skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Ok, fair. What I mean is high leverage, which is the fuel for the type of manipulation I’m referring to.

Why does that make a difference? And how is it any more coherent to talk about margin "coming to" DEX? The moment anyone can borrow on margin, it has "come to" DEX. You keep speaking with a mental model of DEX that doesn't jibe with reality, like they're walled gardens rather than platforms open to anyone with little friction other than gas fees.

>To your point about CEX lying about price, that’s a very risky proposition for the arbitrage reasons you mention (CEX arbitrage actually easier for a number of reasons, but I understand why you’d think DEX is easier).

It's fun to idly speculate about this, but we know for a fact that flash crashes have happened on centralized exchanges, which is stronger evidence than any of your assertions of superior understanding of how they work. Furthermore, people have had their margin liquidated on those CEXes at the fake prices.

>No, I said capital efficiency, not execution cost. DEX costs are crazy, but that’s by choice, whereas the capital efficiency is a structural issue. If I want to provide liquidity on 100 CEX markets, I only need enough capital to wear the orders I actually get filled on at any given point in time. As an AMM I’d have have enough capital to be in a 100 different LPs.

If that's what you meant, then it's coming from the same dubious mental model I complained about above -- when you enter into a liquidity pool, you are providing liquidity to the entire cryptocurrency's network, not just people who are "on" that DEX (which isn't a coherent concept). Anyone and everyone has the option to accept that offer (sorry, "remove that liquidity"). Several protocols look at the entire DEX market to find the best (combination of) price(s). You do not need to be in multiple liquidity pools (which, again, not a coherent concept).

LPs are not something you have to "be in"; you as a trader are free to accept the offers (sorry, "remove the liquidity") of any LP in existence.
No worries on the typo, and sorry if I said something dumb :) - I know I have something to learn here. I'm a layperson whose knowledge is basically the first chapter of an introductory undergrad text (although when I have time, I will dig into more). Perhaps I didn't get the terminology right, but I was thinking in terms of their total addressable market, depending on the quantity and quality of the qubits, they wont' be able to hand the keys to the castle of public key cryptography (so Shor's algorithm) to just anyone. Maybe that's baked into their business plan. Then I thought of some ways one might still probably get a bit done in this respect with a smaller number of qubits if SAT is in BQP (very half-baked idea), but from what I googled, it sounds like that's an open question.
If StackOverflow jumped off a bridge, would you jump off one too?

You can't base a huge decision like that on "well it worked for somebody else". How did it work for them? What was their platform? What was their data profile? What were their requirements? What was their acceptable level of risk? It could be that they have so many caching layers and lose so little money that they are fine with the database being down for 5 days while they recover. Or that it doesn't actually work that fine for them, because who wants to broadcast that their system is shitty? Or that they've just been lucky.

It's not worth finding out the hard way. Build the best system you can with the time and money and expertise you have. Don't cheap out just because you think you can get away with it - especially on the critical stuff.
How long before a small explosive is strapped to the tip and aimed at humans with low social credit score? Would make for a Running Man sequel, with some future Caligula.
I have no idea what you are even implying. What is the significance of 25 mph?
No, but if their policy is based on real expertise and evidence, and not joe bob "whos a doctor", then I trust that knowledge far more. Everyone of every background has tried to comment on the efficacy and reasoning of vaccines, they do this by being intellectually dishonest and citing papers they don't understand, ignoring that medical science is a science like any other - there's a lot of published material and specific expertise necessary to grok it. At most people will look at the graphs pictured and think they understand how that graph works. Case in point the israel study.
everyone is replaceable in tech too (or basically any job for that matter).
I recommend you to read the comments section under the study.

Many other cardiologist disagree with this selection criteria and there exists clear bias that can affect the authors.
Just out of curiosity, is that ~90k CAD or did you convert to USD for the majority of the audience here?
Not saying this would be easy but another approach would be to use references to the colors instead of the actual colors. Other color related APIs would have to be updated to accept the references or, if you wanted to add more flexibility, compound color manipulation operations. It would be the responsibility of the renderer, which I am assuming is protected as I am not familiar at all with android, to compute the final color and not reveal it to the app.

It wouldn’t be a perfect replacement for actual color values but it would give more flexibility while not revealing the value.
a dependency at the time?
I would meet with a chess tutor every week for 6 months some years ago. The biggest thing that contributed to my games getting better (which the author didn’t mention as a method they tried) was analyzing my own game.

Thinking back on the moves you made, why you made them (ie gaining material, tempo, position), opportunities missed, and blunders made. It did help to have a coach go over my games with me, helps identify what to work on, what to think about when playing and focus on.

