skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know if there's any sane way to do this on a small scale and without concentrated CO2, but the first thing that comes to mind is to make synthetic methane using a Sabatier process. I think the way this works is you create hydrogen through electrolysis of water, and then react it CO2 to make methane.

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but if you burn it as fuel it's a carbon-neutral energy source.

Alternatively, you could use electrolysis to make hydrogen, but hydrogen is harder to store.

(I'm not a chemist, so I have no idea if this could work. And it probably wouldn't be very practical even if it did.)

I do like your idea of experimenting with a rock crusher. The article mentions that finding the least-energy means of crushing rocks to the appropriate size is something of an open problem.
I agree with you but I also don't live in the US.

The impact of Facebook on America is on a completely different playing field from us.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the Gervais Principle[1] other than thinking it's an interesting lens through which to reexamine motives and motivations of coworkers, but sometimes the terminology is damn apt (at least for one group...).

1: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
This will sound dramatic, but could it be because the US is the most important market for both advertising and political disinformation?

Regarding advertising, for companies like Facebook, they may have billions of DAU but still derive the majority of their revenue from rich countries like the US. In 2020 the US and Canada were 45% of Facebook's revenue according to this random website I found: https://statstic.com/facebook-revenue-by-geography/ That's way more than the other regions in terms of $/user, so Facebook is a lot more incentivized to over-optimize for engagement based on US users. Depending on how much the algorithmic feed changes from country to country, it's possible that other countries experience less polarization simply because their culture is weighted less in training the feed's engagement optimization algorithms.

Regarding disinformation and political destablization, most countries simply aren't relevant enough on the world stage to be worth investing money in targetting in this area. The US, China, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Japan, India are all probably relevant enough. China and Russia effectively don't use facebook and are the most obvious non-US-aligned bad actors. They would also get way more bang-for-their-buck targeting the US than other countries. Note, I don't think is as widespread of a problem as many people think it is, but I bring it up because it's relevant in the context of political polarisation since there is strong evidence that it has occurred at least in the 2016 election: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-....

Actually, the two combined can be scary. If you can use outrage (great for engagement) to drive engagement in your content which is designed to politically destabilize the US, you can get a huge reach. This is effectively what you see a lot of the time in highly-engaged US content on facebook anyway: politically inclined outrage.
I’m don’t really like Facebook but I don’t really get this argument.

How is it facebook’s fault that regular SMS is so bad in these countries that their platform is preferable?

What’s stopping the government from launching their own platform if they want a utility?

And why is it that if you make a product that ends up really popular then suddenly you’re a utility?
A rpi would probably take around half a minute to boot. I think it would be a pretty bad fan controller.
Was he there for the hockey puck mouse?
Nice.

> I don't think it's an emergent property, I think it's a by-product of the constraints.
> Imagine if you were trying to fix climate change, but under the condition that you weren't allowed to burn fewer fossil fuels.

There is one person who controls all the constraints: Zuckerberg. He even went so far as to enforce that through his stock classifications. It’s entirely understandable and acceptable to have empathy for those working at FB who are attempting to solve the problems. But Zuckerberg made the decision to be the single source of the constraints that bind everyone below. And his constraints are: profit over all else. He should face consequences for setting those constraints, just as anyone should who set a constraint of “address climate change without adversely effecting GDP”.

Separately, and as the “revelations” of Zuckerberg’s immoral behavior continues year after year, those who work for him but are attempting to solve the problems, should recognize at some point in the future, now, or in the past that the problems are insurmountable within the confines of the constraints. As that knowledge spreads, then the question becomes whether those idealistically earnest individuals are justifiably ignorant of the reality: that all their best intentions are moot in the face of the constraints as were determined by Zuckerberg. And when or if they are no longer justifiably ignorant, they become culpable.
I mean, based on my extended fasting experience I'd say it's something that's worth exploring. I can't speak specifically to memory, but the mental clarity whenever I fast longer than a few days tends to be awesome.

A seven day fast is something I'd encourage everyone who's otherwise healthy to try at least once in their life.
The blackout of the northeast US and parts of Canada, in 2003 was really caused by something relatively small. Imagine Facebook, yesterday, causing some weird cascading effect on the power grid, and pulling half of the country with it...
(Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.)

I think it's actually a pretty reasonable description? Sounds like it's a paradox because we assume a rigid body, but nothing in real life is a perfect rigid body. So the situation simply becomes a bunch of particles following circular orbits. If you measure distance along one direction (while constantly accelerating in relativistic speed) you get one number; if you measure distance in another direction you get a different number. But that's what relativity does.

