skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thank you.

I've posted elsewhere in the thread about my own opinion that I believe the main issue we have is not with trust in the scientific sense (e.g. I think that most people generally _do_ believe that epidemiologists know what they're doing and that the outliers are exceptions), but with trust in the plan of action e.g. the entire chain of process.

Examples, all primarily via trust (I'm not a biologist):

I believe that excessive consumption of sugar can cause diabetes.

I know that alcohol can (will, given enough time) cause liver disease.

I know that driving my car drastically increases my risk of being in a car accident and therefore meeting a swift end, an agonising end, or perhaps a lifetime of disability.

I still engage in those activities despite the downsides because I believe them to be of net benefit, both to myself and to society as a whole. I'm willing to fully argue through that process.

Where I think the issue lies at present is that we're sorely lacking in convincing full-chain argumentation.

A person can trust that the UK health authorities know their stuff, they can believe that coronavirus exists and can be dangerous, but that doesn't solve the problem of whether or not they should skip out on their friend's birthday party or not. It only makes up a very small part of the jigsaw puzzle, the rest still has to be filled in somehow.
Office has a good reputation with most white collar professionals. Windows is still ubiquitous outside of programmers
That should work perfectly with multiple structs. Define

#[repr("C")]
struct MyThing {
length: usize,
data: MaybeUninit<MyInner>
}

Then initialize with sizeof(data) and MaybeUninit::uninitialized(). When the call is complete, assume_init() and access the fields of the result struct as normal.
I still use only jquery "as a framework" and if I wasn't lazy could probably just move to more modern ecmascript. I stick to simple layouts and CSS and "POST" rather than make everything dynamic unless it absolutely needs to be. Of course I just work on my own and friends' websites and never really branched out from my day job of embedded coding.
As a person working in science (long past PhD), I disagree.
There are tons of problem in science: grant system, pressure to publish etc. Also everyone in science is still a person with standard people problems: ego, desire to be right, wanting recognition etc. Also some fields had more issues because of poor statistical methods etc.

But the self-correcting nature of science is still its biggest redeeming feature. And therefore unless I can figure out things by myself, I'll trust scientific consensus. I may not trust individual papers, as people make mistakes, may have an axe to grind, but I'll believe the consensus. For sure occasionally even scientific consensus will be wrong.
I’m curious how confident you are in this assessment of each company, and how you came upon it. I’ve worked for several big tech companies, some named here, and my insider perspective is these entities are so huge that you can’t really boil it down to a simple explanation.

Put another way, is this a well researched opinion held after discussions with a variety of roles and time periods? Is the sample size enough to think it’s representative?
Yeah, that said FFP2's I think are per WHO only supposed to be for medical professionals - so use is discouraged outside that setting.

"This said, the World Health Organization does not recommend the use of FFP2 for everyone, stating that non-medical face coverings should be used by the general public under the age of 60 who do not have underlying health conditions. FFP2 masks are best used as personal protective equipment (PPE) by healthcare workers or those caring for someone who may have Covid-19 in a community setting. "

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-are-n95-and-ffp2-face-m...

1/23/2022
I wish more people in corporate IT thought like you did. Sadly, many seem to forget that availability is the first pillar of security.
Interesting, I hadn’t come across that particular issue, though it seems obvious now (I know about those ugly old fullwidth fonts). And I’m guessing that quite incidentally -apple-system and BlinkMacSystemFont are unlikely to be affected. I’ll need to reconsider my recommendation—though I will note that I’ve not generally used system-ui anyway, just considered it acceptable. I wonder if it’s time to lobby browsers to update their default sans-serif fonts, as they have updated their monospaces over the last few years (except for Firefox on Windows). The whole ui-sans-serif/ui-serif/ui-monospace thing is a bit of a crock. (And I wonder if I stand any chance of getting the 13px monospace default size killed. That thing is such an utterly obsolete nuisance—though of course removing it from monospace doesn’t remove the concept, which is used in fonts of various languages.)
Well, they had a gunman rummaging through Parliament looking for the former PM... Only takes one.
VSCode already works in the browser and is already integrated in the GitHub website. Just open your repo and press “.” on your keyboard.

I really don’t think they’ll acquire a IDE company when they have the most popular one already
> Most research is flawed or useless, but published anyway because it's expedient for the authors to do so.

For the record I now know a professor at one of the premier institutions in the world, who is a total fraud. Their research was fraudulent in grad school. Their lab mates tried to raise concerns and nothing happened. That person graduated, with everyone on the committee knowing the issues. Then they got a premier post-doc position. People in their lab (who I caught up with at a conference) mentioned their work was terrible. Now they’re a professor at a top tier university.

Along the way, everyone knew and when people tried to bring up concerns higher ups in the institution suppressed the knowledge. Mostly because their fraudulent work was already cited tens of times.