The biggest thing I wasn’t thinking about is how the moves I made moved the board into the position I wanted to checkmate in — I was too worried about losing the pieces themselves.
No, the logic is that it is less likely. Anyways, Coinbase allows on-demand conversion of USDC to USD so you really only have to hold the USDC (and Coinbase’s counterparty risk) for about a day for that process to complete. At some point that window might close but given that Coinbase is a publicly traded stock in the US and must report financials, there is quite a bit less risk compared to Tether.
> coming to and/or operating at periscope depth is dangerous

Silly question: how do you identify a target? Sound only? It seems like you would want something visual.
Google cannot change the Linux kernel like they control Chromium or the most of the Android, so with Fuchia (or its kernel) they are more in control once again.
That is a possibility. The navy has had at least two serious collisions with other ships in recent years. Oddly enough, touchscreen-based UIs were determined to be one of the contributing factors!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crys...
Magnetic induction tomography. Detection at a distance isn't yet practical, but the physics are known (eddy current effect).
So how does it do the killing aspect? I guess I would have previously assumed that you need to heat up/ burn the mosquito to kill them. What wavelength of laser is suitable for killing mosquitos?
> We've now administered billions of doses of Covid vaccines. If there were serious problems they'd be evidence by now.

Listen, this sort of argumentation creates mistrust. If this is how seemingly rational people argue (and dear god i hope it's not) then no wonder there is a lot of mistrust in society around these matters. Or maybe you were sarcastic, and in that case, you got me!
Samsung Foundry Forum announcements
Seems like you could probably do some effective and efficient research using games. I always have to force myself to use the one shot super weapon, or even a few grenades, in order to not end the game without ever using them.

Video games seem like the perfect arena in which to do and apply this research.
Yeah they delta hedge anyways so no need to pull back
And literal cash doesn't rely upon internet connectivity to a massive global network of millions of computers in order to transfer a store of value to the dude standing next to me. As methods of payments go, it's possibly the greatest Rube Goldberg machine ever conceived.
This is exactly the kind of weak external validity that has caused much of the replication crisis.
Apple makes it easy. I was subscribed directly with the NYT on their site, not the iOS app.
If I read that correctly, they have $15 billion in Deltec Bank in the Bahamas, and $45 billion moved into other banks.
> When you are given lots of money, this reduces poverty much more than when an individual gets a tax break on saving their own money.

That is what I am saying - If the $3 trillion in super were shared equally, poverty would be a lot lower. Keating himself says that he could have set the system up this way, but didn't because he wanted it to be a privatized system of individual ownership.

> Norway has trillions in oil reserves to support a small population.

Norway has $1 trillion in retirement savings to support a small population. Australia has $3 trillion in retirement savings to support a small population. What's the difference? Why does what asset class the money originally came from matter?

> I am not sure why I need to explain this, but having a trillion dollar windfall reduces poverty much more effectively than subsidizing the savings of each individual.

Once again, both countries have trillions in assets, that can be distributed in many possible ways. You can either distribute them equally and reduce inequality (Norway), or individually and make it worse (Australia).

> Moreover, when you save each pay period you have to make lots of small little asset purchases, as opposed to making huge purchases in a SWF fund in which the money comes from selling oil, so transaction costs are higher in a 401K style system than when you are sitting on an ocean of free oil.

That is not how super funds work (they don't make small asset purchases each time you make a deposit, they run a combined asset pool and just keep track of your allocation) and not why super fees are high. They are high because there are so many small funds which spend money advertising against each other and duplicating admin costs, instead of simply having one big fund like Norway does.
It sounds like the Canadian government just wants to do a bit of bureaucratic legal cleanup, but honestly I'm just confused. If she was denied entry and thus she isn't in Canada, then what's the big deal? Surely she can't be the first one to ever appeal an entry denial to Canada.
There are several different kinds of requirements that banks have.

The "reserve requirement ratio" basically means that for every $1000 the bank has in deposits, it is required to keep $X in its account with a Federal Reserve bank. Very specifically, it has to be money sitting in that account--a literal stack of $20 bills doesn't count for the reserve requirement. This has dropped to 0% because the Federal Reserve figures there's better ways of maintaining bank solvency.

Instead, most attention nowadays is paid on the capital ratio. This basically says that the bank needs to hold $X equity for every $100 of risk-weighted assets. My understanding is a little fuzzy here, but I believe that the equity here is completely separate from what's normally counted as assets for a bank.
Can you elaborate? I know of a few females who had irregular menstrual bleeding.

I’ve posted this before.
I’d like to understand this better:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7645850/
THE RISK OF ADE IN COVID‐19 VACCINES IS NON‐THEORETICAL AND COMPELLING
Play snake on my Twitter banner
Until it's not. Part 1 and 2 of your list require Coinbase's implicit consent and cooperation, and if there is a bank run on USDT, that cooperation may be in short supply.