In other words, it's similar to the simpler question: "If I have a perfectly rigid rod that can reach the moon, and I push it, then the other end pushes the moon immediately. But speed of information cannot exceed speed of light. How come?" Answer: There's no perfectly rigid rod.
Yeah, it's been a shitshow for a while. Anti-vaxxers have taken over the site pretty much on this.
Why Isn't Google Fiber Peered with Google
"Facebook has created a system of incentives that are inexorably leading to harmful outcomes" Exactly right. The solution baffles me. "Force Facebook to reveal and permit research so we understand the system and fix it" Basically keep the harmful system in place, but pass the reins to an unspecified cabal hiding under the innocuous word "we". Hard pass.
Nope, this produces unmanageable log volume.
My anecdotal impression is that YouTube and Twitter played a big role in spreading election misinformation. The main basis of the Kraken conspiracy theory came from a YouTube video which was spread on Twitter and I remember numerous election integrity fake news tweets getting hundreds of thousands of retweets from a large right-wing echo chamber. It may have been worse on FB but I do think the asymmetry of attention and scrutiny is far out of whack.

I'm going to guess the reason is that congresspeople and journalists see Twitter as their domain of control now and benefit from the privileges of a blue check mark and the other side being kicked off. Probably Zuckerberg's lack of charisma and physical appearance isn't helping either, however unfair that may be. Another reason might be that the FB newsfeed lacks transparency unlike Twitter which contributes to distrust.
That’d be a first for a working fan controller on Linux
I'm curious if you considered a 4 day fast every other week instead. The first two days are the hardest days of an extended fast (hungry, lethargic), so you might find this approach easier and more beneficial.
Since we live in the future, it's possible to read the actual source article:

George A. Akerlof, "The Market for 'Lemons"': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism"

DOI: 10.2307/1879431

http://libgen.rs/scimag/10.2307%2F1879431
> I see zero efforts from facebook to move away from ad based revenue

Portal hardware. Oculus + Game Store. Facebook Gaming.

Lots of projects, no stable hits.
Because Canadian electoral system is also FPTP just like US and UK. Our election results already reflect this: decades upon decades of essentially only two parties ever being in government and almost no coalition governments.

Most European countries have functional multiparty governments because they have some variation of proportional representation.
This would be so awesome in ISA or PCI form factor
iOS is probably not nearly as security-hardened as Graphene (or even plain AOSP). iOS relies mostly on "security through obscurity" rather than actual hardening. Apple hopes to maintain security by making the system so complicated and proprietary that it's difficult to understand, let alone find bugs in. Graphene/AOSP hopes to maintain security through real open-source improvements that can be independently verified. It's hard to find bugs there not because access to the sources are unavailable, but because there are usually less bugs in the first place. So, which approach is better? Well, critical exploits are discovered in iOS left and right, so that probably tells you something.

Also, I don't think it's fair to assume that Graphene is not playing some role in the slowness (though I don't believe most of the currently-implemented hardening is expected to create dramatic slowdown). Perhaps you should try running the stock ROM for a day or two (with the Google apps disabled in Settings, of course).
Closing roads to improve commute times makes obvious sense if you think of the TCP back pressure mechanism.
Did you try directus.io ?
Unless they've been building any factories I don't know about, their contractors are the manufacturers. I'm talking about companies based in Taiwan like Quanta, Compal, Clevo, and others. If you've ever been to a Computex Taipei you have seen the booths of the actual manufacturers of Google's hardware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computex
Мерчант от 24xbtc
Making sure one copy stays in the library is probably a larger challenge then the problem it seeks to solve.

But for sure, large library systems have lots of copies of popular books. I just went over to the NYPL website and clicked on some links to get a list of popular books last year. Here's an example where they have 81 copies of the book:

https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb22051849?lang...

You can also see that some books are far more popular in some locations than others. New York Public Library has "only" ~20 copies of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" while Chicago Public Library has 360 copies:

https://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/record/C__Rb17190851__San...

https://chipublib.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S126C676207
> It's like comparing a car to a plane.

Planes can be impressively fast, but the vast majority of my commute/transportation needs are better served by a car.

These are both VTT software. I don't see a reason why one should be above reproach just because its 3d.

I get it, 3d makes everything harder, but tbh it also makes playing the games harder. I can use random jpegs and hand drawn maps and direct translations of existing tabletop content in Foundry. What are my options for making my own content in TaleSpire? Recreate every map object by object?

