields we can get with that changed microclimate? It depends upon the design of the cooling towers, and weather the water carrying the waste heat was still liquid when it got to the tower. Maybe there is another use for heated water, not specifically in the fab process itself, but something that could benefit humans and the ecology in a different way. For example, diverting some of that water to areas where zone 10 (tropical) plants are put into cultivation.
> Few people today are priced out of streaming films or buying MP3s

The article is trying to underscore the expensiveness of scientific literature (undeniable) with the above, but it is true for any reasonable value of "few"?
> Seems interesting they chose to limit it to a maximum of 6 colors.

Where do you see this? The article talks about nesting levels being bounded by O(log N) levels where N is the length of the document, and from what I can tell this is just for analysis and it supports arbitrary nesting levels… Oh, is your question about the actual colours used for the brackets, i.e. arbitrary levels of matching are supported, but the colours repeat every 6 levels (e.g. brackets at levels i and i+6 have the same colour)? If so this is a UX choice (I can't see any technical reason) and I imagine the considerations might be something like:

- There are only finitely many colours that can be usefully distinguished visually by the average person, so we need to pick some limit L,

- The limit L needs to be small enough that all L colours are easily distinguishable and memorable, but large enough that it would never be confusing whether a certain coloured bracket is at nesting level i or i ± L.

I guess the thinking may have been that 6 is large enough typically, e.g. it's likely to be clear from context whether a certain bracket (say blue) is at (say) level 2 or level 8.
Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work.

And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?
The real problem is with the discovery algorithm. If the algorithm sees a user watching subject XYZ, it keeps suggesting more XYZ to that user. The goal of the algorithm is to own the users eyeballs as long as possible. This results in more ad-views and a more accurate profile of the user.

So if a user watches one anti-vax video, YouTube then suggests a bunch of other anti-vax videos. Many people will start believing it, after being bombarded with misinformation.

Fixing the algorithm is hard. Instead, as usual, YT is just removing videos that cause the problems. This is just a bandaid
Alvin Weinberg wrote along these lines years ago in his Science and Trans-Science paper [1] from 1972. Once I understood the concept, I see it everywhere these days.

[1] http://www.quantamike.ca/pdf/Weinberg-Minerva.pdf
I can see it from UK no issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7lRV1VHv1g
I'd definitely think about doing exactly that if I were after a new paper but most of the stuff I'm interested in is in history, law history, linguistics and diplomatic. Those papers often precede the Internet, not even mentioning dead authors.
>Troll farms reached 140M Americans a month on FB before 2020 elections

I can imagine most of HN sees a headline that boils down to "lots of stuff on facebook is fake" and not care. A headline with a clear subject that people can love/hate is much better clickbait.
But that's not a publicly salient culture issue in the US. It's a simple matter of do you want aipac backing you or your opponent in the next race. Easy calculation, no higher principles necessary.
It's posturing for the 2022 midterms. The Dems want to be able to point to the Repubs stalling on MJ legalization. The Repubs want to point to the Dems wanting to take away everyone's guns and kill everybody's babies. I think it's utterly ridiculous but, these parties spend millions of dollars on elections analysis and I'm assuming they're not blowing their money, so I must conclude these tactics work.
As populations, we often start with good ideas - it's the implementation (through multiple industries) that often pervert (or ruin) the ideas impact.

Our legal system is an example of what happens when you take good ideas and mutate them for months or years between many parties before providing overly complex implementation guidelines for which the actual enforcement parties find ways to cut corners to reduce workload.

Building codes, police, healthcare, education, pollution, the list goes on and on...
The government lied to their citizens because they weren't prepared enough and didn't stockpile enough N95 masks for their healthcare workers. That's what I'm reading.

That's okay to you?

I think it's absolutely abhorrent. Governments technically have a full monopoly on violence/power and to have them lie to you for what - the "greater good?"

You're also putting the entirely of all people hesitant or unwilling to get the vaccination into a large group which you can then generalize (albeit foolishly)
When I found out Podman supports Kubernetes pod YML files with `podman play kube`, I "ported" my Compose files to those, and that works pretty well (in the newest versions of Podman).
Besides, the official recommendation was more on the line of "a 3rd dose is much less useful than applying those vaccines on the antivaxers". What is very clearly correct, but is of a laughable political naivety, because the preferred goal is practically impossible to reach.
Well there are stories of people who made actual medical decisions from the faulty machines she produced.

I'm guessing everyone who made medical decisions based on her faulty machines cares a great deal.

How can you have so little empathy for the everyday people caught up in this