skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Line breaks in code are pretty much always semantically significant to the human reader even if they're not semantically significant to the compiler because the relative vertical and horizontal alignment of non-whitespace characters is fixed and intentional.

What would be cool is a well-behaved autoformatter like Black, or perhaps gofmt or rustfmt (clang-format definitely fails since it's not even idempotent), which automatically reflows code to the width of your text editor (or even shrinks the indentation size) as you resize or split the window, and reformats it back to a standard width upon saving and committing. This requires that formatting to a different width then back to the original is a no-op, which I believe Black and rustfmt can achieve, but is harder to get right than storing the code as an AST on-disk. Also, rustfmt fails to reformat the interior of macro invocations.
I am disgusted because someone made an inconsequential mistake, got fired for it and a CEO is happy about it.
Standards are great until they get too complex, making the price for interoperability steep and forcing every implementation to pay for it (in actual money/time). There's a reason there are very few browsers.
That only works if you get a job offer from FB though.
El Salvador: Bitcoin volcano mining starts! And Chivo still doesn’t work
eSIMs should help avoid this scenario, right?
I find it hilarious that in recent years, people on the left have started using the "don't like it? make your own! ;)" reply after it exclusively being a right-wing thing (e.g. telling people "don't like the USA? then leave"). Especially since both sentiments come from the same root: being out of a legitimate argument.
> What reasons for people that find this useful have to not wanting recommendations, either as a space to go to specifically to find something to watch or the section on the video page?

Recommendations that "the algorithm" provide to me are rarely good, but they are always distracting, and often click-baity. Instead, I come to YouTube to watch the channels I know I enjoy. The shortcut on my New Tab page directs me straight to my Subscriptions page, and that's where I stay.

Do I ever discover new channels? Sure! When a friend shares a video with me, or I stumble across a link on HN. :)
Not quite true. The idea of sovereign immunity is fundamental to our constitution.

While QI isn't codified in the way you're talking about, Congress and the states do have laws on the books to expose themselves to liability. That's where QI comes from - as an extension of statutory authority to hold the government legally liable. When and how the government and its agents are exposed to liability is very clearly spelled out.
They had an agreement pre-established. I think he was just being polite. Versus "yo we agreed not to do this".
You can walk yourself through the reasons why with simple math, really.

Every disease has an estimated R0. The number of people an infected person will infect. You probably have heard of this.

Delta, last I checked, has an estimated R0 of between 5 and 9.5.

Vaccination levels reduce that. And it's a simple equation. All you need to know is the vaccination rate for your population, and an estimated efficacy rate of the vaccine.

And from that, you can figure the new adjusted Rt:

rt = r0 * (1 - (vacRate * eff))

And that's it. And no matter what efficacy rate you pick (infection efficacy estimates for mRNA against Delta vary widely), the resultant rt will be less than the initial r0.

And if it's less, then that effectively means that the disease is less contagious for that population, compared to how contagious it was pre-vaccination.

And less contagious is better than more contagious.

So now I am legitimately curious. What part of the above reasoning do you actually disagree with?

(Incidentally, vaccination also improves your chances of avoiding future infection, even if you've already been infected.)
if after ~2 years of failing to respond to performance improvement plans is "quickly" then I don't want to know what's slow.
FB has always been good to employees. Much like Microsoft (comparatively).
"There is precedent for open source communities to push back against those who seek to use their tools to promote hate speech. One such case is Mastodon, an open source social media community which has waged a long-running war of attrition against an influx of far-right users from Gab – a war which, as of December 2020, they appear to have won. Another example is the Organisation for Ethical Source (OES), which works to promote a series of ethical values including “safeguards to minimize the risk of abuse or harm to others through [the] use or misuse” of open source tools. As of 2021, the OES also manages the Contributor Covenant, a voluntary project which seeks to make open source communities welcoming and harassment-free for all contributors."
The original post was less specific about that.
Anyone who's shocked at the government's anti-scientific and immoral posturing about drugs is missing the point. This isn't about science or ethics or justice. It's about money.

The US government uses drug laws to take billions of dollars from citizens every year, without having to convict or even charge them with any crime. Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to take your money, car, house, or anything else they want for any reason, and all they have to do is say they suspect your property was somehow connected to a drug crime.

Law enforcement agencies at all levels are on the take, from local cops and sheriffs on up, and the feds give kickbacks to local agencies when they contribute their loot to the feds in return for less accountability and restrictions.

This naked corruption is all you need to understand why the feds so desperately want to keep these drug laws in place.

