skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Approval voting is one I think would be slightly better, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

The problem is that it appears at first glance to defy the idea of "one person, one vote", so it might be harder to convince people of.

More systems here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system
I agree with the parent, but this a weirdly hostile take on this subject.
My local library has done this with a variety of kitchen implements, like mixers, ice cream makers, cake pans, etc. I think it's a great way to use something once or twice without having one more thing around the house.
On Interoperability and The Metaverse
Show HN: Great Reef Census 2020 Map and API
Hello HNers! We've just launched an interactive reporting tool (it's a map) that showcases the 13,000 reef and coral images people took as part of last year's Great Reef Census. In addition, it details a number of key metrics for 5,000 reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, including an importance score that was derived from the 2020 survey data (I can provide more info on this).

https://greatreefcensus.org/detailed-reporting (try searching for "Five Reefs")

More importantly it's powered by our also-just-launched data API (just a firebase database, but carefully structured so as to be most useful ... for building something like our map). It was actually a super fun experience putting together the API documentation and examples ... which led to many iterations on the API structure itself. Keen to hear any thoughts and feedback on the links. Both are being actively developed in-house at our small non-profit here on the Great Barrier Reef. Cheers!

https://greatreefcensus.org/api

As an aside, this year's Census launched today. The plan is to have new survey data updated live on the API / map (coming soon!).
I was listening to a popular media personality talking about a third party to fix our problems. It struck me as the wrong way. It would end up as just another political entity that is compromised by dogma, fanatics, money, corruption. No matter how well intentioned. I feel like it would be better to popularize the stigmatization of parties, drain the corrupt party establishments of their cash and support, and make it culturally acceptable to just support bills and politicians you like and not support ones you don’t like. I think ranked voting is good and maybe more direct voting on items instead of people.
If you want to contribute to an Arc based forum, the open source Anarki fork[0] is always open. It won't effect the original Arc distribution or HN but several other forums do use it.

[0]https://github.com/arclanguage/anarki
Big time fail not making cannabis legalization a top-line plank in their platform.

It's overwhelmingly popular, and because this party (like every third party) is doomed to be a spoiler at best, they could attract enough voters with cannabis legalization to perform (optimistically) in the high single digits instead of the high fractions of a digit. High single digits is enough to swing elections, which is enough to force the major parties to adopt the popular elements of your platform.
> Political polarization is the extent to which opinions on an issue are opposed, and the process by which this opposition increases over time.

From wiki. Seems obvious. Where did you get, that is has anything to do with cognitive biases?
This is the reason why many unscrupulous couples decide to start fostering kids, btw.
Approval voting is simpler, doesn't require ballots to change and has the same effect in practice (but not in theory).

I'd be surprised if an average person finds ranked choice voting to be simpler to understand than approval or FPTP.
> They draw voters from the more aligned main party, causing that aligned main party to lose elections.

That is the entire point! The mainstream political party won't address particular issues unless it feel that it position in power is threatened.
If they put forward any form of a viable candidate that I am not 100% opposed to they will get my vote. The current 2 party system that elevates the extreme of each party has to go.
Fwiw i left Keep a few years ago because they totally fucked the web client. Wouldn’t work for me on either ff or chrome. Had a few thousand notes. Not sure if it’s any better now but that may be a Keep specific thing
The year of the Linux desktop arrives the first time someone plugs their Surface Duo 2 into a monitor & keyboard.
When possible, order directly from the website of the company that makes the product you want. The list price may be lower on Amazon or wherever, but nowadays that is just a "discount" for buyers ignorant of or unconcerned with uncertainty.
It's disbursed on a monthly basis by check or direct deposit, even if it is a tax credit.
Is there any liability if Facebook had brought everything up at once and caused brownouts? Seems like it would be some form of negligence on their part harming a shared resource, but I don't know if there's any laws or contract terms with the power company that require them to pay if they mess up like that.
Yeah, but I was joking. This is sad.
Alternatively, universal, but it cuts off at 18.
The problem is not reading, it's trust in the information. You telling them that the information is up-to-date and valid and useful is the reason why they read it.
This is a great example of why state is so hard. The algorithm is so simple is could easily come out of program designed to spit out all toy Algol programs, and yet what it does very unclear.
Many people wouldn't be at their jobs if they weren't paid to do them. Many people don't do what they do out of love for the work.

"On the whole, American workers are generally satisfied with their jobs. Even so, a significant share (30%) view the work they do as “just a job to get them by,” rather than a career or a steppingstone to a career. Views about work are sharply divided along socio-economic lines, and the sense of vulnerability is most acute among workers with no college education and lower-than-average household incomes."

