skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Let's say you watch new and unique youtube videos for an hour a day,

I wonder for how many users this is true. I personally watch several hours a day of youtube because it's mostly on in the background instead of music. Lots of infotainment channels. I'm pretty sure on average it's like 20mins per day can't find the source though.
I am almost finished with a book about Humboldt (Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf). It's been a fantastic read, and I was surprised/ashamed that I hadn't known anything about Humboldt until earlier this year.
These examples are all "impossible" due to regulatory or commercial constraints, rather than scientific - which is a category of obstacle somewhat more difficult to overcome.
I'm assuming you're getting your health advice on YouTube and Facebook? How are random fearmongers on YouTube more credible than CDC or FDA?
If I am to put an email into a landing page it has to convince me that it is very definitely more than "an opportunity to collect an email address".

Just look at kickstarter campaigns. There's the actual idea, which I'm interested in, or not. And then there's backup of how good the idea actually is, benefits I may not have thought of, and then a ream of validation; the team, how much work they've spent developing the idea, the execution plan, future direction, etc, etc, ad nauseam to be honest.

Personally, I prefer to just see the minimum; the idea, perhaps some surprising use-cases, and plausible execution plans, but clearly the kitchen-sink approach also works.
> Not realizing there's a problem is something that might come up for kindergarteners, but not for kids who are already in school.

That's only true if your eyesight degraded while you were aware, not if it was already bad. I didn't get glasses until I was 16 and I never knew I needed them until I almost failed the vision test for my driver's license.
Edit: now I can reply to Cody.

Cody, what other reason would exist to make denial of the holocaust or anything else illegal if not to hide something?
In practice, I find that the popular ZXing can scan QR Codes very reliably with a 1-module quiet zone, even though the standard requires 4 modules. That said, 0 modules is universally a bad idea; putting a black border immediately around a QR Code is a recipe for failure.
Maybe because when they hear "advertising" they think car commercial or magazine ad and associate that with your comment. Those can be very good things. Mechanizing disinformation to pool people into cults and sell them to the highest bidder is not advertisement...it is what we call "big tech" until we can figure out another word.
yes, but it was not happening in March 2020 in the US for a variety of reasons.
> it seems that a separate AST is created just for this bracket-pair problem, is that right?

That is right.

> I imagine there was/is already (at least one) another AST already being computed in the editor, for other reasons

Not in the renderer process.

The point is that more concrete ASTs that model more features of the language are less likely to have reusable nodes. When you have just bracket pairs, you can reuse any bracket pair that was not modified!
However, when prepending a JS file with `[`, a class declaration probably does not parse as class declaration anymore, so you cannot just reuse it and make it child of the array expression (what you could do if it was just another bracket pair).
There is more to the immune system than antibodies. In order to fully assess immunity you have to look at innate responses and memory cell activity.
THIS. When you’re desperate to leave, I get that for sure, but you nailed it here because now the author’s even more desperate than she was before, unfortunately. Begging to get back a job you hate has got to be the worst…
And yeah, people need to get better about making it clear that we have a right to screen for bad employers just as much as they screen for bad employees. Lack of social safety nets in the US makes this hard though, understandably. How can you say no in spite of red flags when you don’t have a way to pay rent due at the end of the week?

There should be some kind of retaliation-impossible, big-money-and-censorship-immune-by-design employer review site out there for people to talk about this kind of stuff. I confess I don’t know how to insulate against those threat models while keeping the trash out and establishing/maintaining credibility…

Ideas welcome! :-)
I'm excited for the device and was able to reserve one. But honestly, I'll likely end up putting Windows 11 on mine.
This statement does not make much sense to me. In VR everything is at the same focal distance, you just fake perspective/parallax/size/stereovision to make it feel 3D. You can not change the focal distance if you just have a screen and fixed lenses. Even actuated lenses would not be enough as they will change the focal distance for the entire scene.

"Perceived distance/depth" has little to do with "focal distance" in this situation.
Can we all agree that censorship sucks? I've been using Odysee/LBRY which has a P2P video platform and all of the metadata is stored on blockchain.
Ye. Hoarding toilet paper instead of eg. potatoes and kitchen fuel is stupid. If things get that bad toilet paper is quite far down the prio list.

However, it is rational to buy it if other people are hoarding it, so, self enforcing scarcity ...
This viewpoint just cant be raised. Downvoted to oblivion, piled onto with unmeasured rhetoric or outright deleted. Times we live in.
> ...hah, now that's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of. I went hunting for reading lists for the graduate students. A course on the '19th century English novel' has, wait for it, 7 female authors and 2 male. And one of the two men wrote 'Portrait of a Lady'. That's a pretty interesting way to shift the conversation.

Do you find yourself being just as concerned when the reading list is 7 male authors and 2 female authors? Or only in this direction?