This wasn’t directly in my field, but I saw it go down and followed it.

In my day job, I just throw out papers that don’t publish datasets and code. Most cs work is equally useless. It’s all a farce.

EDIT: I recommend the book for some insights - “Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions by Richard Harris”

There’s also a decent podcast by Bret and Eric Weinstein that dives into a similar story https://youtu.be/dJNjH4SP6vw?list=PLq9jO8fmlPee9ezOraOHAJ3g9...

There are many examples, at the end of the day... the people in the institutions will protect themselves.
It's interesting to hear of requiring code reviews approved by the main office team. That's a strategy we've adopted on my team, and I got pushback for it. Good to hear that it's not out of the ordinary. The technical quality of the work is typically good, but oftentimes the domain knowledge isn't there due to the T+12 issue meaning little time for overlap.
Sharpshooters fallacy is the name of the cognitive bias. It happens in a lot of fields; notably, finance and investment.
The point was not to say that hiring remotely is a fraught endeavor, it was a cautionary tale to any execs out there who might get it in their head that this is generally a good idea. It can go very very wrong.
I would argue that if I went to work for the ERP company themselves that my "bargaining" power would actually decrease due to the revenues that they are garnering compared to the company that utilizes the ERP itself. It also assumes I am unhappy with such an outcome that my work is worth 100x my salary and somehow that in itself is reason enough to ask for more. I have ideas that I share with no one that are worth much more and one day soon I will build them myself. Along the way I will have made good contacts in business and investor potential all while not rocking the boat all of the time. I could be completely wrong and would love argument against without down-voting to convince me and potentially others that this in fact is the wrong way to think about things.
hy·per·bo·le /hīˈpərbəlē/

noun

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Ditto Chattanooga. Two great sleeper cities when Nashville is getting all the hype.
I'm working for a local company making ARS800,000 (almost USD 4,000) a month. I think I'm the most experienced senior, with a lot of business knowledge as I worked in the industry (Electronics Manufacturing) for almost 20 years. I not only code, but also make most of the architectural decisions.

After seeing this I realized how badly underpaid I am.

I work full stack, have pretty deep experience using postgresql and node js. So if thats something you find useful, don't hesitate to contact me. My email is my user name @Hotmail
I have been doing this a long time and one of the largest problems I encounter is an absence of basic communication skills. I look at your comment and see HTML is too hard and if we had something else it wouldn't be too hard. Too hard is empty defensive posturing that announces some form of gap, typically insufficient training/preparation. When people hear too hard they only see you and a goal with a giant mystery in the middle that you cannot articulate. Are you claiming people lack the proper training?
If you're new to plain text accounting there is an amazing guide by Simon Michael & contributors. (Simon Michael is the creator of HLedger)

https://plaintextaccounting.org/

Previous discussions here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28420797
It gets more random than that ;) xenodium.com is an accidental blog really. It started as a single org file I used to take notes. At some point, I exported it to html and here we are...
Most people accept that science in past generations was, to a certain degree, corrupted by the prevailing prejudices and societal/cultural/political/ideological beliefs of the time.

But, if we acknowledge that was true then – why shouldn't we expect the same to be true now? The prevailing prejudices and ideologies may have changed, but has anything changed about the actual practice of science to make it more immune to those forces? I think a lot of people can't see it, because it is far easier to see when science is being influenced by beliefs you reject than when it is being influenced by beliefs you yourself share.

I think the politicisation of science is inevitable, and science is never going to be entirely politically neutral. Scientists are human beings, and as Aristotle famously said, "man is a political animal". I think science is going to achieve the maximum possible political neutrality when it is either (a) things so clearly established no one can sensibly debate them (which especially happens when scientific theories get translated into widely adopted working technologies–the very fact that the technology works is proof the theories behind it must be mostly correct); (b) things that avoid political entanglements because they have little relevance to everyday human life (e.g. string theory vs loop quantum gravity isn't influenced by broader societal politics because it has no relevance to issues of social/cultural/economic/political power, although even it is surely influenced by the micro-politics of the theoretical physics community, its funding models, etc.)

Take something like human-induced climate change – personally, I accept the mainstream account of that topic as most likely to be correct, but I can't be completely sure that it is right, surely there is some non-zero probability (even if a small one) that it is wrong. But, I expect people in a couple of centuries from now will be able to reach a much firmer consensus – they'll know whose predictions turned out to be right, plus technological and economic developments will likely greatly reduce the number of people with a vested economic interest in the non-mainstream answer. I think the most likely outcome will be that the mainstream account will be vindicated, and almost everyone will acknowledge that the minority were wrong; but it isn't absolutely impossible that it could turn out the other way around. And whichever way it turns out, I think people will see politics as having played a major role – if the mainstream account is confirmed, people will see much of the opposing minority as being led astray by politics; but, conversely, if the sceptical minority turn out to have been right all along, people will reach the same conclusion with respect to today's mainstream.
> but it seems like a fairly trivial one to me.