"In addition to job satisfaction, the survey explored what American workers’ jobs mean to them – are their jobs central to who they are, or are they mainly just a source of income? About half (51%) of employed Americans say they get a sense of identity from their job, while the other half (47%) say their job is just what they do for a living. And about half (51%) of all U.S. workers say they view their job as a career, while 18% see it as a steppingstone to a career and 30% say it’s just a job to get them by."

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/10/06/3-how-a... (Pew Research: How Americans view their jobs)
I think one problem of JavaScript routing is that it needs two groups of people to communicate for it to work: the ops people configuring nginx/CDN need to talk with the JavaScript devs making the SPA. Worse, if they get it wrong it will break in subtle ways (e.g. appear to work unless you reload of share a direct link).

A recipe for disaster.
Yes, I got my child tax credit early. Moving application of a credit I normally get anyway up 6 months is exactly the same thing as UBI. Good point.

I'm sure I'm going to appreciate this April 15th 2022 when my liability is much larger than usual because my credit was already paid out.
I'm not sure this argument really holds. In the United States, third parties can have a significant influence on elections by siphoning off votes (see, Nader or maybe Perot), but they tend to have much more muted effects on policy. I would argue that Andrew Yang did more for the cause of the UBI as a loser in a widely-watched Democratic presidential primary than he would have been able to as a third-party candidate struggling to qualify for the ballot in most states. If his new goal is to focus on ranked-choice voting, I struggle to understand why the calculus would be any different.

I agree with you in wishing we had more than two parties to choose from; for one, studies have shown that negative partisanship is much lower in democracies with more than two major parties.
There is no such thing as “free” markets in the US or any other country. All markets are defined and limited by the laws, rules, and regulations in place to enable the market to exist in the first place. Unless you are talking about the “free market” of a lawless failed stare.
Are you sure this is due to "polarization"?
> If you think Andrew Yang is establishing a political party to win a government race, I think its a bit too naive.

> I think he is trying to use a third party lever to influence a bunch of small things to snowball into larger things...

If we're talking about what we're _thinking_, I think Andrew Yang is establishing a political party to make a lot of money, whether it's through direct donations or a higher profile that turns into more financial opportunity elsewhere.

I don't discount the possibility of him doing it just for the political influence, though.
+1. Renting a van in EU is fairly expensive. A one-way dropping off in a different country is usually hyper expensive.
Still need to get around to trying this. My problem with playing online is not so much the method used, as coordinating everyone and preventing them from being interrupted.

This is really easy when you are in a room together. Not so much so when apart.
It is hardly 'U' when limited to those who produce children.
You could also argue that it is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of either circle, A will only revolve 3 times.

Only by introducing a larger frame of reference, a grid or in the video a table, you gain an outside perspective. From this outside perspective you redefine a revolution according to some new orientation and end up with n+1 revolutions.

Or maybe the argument is backwards and I just try to justify answering 3.
Are irresponsible people anyone that votes counter to your interests?
you tin pot authoritarians are incredible. "disgruntled employee who thinks she should be given more power to censor ideas she does not like" is a better headline.
I forgot about that, will need to see how that works on OpenBSD :)

I expect failure for me.
I generally use the debugger to test my hypothesis. This is something that too many people overlook when debugging.

My debugging goes like this:

1) I need to have a model in my head of what I think is going on even if simple.

2) I make a change X with the idea that result Y should happen. VERIFYING THIS HYPOTHESIS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT. Your change should create cause and effect.

3) I test that result Y actually happened--generally this is where I'm using the debugger.

4a) If result Y happened and result Y means my program is fixed, congratulations, you are done.

4b) If result Y happened but my program is not yet fixed, go back to make another hypothesis and go back to step 2.

4c) If result Y did not happen, undo change X, update your mental model and go back to step 1. This is where the "think hard" part mostly comes in.

The toughest bugs are the ones that require you to update your mental model the most.
Yeah, this is one huge advantage of approval voting.

The main issue with approval voting though is that it's much harder for individuals to use when voting.

It's tricky to figure out when to bullet vote vs not bullet vote.

Simplicity to use != simplicity to count

I think ranked choice is in that sweet spot where it is reasonably simple to use and simple to count.
Not in a First-Past-The-Post voting system, which is used in most of the US (&afaik, in all presidential elections).

The 1PPP systems systemically trend to metastable 2-party states. Of course 3rd parties will have distinctions from their closer main parties, but it is almost impossible that a 3rd party will triangulate exactly between the two major parties.

This means that in practice, a vote for a 3rd party is effectively a vote for your worst major party option. The 3rd party acts as a spoiler - always.

This is NOT true in Ranked Choice Voting systems. There, the 3rd party spoiler issue goes away, and the 3rd parties have a real chance of being able to get elected & have a real influence.

