skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My view of this is that it's great that they haven't stopped trying just because others have failed. This is necessary for the long term future of Python as more and more computing becomes multi-core.
Bitcoin ;)
Fundamentally, a lot of knowledge we possess as individuals is socially constructed, in the sense that we trust the process and the institutions that created it. Even if this knowledge can, in principle, be verified, it is usually impractical for an individual to do so.

Putting science aside, how can I be confident that the basic facts presented in, say, a NYT article, are correct? I can trust the reputation of the NYT as an institution, and I can also trust that any inaccuracies in the article will be called out by other publications. But if I feel everyone's in on a conspiracy to push a particular viewpoint, then I need to anchor my knowledge in a different institutional framework - even if that might just be a random Facebook group of strangers, or my weird uncle, or a niche radio station.

This, incidentally, is why the censorious push against "disinformation" is misguided in principle. It's sweeping the underlying problems under the rug in the hope that they disappear spontaneously. In an open society, truth can only be established as a result of public discourse, anything else is just the representation of the perspective and interests of some authority. Whatever its source, the seemingly growing distrust in public institutions will not disappear simply because we make social media companies remove its most obvious symptoms.
Van Gogh considered this his most important painting
Yeah, I’ve noticed this too. I feel like a lot of people in the NFT space have a pretty nihilistic view of art (i.e. “all art is worthless, so these procedural mix-and-match apes are as good as anything else”). They’re correct that the value assigned to art is often arbitrary, but the thing is that once you acknowledge that, the correct response isn’t to start buying random crap for thousands of dollars, it’s to buy things you want in your life for hundreds of dollars.

Like, would I pay $100 for a super high quality 2ftx2ft print of a diagonal gradient with two really well chosen colors? Yeah, possibly, if I thought it would look nice in my living room. Would I pay even $10 (let alone thousands) to “own” a PNG of that gradient in some abstract sense? Absolutely not.
Federal trade commission definition https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I was making a stronger claim. With bounded personal risk (i.e. the money lost is their clients, not their own), and unbounded potential for profit (i.e. a percentage of any profits), money managers have an incentive to make riskier bets.

The "norm" (average) for money managers can be achieved by having half the money managers lose money to the other half. This works well for them, because when they win they win, and when they lose someone else pays. Money managers can go big or go home, and keep trying, because in the long run they're not eating the losses.

But people betting their own money on the same strategies actually lose their own money when they lose.
ICLR 2022 Submissions
I use archlinux on OVH, so in this case the advertising is certainly not completely false.
I had to restart my browser today because when opening a new tab I was prompted with: "Firefox has updated in the background and needs to restart".

I had no idea the latest version did this. No program should ever self-update without telling the user.
What you describe is a currency exchange risk, which would be the same of a bank holding a position in (for example) Japanese Yen but not covering it and holding their assets in USD instead.

The fraction reserve banking is a bit different issue, it's mostly about working in a single type of currency but backing short-term liabilities (e.g. account balances) with long-term assets (e.g. mortgage loans). So a customer A deposits 1 BTC and on-chain it gets transfered to the institution. Then when a customer B gets a loan of 1 BTC there's still just 1 on-chain BTC but 2 BTC-denominated IOUs, so the effective supply has doubled. Obviously, both of them can't withdraw the same coin at once, but the institution is not bankrupt as it has enough assets to cover all their debts, it may be temporarily insolvent though if a bank run happens.

The key difference from ordinary banking, of course, is that noone really takes loans denominated in BTC, so right now there's not much that an institution could have on the asset side other than "real" BTC. However, in a hypothetical world where BTC becomes the "mass market money" in some countries, then there would be BTC-denominated loans which would (among many other interesting effects) drive the pressure towards an equivalent of fractional reserve banking.
With Windows 10 updates, they made everyone a sucker. Updates that can lead to unbootable systems, loss of data, and hardware failure. We've seen it all.
Exactly. It's a shorthand/ synecdoche to be used instead of rehashing the whole underlying discussion every single time.
Really? Other than attacking some microscopic nobody what can you do to any decent size military power without getting bloody nose in return?
Yep!

Price Level = Money Supply * Velocity / Real GDP

If you improve real output without an increase in money supply or velocity, things'll get cheaper.
BoldVoice – Speak English more clearly and confidently
What's really terrible about stroads is the phenomenon of the later "bypass" roads that are built long after the stroad/city center turns into a an absolute clusterfuck and aren't usable for the kind of high-speed transit they're designed for. The bypass roads usually take the form of a parkway or some other roadtype with limited entrances/exits.