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

https://reason.com/2021/06/11/when-is-a-civil-forfeiture-bas...

https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asse...
> it's "Rochambeau", a name.

"Connections to the French surname Rochambeau are a folk etymology"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rochambeau
Yes, Eric was on the board so he would be in the position to order, board member don't take order from CEO, they give. In this case, I think it was a friendly communication between two tech leaders.
think it was sjobs@apple.com - not sure he's doing much emailing these days. Eric Schmidt's was eschmidt@google.com
There’s no concentration camps for Covid, you can stay home.

You don’t catch hiv by walking by someone positive with it, and if you did like you do with Covid and it caused the same level of casualties then yes I would be all for the measures as we are using against covid
People don't get vaccinated because of the evidence but because they chose to believe in some authority. Heavy handed censors (or fact checkers in newspeak) and other coercive tactics lead people to distrust these authorities even more.
No sympathy for recruiters, most of them are the worst of the worst in tech.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=boeing+737+max
> "and reduces the risk new mutations" likely the opposite is true. It is called evolutionary pressure.

Chicken and egg problem: You can't have evolutionary pressure without an environment to operate in. Vaccines reduce the space in which they can attempt to successfully mutate.
Meh, I’ve worked in countries where it’s hard to fire and that brings its own problems.
The rates are extremely similar once you control for race (which the page you linked allows you to do, by the way). White people get skin cancer at much higher rates than non-white people, because melanin acts as permanent mild SPF, and white people have less skin melanin than non-white people: that's what makes them white, after all. Since Washington is more white than Hawaii, California, and Texas, if you don't control for race it looks — counterintuitively — like Washington is more risky than the others in terms of skin cancer. But it's not, it's just that you're selecting different population demographics.

Also notable is that sunniness doesn't really determine UV exposure; partial cloud cover can actually result in more UV-B exposure, counterintuitively: https://www.drgurgen.com/are-the-suns-uv-rays-really-stronge... And even full cloud cover doesn't completely block UV. So WA and CA aren't as different as you might think.

Meanwhile, as one might expect, most states that get freezing cold for months at a time have lower skin cancer rates than those that don't when controlling for race: if you don't go outside for more than a few minutes a day, while bundled up under multiple layers, for months at a time, well — you see less skin cancer. Some heavy farming states seem to have more skin cancer, but again that makes sense since farm workers are outside a lot.

Vermont and New Hampshire seem like odd exceptions to this rule — but I suspect there's also just some other selection bias at play. UV exposure from the sun causes skin cancer at high rates in white people; trying to make assumptions about states isn't necessarily an easy thing to do, since many other factors are at play when considering who lives where and how much they go outside.
Sure but then you have the CDK, etc. I’d be interested to know how many people create lambdas in the console and not via some
Other tooling, which needs to be updated to support this.
Governments can encourage donation to OSS projects by structuring favorable tax code for donation like R&D credit.
You know what gives an enormous satisfaction? Responding to Glogle recruiters "I can afford false negatives in my current job search, thanks no thanks". Screw you all Glaplle, Schmarmazon and others... and you folks stop being so desperate.
So I've read this article a couple of times and I still don't quite understand it. Can anyone summarize the key argument for a layperson?

Here's my best interpretation thus far:

This particular post is a continuation of his two earlier posts[1], [2] which seems to critique the way statistical significance is simplistically calculated from a gaussian distribution when effect size is small. This leads to an argument that the statistics community is too dependant on generative models for their interpretation, given that these models are typically to simplistic outside of hard sciences:

> "But in biology, medicine, social science, and economics, our models are much less accurate and less grounded in natural laws. Most of the time, models are selected because they are convenient, not because they are plausible, well motivated from phenomenological principles, or even empirically validated. Freedman built a cottage industry around pointing out how poorly motivated many of the common statistical models are."

This part I am a little unclear on, but it seems like this leads him to suggest focusing on the random sampling as a way to get counts that you can then plug into various statistical formulas, without the need to assume a probabalistic model:

> "So what is the remedy here? The thing is, we already know the answer: if we randomized the assignment, we can estimate log odds by counting the number of positive outcomes under treatment and control, and then just plugging these values into the odds ratio. If you do this, you find an estimate whose median is precisely equal to the true log odds. No covariate adjustment is required."

So I think, what the author means by "algorithmic summation" is that we focus on random experiment design, and discard model assumptions. Is that right?