If this counts as political, then boy howdy were curricula in the humanities political in the 1970s when there was basically zero time spent on the voices of women.
I would love to see VR/AR work cross paths with the concept of the "Memory Palace". Maybe groups of folders, websites, screens etc could be set up to be in different rooms of your house. Home automations could be configured to be in sync with your movement around the house.

Every time I stand up and walk to a different room the screens move to the periphery, and return when I sit. When a loud sound is heard, a notification identifies the sound and asks if you want to replay it. Etc.
> I think we have to ask if this won't have a chilling effect on open discussion by moderate voices

I argue that it won't. We have had over a year for Anti-vaccination advocates to make their case. In all instances the goalposts tend to move. Spotlighting continual questioning and false claims benefits no one. It's time to move on.
Break up YouTube into multiple companies, each only allowed to operate in one country. Then break up YouTube US into at least 5 more companies.

Monopolies are bad, mmmkay?
Peertube is the way to go.
This illuminates the problem: thinking that the startup model can be applied to everything. This leads to people either naively tackling problems (you listed successes, but for every success there's many, many, failures). At worst, you find have someone who can use the startup model to hide fraud and grifting.
From my perspective, a lot of powerful and also impressionable people are wrongly applying the label of "science" to the field of "risk-management".

As an example, science can objectively tell you what impact they believe that a virus or a vaccine has on a human body.

Science can not tell you what decision to make in light of the facts that the scientific-method produces. That decision-making process is the field of risk-management where everybody weighs the known facts and decides if the pros to some action outweighs the cons of that action.

Saying something like "Science tells us that you must wear a mask and take the vaccine" is a completely false statement. That is not science. That is just one individual risk-management assessment that may or may not be identical to another person's.

Science qua science is also value-free. The scientific-method cannot tell you what values in life are worth pursuing and taking risks for. Maybe living in the most free way possible (without vaccines or masks and avoiding decades of a medically paranoid health-state dystopia) is something that some people find worth risking their lives for. Science qua science cannot state that pursuing a subjective value is a good or bad idea.
It's certainly better than "anti-vaxxer" which labels them and buckets them as crazy and makes them dig their heels in further. If the goal is to convince people to get vaccinated, belittling them is not the right approach.
Political Polarization May Not Be All It’s Cracked Up to Be
"I love science" is just empty logo. Ask what papers they read/wrote recently, and it falls apart.
That's not what the OP said though. There are two unknowns: effects of long-term COVID, and effect of long-term vaccine.

The person you responded to quite clearly suggests it's illogical to ignore long-term effects of COVID in comparing the outcomes. Particularly in light of the actual evidence of neurological effects of COVID, and some evidence of long COVID being more than phantom effect.

If you assume a weighted value X for long-term vaccination impacts, but assume a 0 or anything materially less than X for the same for COVID it's just not a consistent evaluation.
To be fair... It's very easy to have a good idea if you don't have to deal with the details.

The implementation does have to deal with the details though, and the real world is often much, MUCH more detailed than folks expect.
Hey, OP here.
The problem won't solve itself and we have to be wary of greenwashing.

But as John Carmack says, we need tales to inspire, not tales to condemn.
If we set our goals as just mediating damage, that's what we'll do.
Only by having more ambitious goals, we will find out what's possible.

Yes, we have work to do.
NPR censored coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop claiming it was not newsworthy. All platforms with any moderation will be censorious platforms by definition. You can always tweak the degree of censorship though with moderation.
Bravo! Just what I needed to read today.
When new seat belt laws drew fire as a violation of personal freedom (2020)
I just gave you a recent real-life example where non-hospital resources were finite. Did you not read about the on-going problems due to the recent hurricane I mentioned?

Also your solution would pretty much kill all those people. People are in an ICU ward for a reason, moving them to a parking lot tent is not the same. Now, they're not just battling COVID, but also everything else that's out there.

By your logic, putting a bullet in their heads would also solve the problem.

But the problem isn't "getting rid of COVID patients", it's "making sick people well".

> It's almost like you want "elastic" resources that only kick in when you need them.

No. I'm saying that doesn't exist. That it's folly to think that.

> So don't keep them on hand. Figure out a way to mobilize the resources when you need them.

This is you literally suggesting the solution is ""elastic" resources that only kick in when you need them". The thing I said doesn't exist and is an impossibly difficult problem.
My problem with this article is that it doesn’t know how to draw the line between what is science and what is politics.

Science absolutely exists as a thing on its own, “pure” if you will. And alongside it and with it also comes politics, yes! But that’s a feature, not a bug— both play a role. A very different role.

Science is for everything descriptive and inferential. Politics is for everything prescriptive.
Really not. Hypersonic missiles are a game changer because, without any risk of escalation, they are un-interceptable and can hit very important and high value assets very fast without requiring survivable targeting platforms.
Ah, I guess they're only for the Promotions and Social inbox categories, and I have inbox categories disabled.