But then later, because the bypass road is usually built on cheap land outside of the city center, all that property gets bought up and developed as well, and the property owners will demand ingress/egress to their properties. Since the environment is nicer than the snarled up city center, people will start to favor businesses and housing in this area. Over the next 10-20 years the bypass will simply turn into another stroad. To make matters worse, the bypass and the original road will often have the same road numbers, differentiated by either "business" or "bypass", making navigation confusing.

Where I live I often see multi-million dollar homes being built right next to high-speed roads, and instead of a feeder street system taking cars to a more limited number of ingress/egress points, they simply dump the driveways out into the 60mph traffic. Total insanity.

It really does all come down to poor planning, and a lack of desire to make street planned city center grids with mixed-zone housing and municipal managed central parking areas. Instead each business sits in an island in a sea of their own giant parking lots, which often sit mostly unused which makes urban centralization impossible.
Imho, another point for the European GDPR - it says its US only, and I think this is the reason. Otherwise, this should be off by default.
Why should people trust what that blog or publication who made an "error" claims that the CDC/FDA/FTC/USDA said?
This is definitely not true. I publish enterprise apps for my org and there is no review
Mine has a tower of Pringles, minimum.
> How did those arguments one day suddenly stop being bad faith arguments?

I know you're asking this to demonstrate, but I'll answer anyways, because it's obvious: The elite who have very effectively captured the press, big tech, and the scientific institutions used their leverage to ensure that all such skepticism was "bad faith", even though it very clearly was not.
And at the end of the day that's the reason I don't use it anymore. It's just the wild-west.
Parcel is a great project. It replaced a lot of clutter for me, was fast and relatively easy to use.
I'm not saying they are all great places, I'm just saying they are an existence proof for large scale centrally planned economic entities that don't collapse like many centrally planned national economies, suggesting that central planning was maybe not the deciding factor.
Blowout in Oklahoma (2019) [video]
That's true, but I think there's a solid case for why this type of practice is anti-competitive and unfair.

Let's say I own a restaurant and instead of improving my food or service I go to my competitor's food suppliers and offer them extra money to not sell to any of my competitors. In isolation, there shouldn't be anything wrong with me making an agreement with another private corporation, but the effect of this is that it creates an unfair playing field for my competition.

Amazon's position as both the marketplace and a competitor in that marketplace, creates very similar "unfair" circumstances that benefit them uniquely on that marketplace (for example placing their offerings higher up in search results, or creating special "recommendations" specifically for their offerings, etc) not to mention, the unique access to information that they have into how well their competitors do (which is not inherently unfair, but when combined with all of the other aspects does make a decent case for fitting the "unreasonably constraining competition" section of anti-trust law)
>The scientific method is perfect.

Nonsense. Nothing is perfect, especially nothing ever created by a human. The scientific method is the best we have developed, in my opinion, but it's not perfect. The scientific method itself was developed by "fallible and irrational humans". Even with the best of intentions and the utmost in effort, all humans are susceptible to fallibility and irrationality. You are, I am, everyone is.
If the companies being copied don't have patents on the products, are they really innovating?
Your car still runs on gas and your phone still runs on electricity.

I think this statement is overly generous to car manufacturers, who rarely provide software updates. Is that not motivated by an analogous planned obsolescence?
The nice thing about the 6502 is that it is completely reverse engineered down to the transistor level, so it's possible to explore what exactly is going on in the chip for each clock cycle even when the original design documents had been lost:

http://visual6502.org/JSSim/index.html

(and shameless plug, my own 'remix' with better performance and more features: https://floooh.github.io/visual6502remix/)
Do they literally not have a QA department or what? You'd think this sort of thing would be caught by automated testing.
I get the criticism, but in culture we use "dopamine" as a magic feather for separating our self from our experiences so we can reflect on them, and this article is like a bird saying, "that's not how feathers work!"

They're right, but who needs to know that their magic feather is just a metaphor? Most of them are.
> We don't have to wonder what it would be like. There's been mass use of platforms that allow "side loading"

Apple is a significant vendor of such platforms.

They have an A/B experiment running on the Mac. I prefer to buy directly to send more money to the developer, but I suspect most people prefer the (confusing) store.

In other words: what chaos?
In practice this doesn't turn out to be a major issue, since a good design will keep >99% of queries/transactions on a single shard.

4 years of Vitess in prod, also a maintainer
I really like the Blazor tech, but with all the activity around Blazor WASM I'm not sure this is really where things are heading. It's neat that both options work with the same underlying tech(even if converting an app between the two wouldn't be so simple).

I've built frontends in React and feel I have a fairly high level of expertise in VueJS; I actually got the sense that Blazor borrows quite a few ideas from VueJS. A major missing component IMHO is a good reactive state store like MobX..
Not if you want to adjust your views to different screen sizes and types.
When people say "establishing intent" in terms of criminal cases, this is usually a shorthand for something more specifically defined in the law, like "intent to do harm" or something.

