skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So why didn't people do that? There has been the option to give artists money forever, and yet as a society, we generally haven't. NFTs are demonstrably transferring massive amounts of wealth from crypto bros with too much money to artists who need it. It's revolutionary because _it's actually happening_. Even though it was theoretically possible in the past, _people didn't actually do it_. The traditional art market doesn't care about an artist until they're dead. The value of NFTs is that a massive new market for art, from living artists, has been created ex nihilo.
Be careful, turmeric can sometimes be adulterated with lead chromate to give it a more vibrant orange color. Make sure you buy from reputable places that test it if supplementing.
No it is because it doesn’t enforce the correct hackernews narrative
This sounds like spam, but is somehow not flagged (yet?). This is from the website:

> CMCSnipe uses insider information to know minutes before a coin is going to be listed on CoinMarketCap or CoinGecko.

How is this website relevant to wash trading?
Indeed, one of the memorable stories from https://www.amazon.com/Ignition-Informal-History-Liquid-Prop... was when the author wrote a joke paper analyzing the optimal amount of mercury (!) to mix into rocket fuel for maximal thrust. It takes away from the power, but since mercury is heavy it slows the exhaust, and therefore can increase thrust.

To the author's surprise, the general evaluating the crazy ideas that the lab came up with failed to recognize that it was meant as a joke, and ordered that it actually be tested. So some unfortunate test site had to actually set up the test, and verify the theory.

Luckily the military came to their senses about then and never actually built real rockets using the principle.

(For those who are confused, mercury may be heavy, but is a nasty contaminant. Organic compounds including mercury have a disturbing tendency to be neural toxins. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn for a famous example of how little is needed to be lethal. You really don't want to be spewing it over the countryside in a flaming ball.)
California, I've noticed since I've moved here, is in love with giving you a million notices nobody ever reads and that have no effect on anybody's behavior (the way every second thing you buy "contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer" is just the most obvious example). If they want to regulate something they should actually do it instead of wasting everybody's time with that stuff, imo.
So what you fail to understand and much of the "govt waste" argument also fails to understand is that the government has funded the basic research and incredible high risk capital to do any the projects in the first place. With out the decades of work and capital that the R&D programs have built in this country none of SpaceX would be possible.

Everything that Elon has done has been piggybacked on the heavy lifting of the government. Most of all climate technology, space tech and the internet has been developed off their back and productionized (ie most of the technology is de-risked thanks to the fundamental research from the government).

This, frankly, unintelligent argument that the government is a waste of resources probably better represents your understanding of how difficult technology gets funded in the US. Critical word here is difficult (not some ad-tech SAS company).

FWIW the government has a ton of inefficiencies but their goal isn't to productionize something and turn it into a business.
I think some buffer in the brain gets cleared when you send the message, and you see it with fresh eyes.
The wrong thing is good people etc can't afford to lobby which means its usually corporation that does it. And if corporation follow principles, adhere to ethics most of them are not going to be billion dollar corporation.

"you're free to form a non-profit and have the government subsidize your quest to have them listen to you"
This is a common fallacy. You have to be elites etc for such thing to happen.

Yes laws, reforms etc are hard to create but this doesn't mean any one can bribe and create law in their favor? We should always complain about wrong law that is created for skulduggery.

Net Neutrality is good for consumers bad for few corporation so we are clear its mostly good.
> In Western countries, globalization and rapid technological change have dissolved the communities that grew up around industrial centers in the past. As these communities have crumbled, the systems of informal monitoring by neighbors and peers that maintained order within them have ceased to be effective.

I've never previously seen someone try to portray early industrial cities as lacking in crime. A strange form of rose colored glasses.
Wandering around DarkWeb marketplaces&forums today is simple as visiting Amazon
Another way is to use Stratagus, it can import the WC2 assets from an original CD and play using that. We used to play on huge maps many years ago with several people playing over lan (It was called freecraft back then). I'm not even sure it's maintained anymore.
TL;DR
"Conclusions As this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons."

The reason to get vaccinated is to reduce the likely severity of your symptoms when (not if) you get infected. The idea that it will prevent you from getting sick, or transmitting it to others if you do, is not holding up so well.

Not that I really believe masks or lockdowns work all that well either, so really it looks to me like we're almost all going to get it, and that's that. Hopefully most of us will be vaccinated first.
But what if the limiting factor of admission criteria isn't scoring well but things like crippling amount of debt, archaic culture of hazing and adversity to stupid hours?
Would I be foolish, or do I just need to be convinced with better evidence? You seem to be using a gateway type drug analogy combined with anecdote mixed with all sorts of other factors.