If I saw an ad in my email client, my immediate action would be to find a new email client.
I know a lot of time I'm guilty of quick/skim reading articles I like shared on HN. I think this one is worth reading more thoroughly than normal. I found doing so rewarding. I was particular pleased that a conclusion I was forming as I read through was then voiced near the bottom. Namely:

> The science policy scholar Daniel Sarewitz goes so far as to argue that science usually makes public controversies worse. His argument rests on the logical incompatibility of policy expectations and what science actually does — namely, that decision makers expect certainty, whereas science is best at producing new questions. That is, the more scientists study something, the more they uncover additional uncertainties and complexities.

I'm not sure I've ever seen this basic contradiction put so cogently. We want policy (politics) to create certainty and stability. "Science" increases our risk of the unknown by making us more aware of it.

Loved the article. (and still an avid scientist)
Do you think the same about flat-earthers? Sometimes people are just plain wrong. Anyone smart enough to work in IT should be able to see the many flaws in anti-vaxx arguments and recognize how effective vaccines are at preventing diseases.
yes, in any system where you are sampling from a population as you increase the bias the variance decreases.

Increase competition, i.e. apply bias to the filter that selected samples(people) for continuation in an academic or professional environment, and the variance of the people who make it past that filter will go down.

There is no way to avoid this.
Agreed. Anti-vaccine advocate is more accurate at this point. Denialist is harsh, but fits.
Wait, is the hate transitioning to WebView2 or is VS Code? If the latter, do you have a source? WebView2 is a Windows-only API, so I don't think it'd be a good match for VS Code.
Honestly boring. Likely just it got flagged as violence, and an underpaid 3rd world worker clicked a button.

Sorry about the inconvenience to this guy, but at the same time, it got 14 million views and I'm sure he made some cash. He can probably not whine so much. It's likely an honest mistake by someone overworked.
> social utility seems to have dwindled to almost zero

That's not true. It's actually the most effective grassroots-politics tool out there, for "regular people". Everyone has an account already, so signing up to this or that group takes seconds and you can get down to the business of actually organising.

I saw it recently in my neighbourhood: local authority wanted to push a stupid change in road layout, a couple of guys set up a FB group, and in less than a month it had hundreds of members - the road change was protested so vigorously that it had to be scrapped, something rare around this town.

Am I annoyed by this state of things? Heck yeah, I hate FB, but realistically, it's often a force for good for "normal people".
I'm still not convinced there are people who think the world is flat. It feels like a gaffe. Am I in denial?
Nah, the Pathetic appeal is easy. It isn't sustainable, but the simplest form of Pathos is "Hey, fuck THOSE guys, right? You're better than they are, you're special! Git 'em!", and we're practically swimming in it right now.
Oh, Mirriam-Webster already decided that "fully vaccinated" people are "anti-vaxxers" if they do not support vaccine mandates. [1]

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
I don't mind ads interspersed with content. Like, I google something, I get some outright ads, and some higher-placed, paid-for links. But it's still a useful service for finding things.

Facebook appears to be nothing but clickbaity ads, which if I'm lucky, is trying to get me to buy something I don't need. If I'm unlucky, it's ideological poison for hire fueling culture wars or foreign agents meddling in elections.

I basically never use Facebook now, except if a friend asks me to post something, but whenever I do, and scroll through the timeline, I always end up depressed. Oh and yes, bombarded with all the weird stuff discussed in this thread.
It sounds like you're still comfortable using HDD for the bulk of your storage, and add SSDs for fast caches.

Do you think you'll ever get to a point where you run zpools entirely of SSDs? If so, what criteria is important for you? (Raw price per gigabyte? Power usage? MTBF? Something else?)
> how they didn't do due diligence

"due diligence" processes are in practice a lot less stringent or rigorous than an outsider would expect them to be given the amount of money involved. Companies get bought based on glorified sales pitches and nobody looks too hard at what they're buying is the unfortunate truth of the matter. Investors are no better.
Tell that to the regularly highlighted examples of Covid-19 and/or vax deniers who end up ... dead.

Scientific, rational debate is ideal on these subjects ... but is that even possible anymore when people are jumping off the deep end so much. David Koresh would be envious.
"You don’t have a monopoly on truth."

Actually, yes, scientists DO have a monopoly on truth. That is the point of science.
It's ironic (or maybe not?) that the comments section here is filled with exactly the kind of anti-vax misinformation that YouTube is trying to take down.

To respond to one point I keep reading in here over and over: Getting and recovering from covid does not necessarily give you better protection from disease than getting the vaccine.

1/3 of people who get covid develop no antibodies at all, as compared to 0% of (non-immunocompromised) people who get the vaccine. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/574284-natural-covid-...