To have the effect you want (vs some perverse effect), you must vote strategically in the system you have.

That said, it is long past the time that we implemented a few upgrades from the systems of 200 years ago, such as upgrading to Ranked Choice.
Matrix seems to be doing just fine.
As someone who's been taking advantage of NYPL's rakuten-backend
(all-digital, kindle-based, automatic returns), this cause for commotion seems
silly. I get that poor people don't have kindles, but it's just a matter of time.
Any politician that doesn't commit to RCV reforms gets docked in my mind.

I sincerely hope Newsom gets successfully primaried and has no chance of a Presidential run, https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-ve...
There are many ways to interpret the question. I guess OP is promoting AI as the answer to the next “ big thing.” However, I interpret the question to mean “what comes after the Internet?” Several comments have suggested mobile as the next thing after the Internet, and I would tend to agree. You could also argue for social media platforms. So what comes after mobile? The core requirement for pictographs, writing, books, telegraphs, telephones, radios, television, the Internet and now mobile has been the need for communication. Humans need to be social and they need to communicate. I would think that the next thing after mobile will be some faster, more accurate, higher information density and/or convenient way to communicate. Put your thinking caps on and try to imagine a better communication scheme than we have right now.
GM envisions EVs with 600 miles of range with new battery research center
They provide a very important mechanism that allows for the main party to fail in a way that it otherwise couldn’t. The only way for a “good” (according to the constituency) idea to succeed is if the “bad” ones fail. If bad ideas are prevented from failing, then the efficiency of the entire system declines.

In the two party system, the only ways for a party to fail are via apathy (not bothering to vote at all), and total defection to the other side. The small party allows voters to signal to the main party that they are failing to adequately represent certain elements of their constituency. It forces the main parties to consider all the components of their base, otherwise they’re can safely abandon them to some extent while they fight over the middle.

It’s arguably less efficient in the US due to an electoral structure that’s quite unfavorable for small parties, but it still serves an important purpose. It doesn’t make sense if you only look at one single election, but the election is the most important feedback mechanism in a democracy, and they typically happen rather infrequently. So you can look at one election, and conclude that a minor party cost one side a particular victory. But if the loser decides to examine why they lost, there’s a clear incentive to improve how they represent their constituents next time.

It’s not highly efficient, but no democracy is. Perhaps the US more than some others, but even if you look at the worlds ‘direct democracies’, you couldn’t conclude that asking the public a handful of extra yes/no questions every year is perfectly efficient either.
I work at Google and have written more than a few blameless postmortems. You don't need to quote things to me.

Is what was described above "finger pointing or shaming"? I don't work in TI so I didn't experience this meeting but it doesn't seem like it is. It also doesn't sound to me like this was the only outcome, where the execs just wagged their fingers at engineers and called it a day. Of course there'd be all sorts of process improvements derived from an understanding of the various system causes that led to an outage.
That's assuming this is their only "defense". Was it though?
> Never underestimate the power of ignorant determination.

Right there. The secret to my success. And my motto "How hard could it be?"
For some reason, the one I have the most trouble intuitively grasping is "Two 12 Inch Pizzas have less Pizza than one 18 inch pizza."
Edit: I was wrong, he's doing exactly what I thought he wasn't. See Hannibalhorn's comment below for more details.

I'm glad he supports Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), but I think he's going about this the wrong way.

Right now, he's creating a new third-party within an electoral system that effectively defaults to two existing and dominant parties. Those two parties currently control every federal and state legislature and/or election committee that has the power to alter how elections are run.

Working against them, in a system that is extremely hostile to third-parties, makes it very hard to effect change because you are almost always guaranteed to be a loser, and be viewed as an opponent.

If his interests are truly about implementing RCV nationwide, a better course of action would be to endorse and campaign for the Democratic and Republican candidates that are willing to commit to implementing RCV.

In any state where you can get a filibuster-proof majority of those candidates elected, you would have a much better chance of changing the electoral system.

Simply put, lobbying for RCV would be more effective than introducing a third-party within our current electoral system.
Other countries with first past the post voting regularly manage to have more than two parties. Canada, the UK, etc. I don't think the USes problems can be solely attributed to fist past the post voting (though it certainly doesn't help).
This is a misleading headline. It's a little FPGA program that's implemented 1990 style.
Who gets to decide what algorithms are simple enough to be legal? You? Why?

All a ranking algorithm is doing is making suggestions that certain content be read before other content. That's protected speech.
Got it, you take zero responsibility for your own behavior, it should remain unchanged and unchallenged, whilst you externalize blame to everything else.

Said unsustainable industry you despise so much is the very thing making your luxury goods so cheap.