And no I wasn't talking about "drugs" I was talking about psychedelics and their targeted use/dosage. I made the counter claim to provide evidence that psychedelics cause permanent psychosis. No one seems to be able to produce such evidence, and your point of casually linking homelessness to drug use may be all fine in a grand sense but with respect to the topic at hand it just looks like a red herring.
> The word “midget” was never coined as the official term to identify people with dwarfism, but was created as a label used to refer to people of short stature who were on public display for curiosity and sport. Today, the word “midget” is considered a derogatory slur. The dwarfism community has voiced that they prefer to be referred to as dwarfs, little people, people of short stature or having dwarfism, or simply, and most preferably, by their given name.

> When we surveyed our community about the usage and overall impact of the word “midget”, over 90% of our members surveyed stated that the word should never be used in reference to a person with dwarfism.

From https://www.lpaonline.org/the-m-word which is a dwarfism organization. But as other comments stated it's best to not hinge your metaphors on ridiculing others.

For many people there is one characteristic that strangers always notice or call them out on and seeing that trait brought up in odd metaphors or jokes would likely feel off.
Because a nuclear reactor is easier to build than putting solar panels? Makes no sense.
I don't understand the point you're making. Amazon reduced transactional friction. In what way does ensuring metadata about transactions and securities outlive those things themselves relate?
I have never seen someone so consistently angry about jpegs.
>Bribing is illegal, but lobbying is legal.

Because bribing is paying someone to breach their public duty, whereas lobbying only theoretically involves you trying to persuade your representative. Sure, it can involve "bad" stuff (eg. relaxing environmental regulations), but can also involve "good" stuff (eg. relaxing zoning regulations). Citizens, or groups of citizens (eg. corporations) engaging with their representatives is part of the democratic process.
> We already know from plenty of surveys that people will self-report a lot of benefits; and we also already know that adding in randomization, longitudinal tracking, or blinding makes most or all of the effects go away.

Do we know this or do we "know" this?

Having another study, even a self reported one like this, doesn't degrade the scientific body of knowledge, it adds to it. The fact that there have been other studies doesn't make doing another worthless.

I also think a lot of people here are discounting the fact that this study would typically be very hard (or impossible) to administer at such a large scale, especially in such a short amount of time.

In my mind, the important questions here are:

Are the benefits of massive scale studies worth the trade-offs of self-reporting?

What can we do to reduce or eliminate those trade-offs?

Imagine the scientific value of having easily created, easily administered, massive studies be easily accessible to any research group. If the research data can be made even a little bit more reliable, that's hugely valuable.
Sad that he didn't get more traction because he had some fantastic practical and well-thought-out policy solutions: I mean, how rare is that among folks with political aspirations? Even if he had, he'd not likely have made it too far, anyway. Too many people with too much influence have too much at stake. Someone would have whipped up a gazillion dollar FUD machine against him the very second broad support for his ideas seemed plausible.
It's completely orthogonal to whatever you believe about crypto.
> Anti-spoofing tech for regulated securities. There's no rules for crypto to suggest that Coinbase needs to (or would) flag a group of individuals doing this.

It's the same stuff that catches money laundering. Coinbase isn't exempt from anti-money laundering laws. (With respect to Coinbase not being subject to the Exchange Act, that's very much an open, if irrelevant to this discussion, question.)
> Giving up all agency does not look like creating some legal fictions, it looks like withdrawal from society

I don't disagree and I've been on both sides of such agent relationships. But I feel like we are ultimately bickering over framing, due to the original article's terrible framing that fails to address underlying causes. It's not so much that I disagree with the original comment as that I don't think it fosters actionable conclusions.

Performing mass surveillance doesn't cost that much, demonstrated by the popularity of collecting "big data" - ie "we'll find a use for this some day". Rather than saying that surveillers decide to only collect data on the subjects with agency (because doing so to everyone would cost too much), it's more productive to talk in terms of surveillees taking steps to prevent the surveillers from having access to that data in the first place. Like sure if I turn my phone off to prevent my location from being tracked, the phone company could technically dispatch a costly private investigator to follow me around until I turned it back on. But that's outside the scope of what we're practically discussing.
I think the idea is that the increased size and density of society has led to more complex social structures that prior laws were not able to catch up to. See your sibling comment about the consolidation of populations into cities and the creation of modern policing. Technological advancement also leads to more issues- contrast the multitude of free speech/censorship fights over online content vs. AOL chat rooms having blanket moderator policies two decades ago. As society grows, so does the vacuum created by places the law is hazy on. And so does the number of bad actors, from thieves snatching Amazon packages off doorsteps to jihadist suicide bombers.
> It took decades for the linux devs to abandon their idiotic concept of running out of entropy and making /dev/random stop blocking (that happened last year in the 5.6 kernel

It wasn't an idiotic concept it was 1 part "No longer needed for trust in the algorithms used by /dev/urandom" and 1 part "Did 2 functions but was really used for 1". Since the majority of people were using it just as a source of secure random data (not the 2nd use of aggregating sources of entropy) and CSPRNGs (and the implementation of in the kernel) are much more trusted now it made sense to change. That doesn't mean it was an idiotic concept it just outlived its reasons for having been implemented that way and was changed.