I don't see the difference as trivial.

The reality is that, across many cultures, there are men that have a strong desire to abandon the masculine role and to live quasi-female lives. The Thai and native american understanding matches this reality.

Our culture-makers decided to apply a specific dogma to this phenomena, and to propagate that dogma by force. That dogma has effects on society and was implemented because of it's effects on society. (For example, reality does not imply that this phenomena should be tolerated or that efforts to minimize it are pointless, but the dogma does)

Now compare this to the original topic. It was claimed that belief in God is stupid, and for stupid people.

However, almost every culture has some sort of concept of god(s). When people interact with god(s), something consistent is happening inside their experience. It is a real phenomena (like the Third Gender stuff is a real phenomena).

Christianity takes this phenomena and captures it inside a specific set of beliefs. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving. He sent his son to die for your sins. Blah, blah.

These beliefs form a dogma. However, the reality of the god-phenomena does not justify the god-dogma. And, when people argue against the belief in God, they argue against the specific dogmatic god-construct that exists in modern Christianity.

But Christian culture is built on the god-dogma. So, christians reject people that reject the dogma, and continue to accept the dogma in the face of critique.

This is a direct parallel to the Transgenderism dogma. That's what I'm arguing. Almost all smart people submit to dogmas.

The reason why smart people are suddenly rejecting the Christian dogma (after submitting to it for centuries) is that they are strongly incentivized to do so. And you can see that in how smart people are simply submitting to new dogmas, instead of now rejecting all dogmas.

The move away from Christiantity isn't a triumph over dogma, it's just a new religion taking hold.
This highly depends on the field. In Physics the barriers are very high. I mean not necessarily for things to end up on arxiv.org but to be published in a peer reviewed magazine. Although probably that's not for every field and perhaps not even feasible because the data is just not there. Thinking about Medicine, every single data point there is probably a lot of work (and speaking of human trials 4 digit expensive).
The problem with non-greppable code isn't that "you should use an IDE". I use rust-analyzer and I dislike non-greppable code.

One concrete issue I ran into is that when cleaning up a list of imports, I can't use Ctrl+F to find out which ones are unused, since I can accidentally remove a trait which is never used by name but only imported for its methods. And I can't count on rust-analyzer's unused import detection working 100% of the time. And it's bad that some methods (for example the infamous `Read` or two `Write` traits) are inaccessible unless you add a trait import (which rust-analyzer sometimes knows how to add when I press Ctrl+.).

To me, the overarching value of Rust is locality of reasoning, and clearly indicating nonlocal reasoning in explicitly-readable and machine-checkable ways (eg. the `Cell` family of types). Trait methods are nonlocal reasoning, and they aren't clearly demarcated (a trait import behaves as`use module::Trait::*` but isn't written that way in the source code). If you're opposed to wildcard module name imports, you should be opposed to wildcard trait method imports.
Define "own servers" because this discussion is about controlling the entire stack, and eliminating things like ME or PSP. FANG runs on AMD/Intel, so they don't own their own stack. They have to contend with the AMD/Intel product.

Buying a beige box to put an intel chip is not "your own" servers in the context of this discussion. I'm not sure why you're so rude and confrontational here. We're discussing how Apple has top to bottom control in its consumer devices, not some weird discussion about datacenter packaging. Servers run on AMD/Intel and as such are stuck with the elements of those platforms AMD and Intel dictate. That's not having the entire stack to themselves.
> I hate MS login page and endless redirects between their services

I dread logging into any Microsoft product for this reason, I just know it’s 30 mins of BS trying to find different passwords for different accounts, none of which relate the thing I’m actually trying to do.
I don't think it's a wrong way to think about things. Multiple ways of thinking about things are valid.

It's possible that your bargaining position vis-a-vis the ERP company would be worse if you were an employee. But probably not if you were a founder. And surely the ERP company's bargaining position relative to your company is better than yours.
I'm not sure the quality of lock core really matters all that much. Every single thing I have seen stolen that was locked was the result of physical damage like cutting or smashing through. Most bicycle locks sold can be cut with a small pair of diag cutters. They stop people just walking off with your bike but if they are at all prepared its trivial to cut.
> Y is better than X, because we end up with a more verdant Earth, cheaper food, better weather, less war (insert reason here).