If so I think this makes sense. I believe this is something Allen Downey has talked about before, specifically saying statistical experiments can now take advantage of cheap computational simulation to hit the large numbers needed for the sample to approximate the population, without a need for the typical model approximations developed in a pre-computational era. Downey's post here: http://allendowney.blogspot.com/2016/06/there-is-still-only-...

1. http://www.argmin.net/2021/09/13/effect-size/

2. http://www.argmin.net/2021/09/21/models-are-wrong/
But modern art is funny! There's a difference between art and craft. If you prefer craft, that's fine. At least in my book, modern art isn't about craft. It's about making you think. Sometimes it's stupid, overdone, plays into tropes too much, etc., but usually it invokes an emotion.

For example, consider Banksy's painting that shredded itself. That's hilarious! The people who accidentally left a pineapple in a museum, only to return later and find that it had been covered with a glass case? That's equally funny. And in this instance, props to the artist for deciding to take the money and run. It fits the title of their work.
Dirtbox
We will be, once we've sorted out all the blocker issues and our prototype is complete.
That is a pretty naive take on “safe”. Would you like for me to list the MANY actually tested and approved drugs that turned out to have nasty or deadly effects realized years later which resulted in them being pulled? It is actually stunning to see such trust in something so untested in real world situations knowing from who is producing it. Oh I could list many other drugs! This not even counting drugs like OxyContin or benzodiazepines.
As I said,

> I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers.

Science is not done in the media. I'm tired of being told that I have to believe the science that's on TV when every single time I investigate it turns out the science says the exact opposite. The non-scientific "facts" in the media are even worse; take those overwhelmed hospitals in Oklahoma and the nationwide overwhelmed poison control centers, which were both bold-faced lies. (In case you've missed the non-retractions, Oklahoma hospitals denied having ivermectin patients and only 2% of calls to poison control had anything to do with covid.)
you argumentation is correct but misses a point. the vaccs may encourage new variants due to evolutionary pressure.
Doesn't exposing the hardware under the lambda kinda defeat the point of the lambda?
What's the paper?
If you discount the kids entirely then you get 25/80. There's a lot of funny math going on in this sub-thread.
You may be right, but I think in practice, people use direct convolution for small kernels, and FFT convolution for large kernels (blocked FFT if the signal is substantially longer than the kernel). I didn't look into the math behind this intuition though.
And it's happening at pace in part because the polarization drives "engagement" which means $$
> "There is no scientific proof, e.g. RCT, that lockdowns work.

You want to make a randomized, controlled study on entire countries? That's your idea of ethics in science?

> That evolutionary pressures on the virus might^H^H^H will cause the vaccines to become less effective was and is the #1 concern of the critics of mass mRNA vaccination campaigns.

No, it was one argument of whatever seemed convenient at that point to argue against vaccines. Consequently, their only advice how to cope with that problem seems to basically give up and don't do anything.

Honestly, I don't understand what strategy you guys would propose to end the pandemic. Apart from pretending it doesn't exist of course.
Amazon Managed Prometheus is now GA
We use Webex at work (a very large tech company). I use it for it’s intended purposes. My issues:

1. The reaction buttons don’t indicate that anything is actually happening for you when you click them, you only can see others reactions. They’re also quite hidden when they come, make no noise so easy to miss, and don’t tie to the video.

2. The “people joined” ding is very non-intelligent. It used to be when 30+ people were queued for something to start, once it did it just dinged like crazy. Now it seems work has turned that off in a way I cannot turn back on, which means when people are late for a 1:1 they’re staring at me and I have no idea since I now have people blocking. A heuristic that would be aware of # participants, when people are joining, and batching up dings I cannot imagine would be groundbreaking research when this is your product you’re building.

3. The actual controls for video on mobile to switch camera is quite bad.

4. Screen sharing works _ok_, except it has no integration with the resolutions on both sides, Apple’s accessibility-based zoom, I’m given a red dot for a cursor but it doesn’t appear that way on the other side, and cursor tracking is extremely laggy and jumpy on the remote side despite my red cursor that’s giving me the impression of a laser pointer equivalent.

5. When someone is screen sharing, the controls for what to do with the video of others are not very good. Order is non-deterministic (afaik), not easily changed, provides few layouts, and not easily hidden.

6. When screen sharing I’m given a large list of all my windows to choose from. They’re in effectively a random order (not alphabetical, not by z-index on my Mac, etc), and the mini photo of them are usually unintelligible and difficult to pin point the one I want.