Phone chargers waste more energy than the entire crypto industry, yet you're not outraged by it at all. You're not even willing to take the incredibly tiny action of unplugging them, for a better world.
Approval is also simpler to count. Ranked choice ballots can't even be properly distributed among congressional districts, as a result it takes longer to get results.

The only advantages ranked choice have over approval are entirely theoretical. Another advantage approval has is that it trends towards moderation.

Approval isn't perfect though (personally I prefer STAR, but it requires ballots to change).
Can't you just game the metric and do transaction with yourself? (With other fake accounts)
Why not? These are researched areas in the field and people are finding solutions to things like decentralized identities, multi-chain ratings, etc...
Still less expensive than NAT gateway though /s
Um…all the web3 mobile browsers I listed are…mobile browsers. So yes the all work on mobile devices that everyone uses.
To quote a popular movie from my youth; I dunno, man; that sounds like a lot of work.

I don't want to have to decide if every message I send is sensitive or not, then if it is, swap to a totally different app. Even worse: convincing friends and family to do the same!
Haha, I'm not sure about #1, however I like #2 and #3. I think sortition (#2) could provide new perspectives and help us know whether we like our current system or not.

I think overall I would prefer more short-term legislative experiments—the impression I get is that people (especially at the US federal level) try to write law or create programs ostensibly for the long-term, and I'm curious what a short-term experiment with reflection and re-evaluation would look like. E.g., trying sortition for one two elections, or a law that establishes term limits but has an expiration date.
Free in England
Do you have examples of importantly not opinion pieces which you consider liberal? to me their reporting is very flat and caged in a good way.
Yes, this is true. If you can create a stable forest then that becomes a carbon sink for the lifetime of the forest. It is still hard to see how this is going to make a big difference. The biomass of the Amazon rainforest is ~120 gigatons. Annual CO2 emissions are right now around 30-36 gigatons. Growing a new forest the size of the Amazon would make up for about four years of emissions.

Of course that doesn't mean that reforestation isn't valuable. It certainly is. But even enormous growth of forest wouldn't make a big dent in atmospheric CO2 levels. The carbon came from underground and almost all of it will have to return underground to get CO2 levels down.
I mostly agree. He wants to project a competent-technocrat, "no bull" image, but is so far out of his depth that he comes across as the opposite.

He also seems weirdly inflexible, for someone who wants a job that involves unpleasant choices all day, every day.
I hope not, because it's true. Social media is awful and a cancer on our society.
I'm not saying that there isn't the beginning of a good idea in argument that you're making, but the way you describe it it boils down to "adopt cannabis as a popular platform plank and force one of the major parties to adopt cannabis as a popular platform plank" which might be fine but it might not be Yang's goal.
So basically a toned democrat?(not being fully "anti-capitalism" like many today [even if as a facade]) with UBI in mind and probably more technocratic-oriented?

People forget Trump was basically very similar(a 80's democrat, except that's considered far-right today).He wasn't conservative really culturally, but most definitely one in the economic space(even then, some would call him a progressive when you consider more extreme positions about the economy like the federal reserve).

I wouldn't call Yang a grifter because that would imply he has the chance to grift something.UBI is not popular, and if it is among the non far-left democrats, they should reconsider.It was tried several times here in Europe and the only reason it wasn't a massive failure is because people knew what they signed up for, thus at least pretending to try.
If he abandons UBI he probably would have more chances overall, even though he'll lose some younger voters.

One thing that I (almost fully) agree on and should be talked about more is the congress term limits.
It's not unclever - but you might misjudge the value of codifying social relationships if you're not targeting trust-less relationships.

If you were to really dispassionately analyze the transaction, lending something to a friend or acquaintance is predicated on there being enough social capital at risk in the relationship (or shared network) to insure things go well, or that you're made whole if they don't, along with a general knowledge their ability to cover potential loss. IMO codifying that into a financial relationship signals that you don't trust that reservoir of social capital, and in doing so erodes it. "Oh, I guess he doesn't actually trust me that much, if he's asking me to post collateral to borrow his truck".
If you just buy crypto coins with dollars, hold, and later sell, it's treated the same way as a stock. But if you get paid in BitCoin for services rendered, or you trade one coin for another, that's a taxable event. It's complicated and you probably need a tax expert to do it right (I certainly don't qualify).
I like this!
Could this be a digital implementation of the analog Spaghetti Sort? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_sort]
It's a soft-CPU. It's not that it was designed 30 years ago, those just aren't meant to be deep and wide OoO cores.
Libraries do sometimes get a lot of interest in hotly anticipated new titles sometimes. You're generally right that there is a lot more "long-tail" activity than in a video rental store, though -- and it's much easier for a library to maintain a collection of rarely used books.