To use the murder example again: many people who commit manslaughter have all kinds of various intentions. The one murder is concerned with is whether or not they specifically had the intent to kill the person. "Establishing intent" in this scenario is specifically regarding that one intent. Not any intent.
Previous Job had an in-house RPC system and there was a desire to move to gRPC.

This process largely turned into "name and shame" because there was no incentive for some teams to put in the effort to make the changes. They had other objectives to complete, and swapping RPC frameworks was not one of them. The only way the change happened was putting a hard deadline before the old system was shutdown (by SRE), which is not the right way to do it.

There were a lot of stories like this. One team owned user information, but the business needs shifted this ownership to another team. This resulted in the ownership being split between three teams, and applications turning into transparent proxies for other applications. One service was a REST interface that provided a bit of logic on top of forwarding the request to a gRPC service.

The make up of the company was a bunch of loosely coupled product teams, and the only common connection was SRE and Data who worked with everyone. SRE became the team that had to work to resolve these "what the fuck, why can't you just sit down and figure out who should own this" issues. There really needed to be an architect or someone who could look at the big picture that could say "Why do we have this one internal REST service? Ok. Team A and B. You have this quarter to stop using Service Q and migrate to Service W."

$NewCompany, SRE is doing the course correcting (just due to small size), but we have a Principal Developer who is dictating that "Yes, we're going to implement new business logic in lambdas following this pattern." And they work to make sure that everything is done in a standard way, but at the same time take ideas for new patterns and make sure they are done in a smart way and don't conflict with anything else. He doesn't stand as a roadblock, but someone who can make sure teams are not going off and doing weird things (like use MySQL when we're a Postgres shop) that can cause issues later.
I'd be more comfortable discussing capitalism's flaws if that didn't imply I agreed with people I wouldn't want running a community garden, let alone a national economy.

In fact, there's probably a linguistic divergence that predicts whose proposed solutions I'll find reasonable. What does capitalism mean to the person making the critique? To me it refers to any system involving private property and voluntary exchange thereof. I suspect people critiquing 'capitalism' are critiquing what I'd call 'growth-dependant corporatocracy' which I'm happy to critique all day long. Using 'capitalism' to refer to that indicates the kinds of solutions someone would bring forth if I decided to listen to them - and given the track record of those solutions, I feel justified in not listening.
'It’s easy to place the blame for America’s economic woes on the 0.1 percent. They hoard a disproportionate amount of wealth"

Why do articles like this use the word "hoard" as if the total amount of wealth is zero-sum and fixed? No, Jeff Bezos owning 10% of Amazon does not make someone else $180 billion poorer.
Neither, I certainly don't think they execute flawlessly/without screwing up.

I'm making the much more defensible claim that if we took you and the GP commentator and put you in charge of the Fed, the economy would go into a recession.
It's not legit for sex but is for gender, it put me as female as a trans woman.

All these 'sex' determination quizzes through these gendered questions just are usually 'what are you more similar to a social view of man or woman?'
Get out of here with that rational nonsense! The government will fix all the problems by doing the same thing that caused them.

Sorry, couldnt help myself. Completely agree. The motivation to participate in most markets has been sapped by handouts on a massive scale. No business is too big to fail. If a business fails it is their own fault. Allowing businesses to fail regardless of the economic impact is a necessity for the economy to function. One business fails and a handful jump in to compete for the open space.
I was in the same place as the parent comment until I started seeing a blitz of laptop ads after not having seen them for years.

Mostly around Windows 11-ready machines.

So I agree with marketing experts, but Apple's probably not the catalyst, selling laptops is.
> I assume there isn't going to be an argument against companies "hording wealth."

Mm, I dunno. Why not? Maybe Apple shouldn't be sitting on a massive pile of cash which could be put to some useful purpose.
Provided we learn from the past it will be better than last time and unlike market mechanisms which are able only to guarantee that a point of the pareto front can reached under exploitation planned economies allows selection of where on the pareto front people want to land. This should happen democratically.

- many actors in our economy run a small (or big) private cenrtrally-planned economy [1]

- as all those centrally planned economies were in non democratic states it's not obvious if the flaw is central planning or being non-democratic. I find it reasonable that more democracy would help as east Germany which at least had a fake parties and regular elections did better than it's eastern comrades

- computer are a lot faster and algorithms for mixed-integer linear programming (or similar modeling frameworks) have matured

- databases or similar immutable storage technologies make corruption a lot harder

- central planning in combination with free trade could remove inefficiencies in the current economic system inside the country

[1] The People’s Republic of Walmart

Note: I am not particularly convinced by the venus projects
Not exactly.