Also, of course, if you get covid...you got covid which was kind of the thing that we were trying to avoid. Not just for ourselves, but for our communities.

Another point I keep reading is, we don't know the long-term effects of these vaccines. And, it's undeniably true that we don't know with the certainty of evidence what will happen in ten years. But:

- 2.5 billion people have gotten at least one covid shot. This is one of the most-studied medical interventions in the history of medical interventions.

- There is no known and plausible mechanism by which the shot suddenly has bad effects years down the line. Historically, any side effects from vaccines show up within a few weeks, https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...

- We also don't know what will happen in ten years to people who caught long covid, and we do know that people who die from covid will not be alive in ten years.

Stay safe, everyone.
I meant to imply the upper bound is higher than 2x the labor costs of a single truck driver.
While scientists have revised their advice in varying ways over the course of the pandemic, I would argue amateur armchair doctors have not been useful in that practice.

Also, some of your statements ignore context: Mask recommendations weren't withheld because they were believed to not be effective, but because there was a massive run on masks and the hoarding by people who didn't even yet need them was impacting the ability for health providers to get them in hospitals. Once cloth masks especially were plentiful and the supply of medical masks adjusted, the recommendations changed.

Public individuals trying to get ahead of the recommendations to put themselves ahead of the public good in that situation caused more harm than not.

The lab leak hypothesis has no bearing on public health, discussion of it right now serves political drama only. Investigation of causes and prevention of future pandemics is important... for the experts. I don't think it should be brought up in public circles at all.
Ideally yes. However, people need to communicate and coordinate. Even arranging transportation may be an issue without a phone.
> We believe that the risk of "logical failure" of an SSD is higher than the risk of physical failure. This means that some pattern of usage or strange edge-case causes the SSD to die instead of a physical failure. If we are correct, and if we mirror an SSD, then it is possible the two (or three, or four) SSDs will experience identical lifetime usage patterns. To put it simply, it is possible they could all just fail at exactly the same time. The way we mitigate that risk is by building mirrors of SSDs out of similarly spec'd and sized but not identical parts.

This makes sense to me (and is a good example of looking at more abstract failure domains in addition to the basic ones we all know and love) -- I'm curious if there's data to support this. rsync.net is in a good position to possibly collect that data.
My guess is that this has to do with stereoscopic vision, not focal distance. Does the other screen become simply washed-out blurry or is it double-vision-type of blurry?
I was thinking about this the other day; politics, war and climate. Americans (of which I am one) are very good at looking at political threats in terms of "others" and versus. Democrats vs. Republicans. America vs. ISIL, etc, etc. When it comes to fighting a more amorphous, but equally viable threat, like climate change, we have a hard time grasping the threat. It causes fire damage to California, Oregon and Washington; flood and wind damage to Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arkansas (at least); a migrant crisis at our southern borders; and shipment and food supply issues. If a foreign threat were causing these issues, no political force would stop "either side" from stumping to stop it. Yet, here we are, waiting it out. The Republicans denying and the Democrats in endless debate, unable to take action. Both sides unable to take action against an ongoing asymmetric war, waged upon us by a new form of enemy that we have created over the last century.
Almost all of the largest ones.
That's where all quotes in this article come from!
Fantastic book.
Looks like the video is back up. As always, going viral worked.
...please continue?

unless the end-game is "make money", i don't see what the goal of 3 is

it seems like 4a and 4b might be tactics than a goal
>The Packager, as far as I can tell, is not actually a cpu intensive process. [...] It's not doing any encoding at all.

A Netflix employee can chime in but I assume cpu intensive since the desired objectives of Packager can only be achieved by transcoding which implies a cpu intensive process. E.g. Netflix wants to use AV1 as one the output formats for Packager. So any process that converts a codec-specific format to other coding-agnostic formats will require cpu. (e.g. Apple ProRes on the input files and AV1 on the output files.) Also more evidence that significant cpu is involved is this:

>The overall ProRes video processing speed is increased from 50GB/Hour to 300GB/Hour. From a different perspective, the processing time to movie runtime ratio is reduced from 6:1 to about 1:1. [...] All the cloud packager instances now share a single scheduling queue with optimized compute resource utilization.

The 300 gb/hr would be ~83 MB/sec which is way under the disk throughput S3 can provide. AWS says 100 Gbit/sec is possible which would be ~10 GB/sec : https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/s3-ma...

>It seems like this could be done at the edge without ever actually packaging the whole file.

But on-the-fly-ephemeral "virtual package" instead of a realized output disk file would lead to constant network traffic between the Netflix CDN appliance at the various ISP datacenters back to AWS S3. I guess this is technically possible but not sure what you gain with this alternative architecture instead of the CDN appliance just downloading one "package" file at off-peak hours (4:00am).