The problem is that while it's easy to calculate exactly how much less CO2 car A emits than car B, it is close to impossible to use science to predict to any useful degree of accuracy how much cheaper the food, better the weather, or less of the war we will get. It's often hard to even predict the sign, not even trying to determine the magnitude. This means that when scientists or politicians tell you that "we need to do X, so that we get Y", they're very often fooling you, because they have no good idea how much (if any) Y you get for each unit of X.
What the article misses is the essential core: Microsoft is the Big Evil. Only Google really competes in that space. The others might like to compete, but Apple is too stand-offish, Amazon too random, Facebook too inept, Russia too old.

Microsoft and Google are always on the lookout for the next bigger Evil. Google eagerly sheds anything that turns out not to be It. Microsoft is slower at that, not giving up as easily, and often late to the party, but sometimes things finally work out for them better than could have been expected (Xbox). The goal is literal World Domination, and odds are one or the other will achieve it. Younger generations won't even remember when they didn't already have it, or be able to imagine a world where they don't.
Exactly. That's all I want to be able to do. Skip the meal, wear my "medical professionals only" N95 mask with exhalation valve so I am comfortable.

Then I won't care if someone has their mask on their chin while they eat some food.

Instead, I can't wear the mask I want, and we play this stupid game of forcing folks to wear ineffective masks in a highly closed off space who don't care / don't want to / have already had covid and don't believe the doctors claims that there is no element of natural protection as a result.
Don't forget optional Power Apps!

This is the biggest reason MS remains a huge player though. Whether you're using Microsoft's cloud e-mail or an onprem exchange, they'll be more than happy to figure out a CAL bundle that is compelling.
I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for inflated tech salaries in US metros. Those areas will seriously suffer if corporations decide they are no longer willing to pay through the nose to support the insane cost of living in NYC, SF, etc.

And white-collar Americans in tech will finally get to suffer along with the rest of the country as the American system of "spend more for a worse life". It shouldn't be so hard to keep a basic middle-class lifestyle, with historically low inflation, but it is.
They can volunteer and have their application approved or denied for "reasons." Note I'm discussing the mandatory conscription law only where what I said is entirely correct.
Their incentives aren't that strong (best you get is a medal you can't show or tell anyone about) and unlimited funding can mean they start an unlimited number of underfunded projects, rather than funding one endlessly.

What they do have is patience and secrecy.
KMyMoney. Data entry is a lot easier than in Ledger. I use Ledger only for occasional reports.
I suspect you would've implicitly given them permission somewhere in the EULA, but I agree that this is definitely eroding the concept of ownership.
Ah, I think I understand. That no matter if the "government" is doing it, the government almost always contracts it out to a private firm?

I think yes that's the case and yet I do think there are some services that are more in-house to the government and less farmed out, but I'm not sure.

For example, I think the unemployment departments at the state level are often government-run, but I could be wrong. Not sure how much the passport process is contracted out, but I would assume not too much but maybe it is.
I truly hope that at some point, the pain brought upon the American low wage labor market will re-ignite unions. If it doesn't we are heading to a dual class dystopian future.

The Reddit r/antiwork has been getting traction (even with the Fox News debacle) and I'm seeing more and more people talk about wage inequality amongst a lot more social classes than I have in the past decade. Fingers crossed history arcs towards economic equality.
Location is more important than lock choice IMO. I have my bike stored inside my apartment. Its virtually impossible to steal. If you always keep your bike inside, its pretty safe. But even a good lock is pretty pointless if you leave it accessible to the street overnight.
> It is not a beloved consumer brand like Apple, Facebook, Amazon, or Google.

the reason for this is very simple: very few people choose to use Microsoft products willingly (except maybe the xbox)

their products either come with the computer by default or it's installed on your work machine

and the software is at the very best mediocre and somehow getting worse (trying to figure out how to save a Word document locally these days is NOT easy)

[1]: even for the original xbox Microsoft initially deliberately kept their name off of it
It's not bad to prioritize healthcare workers, there are plenty of levers the CDC and governments have to do so.

It is bad to prioritize healthcare workers by sculpting messages i.e. manipulating the population.

A message for Feb 2020: "Masks will likely help curb infection for you and transmission for others, masks are most important for healthcare workers and the medically vulnerable, wearing them when you're around people is a good idea, but we need to make sure they get into the hands of people who need them most first"
Of course! Always invoke Hanlon's Razor.
At least for passenger lines the single track of heavy rail has a >30x higher route capacity than a single freeway lane (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity). So a fair comparison would be a single line of heavy rail to a 30+ lane freeway (one direction), making the rail about 1/10th the cost.
You can help by voting up this thread.

Publicity may encourage Amazon to take a stand, which is the only hope for the whistleblowers and the kids.
I use it because I'm just too tempted to play with extra formatting with html+css, that's probably the only reason. Also my main notes app (Obsidian) is markdown.
Oh - did not realize that the actual PDF was also on Bitbucket. I'll rehost it elsewhere. Thanks to both of you for alerting me to this!