These emails all go to users who have signed up for an account. Traffic is weird right now (domain migration in progress), but I was getting ~250-350 user signups a day.

I send a monthly newsletter to users who have been recently active, a welcome sequence of 2 or 3 emails depending on where you sign up, and have an abandoned cart sequence of 3 emails (here's the link to your video / your preview will expire soon / your preview has expired).

Both of those channels (newsletter / automated sequences) have opt-outs, but the automated ones see pretty good engagement. The max number of automated emails is in the 5/6 range before unsubscribes, so it only takes ~3-4 emails per user to get up to 1k/day -- especially when you toss in another 100 or so for normal password resets, receipts, order emails, etc.
Science can't answer questions like:

"Is it OK to curb freedoms and force medical procedures in order to save a million people?"

"Trust the science" people either think we all agree on those questions or they believe that their positions are the correct ones.

Also, "trust the science" used to mean things like "electroshock your abnormally behaving child." It's hard to fault people for a lack of trust.
Contrary to all the apps on the proprietary stores of smartphone manufacturers that never spy on people.

At no time did Apple state that there are zero apps in its store that violate its guidelines and spy on people. You're taking one side of an argument that doesn't exist.

Too often in this debate, people think that pointing out that Apple isn't perfect somehow negates all of its legitimate arguments. It doesn't. Not even remotely.
I'm not suggesting they get rid of connectivity check. They already provide the option to disable it. All I'm suggesting is that it's not enabled until the user indicates they want it to be. This could be asked during a "first time" setup flow like most smartphones have.
There are holdouts but yes, it's well acknowledged and there are many trying to battle it (e.g. with better designs, pre-registrations etc.) The replications are mostly conducted by other insiders in the first place, it's hardly just outsiders pointing it out.
In reality, there are proven issues with heavy use of smartphones.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/691462
Then it is good for Amazon that the European retail operations are run in Luxembourg under Amazon SARL I guess.
> The people most likely to experience depressive realism? Introverts, males, and people with high IQs

Ok, That does tick a lot of boxes in the tech World.

Shame mental health support for depression is geared towards more average IQ levels and even then, their go to is have some pills.
Skepticism is indeed healthy, but beware of selective skepticism. Humans have a tendency trust people that they like or who make them feel good about themselves, and distrust people they don't like or who challenge assumptions they'd rather hold onto. So yes you should be skeptical, but you do need to keep yourself grounded.

How are you to convince a flat-Earther that the world is round? You can show photos of Earth taken from the moon, but clearly you have to trust NASA. You can show global flight traffic patterns that only make sense if the Earth is a sphere, but then you have to trust the FAA or wherever you're getting the airline data. You can dig up whatever evidence you want but at some point you'll need them to relinquish their skepticism and accept that these institutions are not part of a vast conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth. Now apply that to vaccines, climate change, election results, economic theory and everything else that matters.

Institutions are imperfect. They have their own agendas and sometimes they happen to be wrong, and sometimes they flat out lie. If you only trust people that you like, you're liable to fall prey to charismatic charlatans. If you demand absolute certainty, you'll never get past a bedrock reality of cogito ergo sum. You have to make some sort of reasonable balance between trust and skepticism and accept that sometimes you'll be wrong.
> 11 years old which is an eternity in technology time

No its not. For casual use, 15 year old PC is very much fine and works perfectly in many use cases ie for our parents. You may swap for SSD but that's it, it can be blazingly fast for the tasks required.

Forcing everybody to move into Linux when they can barely handle Windows is quite a stretch, there might be licences to software which won't work, same for hardware. Lets not forget whole world isn't on HN level of computer expertise to debug issues.
Ask HN: What was your BrandonM moment?
I started browsing HN in 2018 but only recently found out about BrandonM[0]. I'm curious to see if anyone had a BrandonM moment in their life.

For example, maybe you were choosing between working at two startups and made the "wrong" choice. Maybe you had the opportunity to invest in Bitcoin early but didn't take the chance. Maybe you had the opportunity to decide which tech stack to use at a company and made the suboptimal call.

Have you ever held a strong opinion which turned out to be completely wrong.

1. What was it?

2. What was the result?

3. Does it haunt you to this day?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
I believe most of those are self-hosted Vitess with Planetscale providing technical resources and support.
Yup, it makes total sense to me that apple went to 11 so microsoft also had to. Then they probably looked around to see what they could put in a windows 11 and bit off too much. The deadline likely was set in stone from the start, and that’s why it looks like a rush job.
The Origin of Scorpion's “Get over Here ”
Let's not forget that for a while it was almost impossible to install Windows XP while connected to the internet. You'd get infected with Code Red. The security was an existential threat to Windows back then.

Windows 2000 came before XP and was as good imo.