I can buy a PDF of The Shady Dragon Inn (published 1983) and copy-paste all of the maps over into Foundry in minutes, or spend as much time making pretty maps as I want. Lets not even get into the incredible modding support
Scroll is shutting down to become part of Twitter Blue
You don't need to go anywhere else to find polarization. Right here on HN, conservative points are downvoted, flagged and shunned despite of having excellent credibility, just a different perspective of core values. This was not the case, note the number of downvoted comments in this highly debated topic in 2016, they were very few: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12926678

It's one of those things that says a lot about the people on HN and their tolerance to wide range of opinions. And yes, we all agree that rude, disrespectful and violence has no place on HN. But, disagreeing on Tax policies? Property laws? Patents? Let people talk about it.

I really don't see it different than anti-liberal hostility on conservative forums. It's the same. Exactly the same.

Let's change this and exercise some restraint. Most people on either fence have good faith.
By all means, study it. But please don't peddle unproven theories as fact, and demand policy that restricts other people's civil and economic liberties, be instituted on the basis of these speculative unproven theories.
using the same logic, what if 1 item gets priority over another?
that does happen allot in life and rearrangements of tasks is helpful
Work remote (if you aren’t already). I’ve been doing it at various companies for the better part of a decade and rarely work a full 5 days per week. There are probably 4-6 days/month there just isn’t much on my plate that day so I take care of errands or spend time with my family, or just do nothing.

I also work just as hard as I did when I commuted and have never been reprimanded for not getting enough done, quite they opposite in fact.
What I hear from Zuckerberg over and over is "we're good people and working on it, look at A and B things we're doing" with an implication that that's good enough, so what's everybody up in arms about? That's the core of his tone-deafness to me. If Zuckerberg is fully honest, it means he basically just doesn't have a grip on reality and he isn't fit to lead a corporation this big and impactful. And I tend to believe that, because he's ultimately just a college kid with a laptop who ended up in some circumstances that snowballed.
I don't think you get how much of society relies on trust and good will. I'm not saying this as some rosy-cheeked innocent, either.

>Pretending they don't exist is generally not a good strategy.

I agree, but I think the problem is typically very much over-stated. It sort of reminds me of the sort of fearful stuff I heard from my grandparents about pot smokers you know?

>That's not to say that we shouldn't experiment with different options, and these types of programs are worth trying if only to gather some data.

Yes! Agreed. Punishing people and levying fees isn't great, and experiments like these will either tell us that they were necessary, suggest something else will work, or show us that we can just stop. Its a small thing, but I think a world without library fees would be better, and I'm glad some folks are taking a stab at it.
Most modern CUVs have a similar side profile to the Aztek. One of the reasons they look less awkward is that bigger wheels are more popular. There's a few other awkward design quibbles with the Aztek, but for the most part similar cars sell like hot cakes now.
What's "complete unscientific garbage" is taking a correlation between a dozen self-reported symptoms, and a COVID infection months before, and deducing that it proves the latter caused the former. There are numerous potential confounding factors, and no real science would dismiss these, and claim a controlled and randomized experiment is not necessary before drawing conclusions.
I wonder if there is any benefit from shorter periods, since I do not have the body fat to easily sustain a 2wk fast... also sounds like a good way to lose a lot of muscle?
For me it involved skipping breakfast. It was an easy transition, because normally I'm not hungry in the morning anyways. I would eat breakfast mostly out of force of habit.
> What’s non-intuitive

Well, for me what's non-intuitive is that if we started with a fairly-well ordered array:

[ 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 4, 9 ]

The very first thing the algorithm would do would be to swap 1 and 2, even though they are already in the right order. The next thing it would do would be to swap 2 and 3, making it even worse. And so on, all the way down the line. It takes six swaps to put 1 finally back to where it belongs, and the rest of the array is hopelessly out of order.

It does work, yes, and you can eventually grok it, but I feel like you're not being honest to call this a completely intuitive algorithm to new CS students.
I appreciate both you pointing this out AND the dunks on Zuck both here and on his post at FB. I'm surprised they didn't set up a custom algorithm to bury the most critical responses at his post.

Anyway, here's an attempt at some thoughtful nuance:

There's lots of wisdom readily available out there that describes how to most responsibly deal with critical feedback. For example Rapoport's Rules (via Dan Dennett). First you express the other's position so they can say "yes, that's exactly how I feel". Then, you describe where you agree and what you've learned. Finally, you can go into where you disagree.

Another framing is to ask "what is true in the feedback?" with the presumption that there is truth to be found.

This and other approaches are all about maximizing what to actually learn from feedback.