For clarity's sake to others that may not be as familiar /dev/random still blocks it was the concept of the blocking pool that was removed. I.e. once it has been fully initialized post boot it will serve an endless stream of random data as fast as it can regardless of how much new entropy enters the system. This is what tools actually need, some other systems have provided this via a separate /dev/arandom. /dev/urandom still acts the same way it always has, it'll serve you the output of the CSPRNG regardless if it has had enough time to properly seed it with entropy yet (so may act more like a standard PRNG very early into the boot cycle).
I don't know about 'throwing it out' but I have certainly limited my media consumption. Regardless of which agenda it is pushing, most of it is keenly performative and openly political- almost every journalistic piece manages to fall into editorializing. I do not enjoy Fox or MSNBC telling me how to think or feel about a given event.

Nuance is dead, and complexities are ignored in favor of oft-repeated boilerplate.
70% seems a tad bit high.

I think their expectation that real traders would use rounded numbers overlooks that crypto is hyper fractionalized. If someone is exiting their Doge position they're not going to use a rounded number as fee's are paid in a % of that crypto.
It even changed my personal coding style. Things I chose to do before now look ugly to me.
A scam would be if people gave them money and didn't get a car in return because there never was a car.

This is an unsourced list you repeat out of frustration. A public company valued way above what people can explain with hard assets is not the definition of a scam.

Also you didn't explain why it would be the "end" of silicon valley even though they are already moving to austin.
Many other characteristics are technically mutable - you can change your place of worship, you can chemically alter your skin color somewhat, you can have surgery to look younger or older, etc. However, we still consider them "immutable" characteristics insofar as we consider that employees should have zero right whatsoever to request that people change them unless they themselves want to.
Women and men are equally likely to shoplift, so I don't think there is a difference there as shoplifting is the closest you'd get to sneaking out a valuable from someone's home.
I'm no fan of crypto currencies (as my comment history will show), but does "different" imply "fraudulent" necessarily? or are there other factors at play? eg. easier APIs, more variance in crypto prices so that an automated trading strategy becomes potentially more lucrative?
It should be possible to do this in IPFS already if you use the go-ipfs --chunker option with a content-sensitive chunking algorithm like rabin or buzhash [1]. With this there's a good chance that a file with small changes from something already on IPFS will have some chunks that hash identically, so they'll be shared.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_hash#Content-based_sli...
Why assume you need a pseudonymous persona to map onto a real world ID? Check out how DAO proposals work at e.g. https://gitcoin.co/grants/
I replied something similar elsewhere, but I think the real story here is about using tech to administer large scale studies and what that could mean for future research.

A lot of people here are discounting the fact that this study would typically be very hard (or impossible) to administer at such a large scale, especially in such a short amount of time.

In my mind, the important questions here are:

Are the benefits of massive scale studies worth the trade-offs of self-reporting?

What can we do to reduce or eliminate those trade-offs?

Imagine the scientific value of having easily created, easily administered, massive studies be easily accessible to any research group. If the research data can be made even a little bit more reliable (direct mobile health-kit measurements for example), that's hugely valuable.
I'm probably saying that you don't have a sense of humor.
> especially when there isn't really a penalty for doing this

Executing unprofitable trades is its own perfect penalty, is it not?
> Amazon is a rational company and acts in its own interest. The politicians we elect act in Amazons interest. So we are to fault for this.

When I was young, I was told that even in totalitarian societies, you got to vote. There might be one name on the ballot, but you got to vote. People refuse to vote 3rd party for fear of throwing a vote away, yet only corporatist candidates will fly under D or R. Voting for different Ds or Rs won't change anything.

The passage you quote is merely one small illustration of regulatory capture, a normalized form of corruption.
> If you see it as a qualified workforce preservation program, then it is quite successful. There's a chance it is exactly that.

This is my take on why we have such a huge automobile industry - it's not that the automobile is the best mass transit option, it's wildly inefficient, but having the manufacturing capacity for automobiles on tap keeps what's essentially a hot standby for a wartime manufacturing of tanks, etc. I think SLS is in the same boat, we have it operating inefficiently for civilian purposes, but it's a hot standby in case we need to manufacture a lot of ICBMs in short order.
I've seen a different use case for XMPP that I thought was interesting. Basically, a public-facing site uses it for running customer support chat bots, providing FAQs and the like.