I would bet money that Coinbase has a button on their admin panel that says "Pause redemption of USDC" or equivalent, so you're just hoping they don't push that button in extremis. I find that silly, if what we're hypothetically betting on is that the crypto system will be in extremis.
We chose the laser based on the power since the task is to heat up. Used 1 W, but for burn wing don't need so power.
>Interestingly, participants who had the initial opportunity to use the notebook, but hadn't, were significantly less likely to use the notebook later in the session, versus those who hadn't had the option. And this finding was not limited just to notebooks. We saw the same pattern in other scenario-based experiments using bottles of wine and TV episodes.

eeeehhhhhhhh.... I dunno. "People who don't do a thing once are less likely to do it the next time" seems like it would explain this as well or better, and it's a simpler explanation.

And I don't buy that the imaginary-wine followup question implies "more special" either. By telling them that they did not open it immediately, they've set up that initial "did not use" - there are many reasons to not-use something, many of which work in future unspecified scenarios as well. That doesn't imply it is growing less likely to be used with each event, maintenance is sufficient.

---

I absolutely agree that some things for some people fall into this kind of spiral. They also get out of it sometimes - I've personally had or seen quite a few "argh, why do we even have this?! [use it or lose it]" sequences.

But I think more fall into knickknack-like territory - they were never going to be used, adding more time doesn't change that. It's closer to an emotional attachment to something, and not wanting to lose it. There's no ideal future where it will be used.
> For the first time ever California has shrunk in population(2020 census)

California's population was up 6.1% in the 2020 census compared to the 2010 census. You probably mean something like California Dept. of Finance estimate of one-year change between 2019 and 2020, which was very slightly negative (around -0.4%, IIRC).
Depending on your limits and definition, it still is. I have an account on sdf.org and once in a while I run tin to see what people are posting about the Raspberry Pi.

But the reason it isn't very popular, I suspect, is because it is 99% spam. Only the occasional post is actually content. And most of the newsgroups that were popular once are only spam now. You can tell it's been going on a long time because there is reams and reams of it, with nobody even bothering to reply - literally spamming the void. It's really a disaster.

Back in the 90's people saw that coming. It's definitely here.

In the early 90's I used to provide UUCP news and email to BBS systems. If NNTP content was as crappy then as it is today, I would never have bothered.
Dopamine Masterclass
Wow. That’s really awesome.
Go get it!
I'm not sure... I was giving it some thought and it seems to me to be more the construction of the word itself.

Maltese, Lebanese, Chinese, Japanese, Polish, English, French - AFAICT only used as adjectives.

Canadian, American, Mexican, German, Russian, Nigerian - adjective or noun.

I'm not even trying to touch on appropriateness, just the general rules on how words are used/spelled. Something about 'an' makes it sound natural to use as a noun.
It’s called leverage. Every player in the financial system uses it; some have cut deals with the government to socialize catastrophic losses so we pretend the leverage doesn’t exist but there it is. As long as Coinbase allows on-demand redemptions nobody is going to care about an audit because it’s trivially easy to just convert all your USDC to real dollars almost immediately. Can’t say the same for Tether.
US could lose all SLBM nuclear missile subs and still assure destruction, because of the triad.

Land based ICBMs are more accurate than SLBMs and would launch in retaliation.

The US has stealth cruise missiles it can launch from bombers.

The US has the B1 and B2 bombers that can deliver nukes.

Many Navy ships can launch nuclear cruise missiles.

The USA is the only superpower that has such robust nuclear weapons delivery via a triad (land, air, sea). With Russian SLBM subs it is said they are so noisy that US attack subs are always silently tailing them after they leave port and can take them out before they can launch. Russia and China really only have robust land-based ICBMs. If all of those could be preemptively attacked (by stealth strikes and commando raids) then the US could potentially win a nuclear war. Not that we'd want to try.
Authentication. I work Rails btw...
Yes, 12.5 years enlisted. I've sat through more dumb PPT's that are a reaction to an incident than I care to remember. With Covid, the model seems to have moved to doing an online course which is a bunch of slides and some multiple choice questions.
The "reduce likelihoods" would need real numbers to determine if the R value would be below 1 and thus fizzle.

Hand waving doesn't show this and I feel it's unlikely given the amount vaccinated infection observed.