These are just some of the bad UX that I encounter daily in work usage. I could probably come up with a list of 10+ more issues without even thinking much about it, and we haven’t even touched the “interface” level issues (eg actual design).
That's not how evolutionary pressure works. If fewer people are infected, the virus has fewer opportunities to mutate. Among those people, any surviving mutation has (by definition) a greater ability to escape the vaccine, but that's not the same thing as saying that the vaccine increases the chance of a new mutation.
It's both, either, or neither. The spelling he used is common and widely accepted. According to legend Rochambeau played it, but there is no evidence for that. The earliest written reference to the word doesn't spell it like the French general's name, though similar enough to plausibly be a corruption of it. However it may also be a corruption of the japanese name for the game.

Anyway, I'd guess he was downvoted because a lot of people here have an old justified hate of flash and thought his comment signaled tribal allegiance to the opposite camp.
Functional Programming has to serve a purpose. What is the point of functional programming?

There are 3 benefits, mainly: (1) Ease of verification, (2) Parallelism and (3) Data-centric computation. (See article I linked for details.)

Of these, Parallelism doesn't work in JavaScript. Since JavaScript doesn't support lazy evaluation, data-centric computation doesn't work that well either. That leaves us with the first benefit alone. But ease of verification is reliant on pure functions. If functions aren't pure then it is just regular code that isn't necessarily easy or hard to verify.

React uses FP for a 4th benefit you won't find in any textbooks on FP: Marketing.
> board member don't take order from CEO, they give

Theoretically. In practice, Steve Jobs wasn't taking orders from Apple's Board in 2007.
nice!. one thing about NaN is that, because the specification only mentions the exponent part, you have all the mantissa bits free for use, this is the idea behind signalling NaNs, that if you return a NaN for an operation, that value should have some helpful debug information
I hear you. Tracing and core dumps is just part of being a programmer. At least it should be.

Try to have a conversation about this with anyone where modern architecture means not only there are nothing to analyze, but that every software everywhere should just be restarted on every failure and all state thrown away because "stateless" and "cloud". The best environment is when no one can log in anywhere.

It's not a problem that no one can analyze anything because nothing is ever analyzed anyway. Software simply shouldn't be fixed, it should be built upon.

It's seems to be pretty much everyone's state of mind these days, and I feel completely powerless about it.
I use KDE on 4K at 200% too. On FreeBSD with X even, at the moment :) Though for work I use Linux with Wayland.

It's true that the mouse doesn't auto scale but you can manually make it bigger in settings. Same with the "taskbar" height. HiDPI is still a bit in development and I heard the next release 5.23 will bring a lot of goodies in October. But overall I think it's fine.. Where it falls down is mixed DPI (e.g. one screen at 200% and another at 100%). But even Windows is still very flakey with that. Only macOS covers that scenario perfectly.

One thing I love about KDE is the wealth of options. Gnome is heading the way of Apple: opinionated software and minimalism. Windows is heading the same way though not as strongly. That doesn't suit me. KDE is really my thing.
I opted out of my check in the settlement. Part of why it was so small is the law firm representing the plaintiffs apparently were more interested in a quick settlement than reasonable compensation. The settlement you quote there wasn't the final one; that was the one rejected as being embarrassingly too small. The final settlement in 2015 was larger, but still very small.

For me it was the personal abuse of trust that really stuck with me. Folks I worked with and respected colluded to keep my wages and the wages of my colleagues low. Illegally. I don't think they ever apologized for it either.
I have one(60W) but its output isn't very smooth. Still great to have just one small device to charge my phone, laptop and headphones.
While I also bemoan the massive waste of money and talent on actively harmful things like ads, I think fusion is a pretty huge waste of resources as well, at least given our current understanding of the universe and somewhat plausible technologies. Here[0] is an article explaining some fundamental problems that make fusion very unlikely to ever be a good source of energy.

Biomedical research seems like a much more relevant and much more likely to advance rapidly given more investment area of knowledge. Especially since, even if we were given a free energy machine today, we still wouldn't be able to cure the vast majority of human diseases, nor be much closer to even understanding a good proportion of them.

[0] https://thebulletin.org/fusion-energy-nuclear-fusion/
Then she hasn't bothered looking into it from legit sources at all, or when she does find a legit source she assumes that since it goes against whatever conspiracy website she reads that its in on the conspiracy and therefore wrong. Here are your ingredients:

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/Community_Resource...
The funner one is unique to enterprise developers. Begged to implement a feature to the enterprise software, the development team puts in a hell of a lot of hours to get this time sensitive feature into the production. Then, out of nowhere, a manager of some import informs everyone that they cannot use that feature as its "against best practices" or some other language to that effect. Bonus points if said manager was on the email chain about the feature and its progress.