Under the hood, initiating a chat is basically launching an in-browser client over WebSockets, and spawning a "chat room" with a dynamically-created bot. Maybe this is common, I don't know, but seems to work well.
> Do you believe race to be a real thing?

"Race" as in "the color of the skin allows statistically significant predictions about physical and mental aptitude"? No, that's a stupid categorization, because it's far too wide and imprecise.

However, I do believe there are (small) genetic differences between subpopulations from different geographic origins. For example, it's hard to deny that Kenyans have an unmatched edge in long distance running, one which can't be explained using non-genetic factors.
Here's my solution: each day you rate how you feel from 1 to 100, 100 being the best. The doctor is paid how you feel * something fixed.
> our main use case is for things that you can reproduce in principle (builds of a commit history, see manyclangs)

I appreciate your response, and thanks very much for the clarification of use case; very helpful! Thanks also of course for building this!
Yeah that's definitely been the case in my experience as well! Some people just send me texts—and that's fine, that's how they want to communicate with me. But other people have embraced Pony and we use it all the time, mostly for things that don't benefit from being sent instantly. I've found that some people "get it" and some people do not. Pony doesn't fix all your other messaging but it creates an opportunity to have mindful correspondence online that you don't otherwise have.
Geometry for Programmers Is in Manning Early Access Program
Market cap and the stock are tesla most successful products.

1.1T for a brand which represent 1/200th of the cars in the US.

Globally they are something like 1/1000th .

This is a scam.
> One 2018 document reviewing executives’ goals for the prior year listed privacy regulation as a primary target for Carney. One objective: “Change or block US and EU regulation/legislation that would impede growth for Alexa-powered devices”

It's one thing to assume that corporations will act in their own self-interests, but this is like they said the quiet part loud. How do you write or even read that document and believe you're acting in a moral or ethical manner?
A society cannot "simply choose" to reject corporate and government mass surveillance.
There was no public vote I'm aware of to decide whether to install cameras and sensors on every street and highway. Shall we vote to take them down now?

Before 2013, only lunatics were concerned with mass surveillance. Look how far we've come. Now the media gives lip service to "privacy advocates". And the result of all this "privacy advocacy" is a giant popup window reminding you that you must submit to tracking if you wish to engage. Engineering consent. Maybe we can meet up in the metaverse to organize a revolution.
NASA's launching a one-way mission to crash into a moonlet: Here's how to watch
Ask HN: Make Thunderbolt 3 to 2 target display mode work?
I see posts on HN with very talented people who can deep dive into very low level hardware/software so I'm wondering would it be possible to prevent thousands 2011-2014 27" iMacs from ending up in landfills by making target display mode work with newer USB-C MacBooks [Thunderbolt 3 to thunderbolt 2 adapter](https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/product/MMEL2AM/A/thunderbolt-3-usb-c-to-thunderbolt-2-adapter)?

FYI these are iMacs that have Thunderbolt ports instead of Displayports. There's already a way to do this with < 2011 iMacs with Displayports.

Things I've already tried, but the experience is not great:
- used NoMachine and dummy HDMI
- Installed Monterey on the 2012 iMac and use it as an airplay receiver
- used tools like [Deskreen](https://github.com/pavlobu/deskreen)
There’s a greater than 8% yield between the spot price and the future delivery price?
Show HN: The Sound Version of the Million Dollar Homepage
California causes a large annoyance to supply chains and manufacturing. Their strict environmental standards mean as a trucker, you either service California or not. It's not something you just decide to do starting next week. From memory, the truck engine has to be under 10 years old and meet really strict emissions standards, costing a significant premium.

For manufacturers, ensuring those stickers are in anything sold in California is a pain, and when you make millions of units, it often doesn't make sense to just apply the sticker, labeling, and documentation to everything you make.
You can actually use a camera sensor as a kind of Geiger counter by blocking normal light eg with foil and measuring fluctuations in the results!
hmm, account created 15 mins ago to post this.
Social media platforms provide a market with tools to get you exposed to much larger audiences with less effort. Blogging on your own leaves it up to you to find other tools to get that audience. It's the same as selling on Amazon vs. selling on your own.

Of course most people are going to flock to the easy route. That doesn't mean that old route ceases to function. The frequency of the old use may go down. And maybe it will go to zero - at which point one could argue death. But it's not really dead until it's no longer possible. And while social media might suck a lot of air out of the room, no one has taken it all yet.
The traditional footholds are no longer relevant.

Millennials and onward live on their phones, not in a house or at a workplace.

From the traditional perspective, this seems like a loss.

From another perspective, it's not.
So your argument isn't that this is a useful and revolutionary tool that will change the world for the better, your argument is that it is a useful way for artists to exploit idiots? A.K.A, a scam?