By contrast, Mark's post is a textbook-worthy demonstration of how to be politely defensive, even being candid about your emotional vulnerabilities, recognizing your frustrations, not lashing out in anger… all while admitting absolutely ZERO about anything in the criticism having any merit or opening any questions to really grapple with. At its best, his letter says "I'm really saddened about how my work is misunderstood, and I don't want to blame the critics, but I'll work to get past my reactive feelings and go back to continuing my wonderful work that has been so unfairly maligned".

I'll grant that this is more mature than a tantrum that attacks the critics and spreads rumors and lies about them. Zuckerberg is a more thoughtful and nicer person than Donald Trump.
> Do you they know deep down inside that the only way to fix these things is to hurt Facebook financially? Probably.

The crazy thing is that FB has taken steps to improve things in past that also hurt them financially (eg post cambridge analytica) . They just make so much money and so fast that its like 1 or 2 bad quarters and its over.

So (1) mark being all powerful means he alone can decide its worth lower profits - he's done it before.

(2) The loss of profits probably wouldn't even matter.
> That quantity is about as much as an aluminum smelter switching on or off.

Interestingly, the mountains east of Portland OR, where all the Aluminum smelters used to be, are now full of FAANG datacenters relying on the power infrastructure (and pricing) the Aluminum industry used to use...

https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2015/10/small-town...

And Washington state too:

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2015/11/p...
Spend that time figuring out how to change it to unit tests in your IDE, or making the deployment lighter weight.

Work on the meta-problem that makes your problem easier. After all, you've got time if the baseline is low-productivity. And the lessons learned are portable.
Aptera commutes just on solar, gets 1K mile range when full
“AI” startups that are actually just linear regression/random forest as a service
Should work just fine. It already runs on macOS on M1, and on ARM64 on Linux in general. Just needs a GPU driver to perform well :)
I think it always helps to have a project to apply things to as you're learning something, even if it means coming up with something small. While preparing, I found it helpful to read for at least an hour each morning, and then divided the rest of the day into learning vs. "diving in" as I felt like it.

Getting deep into RL specifically wasn't so necessary for me because I was just replicating AlphaZero there, although reading papers on other neural architectures, training methods, etc. helped with other experimentation.

You may be well past this, but my biggest general recommendation is the book, "Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow" to quickly cover a broad range of statistics, APIs, etc., at the right level of practicality before going further into different areas (for PyTorch, I'm not sure what’s best).

Similarly, I was familiar with the calculus underpinnings but did appreciate Andrew Ng's courses for digging into backpropagation etc., especially when covering batching.
Why is Zuck's user id "4"? Why isn't he "1"?
Let's not forget Zuckerberg called his users "dumb f*cks."

But, we're supposed to believe his contempt is gone and he cares now.

If anything his arrogance is probably far higher nowadays than it was before because he has so much power.
It should work if you use on a project that has Firebase enabled. Feel free to join our Discord and we can get your sorted in case of any other questions :) https://discord.com/invite/B8yAD5PDX4
Yo, Mark! Blow me.
> then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries

I wanna see some numbers on this - cause from where I'm sat all I see is countries get more and more polarised, _not less_.
Propaganda, regulatory capture, government gridlock, corruption—we got here not because democracy and state authority are worthless and cannot do the job, but because they are imperfect and people found ways to undermine them for their own benefit.

If we can get back to democracy and genuine state authority, as opposed to increasingly-gerrymandered districts, voter suppression, and "state authority only when it suits the moneyed interests," which is more or less what we have now, then we'll be in much better shape overall.
NBER have a working paper on this question: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26669/w266...

Their main results are on the page numbered 20 (page 21 of the PDF) – their data shows political polarisation has grown (over the period 1980-2020) in six OECD countries and declined in six OECD countries. The six countries where it is has grown (in order from greatest to smallest growth) are the US, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Canada, and New Zealand. The six countries where it has declined (in order from greatest to smallest decline) are (West) Germany, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Australia and Japan.

They don't have any direct measures of social media use in their source data; the closest things they have are Internet penetration and consumption of online news, but they found no statistically significant correlation between those and polarisation. The only clearly statistically significant correlation they could find was a positive correlation between polarisation of societal elites and that of the general population (p=0.011). They also found a positive correlation between increasing racial diversity and political polarisation which was of borderline statistical significance (p=0.052).
The Coming Age for Tech X Bio: The ‘Industrial Bio Complex’
> And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?

History is literally repeating itself. Just like 2016 US elections, he’s denying FB’s role again