We didn't know everything we do now, but near as I can tell herd immunity was never a realistic possibility. It was with for the foreseeable future as soon as it went multinational and became a management rather then elimination task.
Why? People use this kind of logic all the time to say that commonplace activities are unlikely to be that risky — in fact we have the opposite problem with so many people being used to things like influenza being softened by widespread vaccination that they collectively under-estimate the risks of the untreated form.
Yeah but look at the ease of breaking in + how much it pays (even in worse jobs). Its probably the best value.
If by "existential threat" you mean a threat to existence, there are already many species going extinct today, which is why it is said we are in a 6th mass extinction:

https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-6th-mass-extinction...

Droughts and floods are also affecting many parts of the world today. And "At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows:" (IPCC)

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

Beyond 2C and nearing 4C, the extreme events are expected to yield larger crop failures and migration events.

The US military has also called climate change "a serious threat", stating "while extreme weather events and rising sea levels threaten infrastructure and economic output, trigger large-scale population displacement, migration and exacerbate food and water insecurity."

https://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2021/05/14/

And the Defense secretary did call it existential:

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/25...

So it does seem fairly existential to me. How exactly is this being nuanced? I have also only linked respectable sources above.

All of that being said, I also share the opinion from others above that a single corporation unilaterally deciding what is or not acceptable speech should be unacceptable.
> I wonder if that was taken into account.

It was, but as the moral accounting stands, it is better for ten 'civilians' to be hurt, than for one police officer.
Sort of. It's how you spread the lies. How they are delimited.

One halfway responsible way: "here is a paid announcement from someone that doesn't necessarily reflect our views: ${LIES}".

On the other end of the spectrum are sneaky, dark patterns and whatnot.
>I'm still a little unclear what this has to do with the power being cut off, but I'm told be reliable sources that yes, this is the law in California. It's almost enough to make me want to vote Republican.

Lol!
> automatic emergency braking

If you put automatic braking on a bicycle, you're going to cause an emergency.

Braking force is not the problem. Hasn't been for 25 years.

Emergency braking on a bicycle requires the rider to shift their body weight to avoid catapulting themselves off the front of the bike and directly into whatever they were trying to avoid. There is no way to achieve minimum stopping distance without substantial cooperation from the rider. The center of gravity is simply too high. You might be able to use powered brakes on a trike or recumbent, but not on any upright bicycle.

I haven't had a real bike in ages and even back then it was entirely possible to launch myself off the bike using only two fingers, from the hoods, which offer terrible leverage. If anything Shimano made the brakes too strong.
Show instead of Ask?
Quite! The article doesn't start off on a great note:

> Fast forward to today. I have never worn my Target blouse. What had started out as ordinary now holds a special place in my closet, and no occasion feels quite worthy of my wearing it.

> What happened here? Why do people own so many unused possessions, treating them as though they are too special to use?

One person bought a blouse they don't wear and then extrapolate that people own so many unused possessions? Where is the data that shows how many people have unused possessions, how much of their possessions are unused and how many of those are unused due to their specialness? The article does build a decent case that the idea that once something is assigned a special status that status becomes amplified in an interesting way that should be investigated, but isn't itself a good investigation of that effect.
Do you have any resources or links where I can learn more about this?

I'm very interested in exploring this concept.
People get overconfident with self-driving cars because they consider the problem as navigating from A to B while driving along the road within the law. That's the easy par The hard part is the long tail of human behaviour and the unexpected you have to deal with.

Just consider an object on the road. Is it roadkill? Trash? Will it get out of the way? Is it a person under a blanket? In some places it may well be a person to get you to stop so they can rob you or worse.

It's said that humans are motivated by fear and greed when it comes down to it. Let's talk about fear.

A lot of what keeps people inline is implicitly or explicitly fear of what people might do. They're an unknown. It's why a burglar may not care about an alarm but a dog is a deterrent. Will that dog bite? Fear of those unknowns makes the burglar look for easier prey. Not always but statistically often. It's one reason why people get dogs.

It's the whole basis for having doormen and the like in buildings over automated systems. That doorman is a much bigger unknown and can react in ways machines can't.

It's the same on the road. There's only so rude or inconsiderate many drivers will be because they fear the consequences of road rage and such.

So what happens when such a driver sees a car that is self-driving? It is absolutely naive to assume that drive won't change their behaviour.

When flying through a forest, you're basically just dodging trees. Wildlife will tend to avoid you. Just identifying larger wildlife and steering clear of them is likely sufficient. Driving is just much more difficult.

I'd say self-driving cars in the sense where the car isn't even designed to have a human driver anymore is at least 20+ years away (and, much like AGI, probably will remain that way for some time).

Instead you'll have what we already have to some degree: driver assistance for the simpler parts of driving like staying in a lane on a highway and avoiding hitting the car in front of you. That's the easy part. Over time, more and more of those features will be automated. But it's still going to be a giant leap to autonomous driving.
Isis is a common figure in everything from literature to disco lyrics. It's offensive to ban that name.