skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> With any of these large scale protests there will be some bad eggs who appear to cause havoc...

Right, and there is the opportunity for the spin. A protest you like, it's a few isolated incidents, a protest you don't like, you focus nonstop on the few bad people that come out. From the coverage I've seen, if the absolute worse things they can find are what's been covered nonstop (a couple flags, dressing up a statue unoffensively, people peeing outside) I think it's hard to argue this is a violent or dangerous protest. But people on both sides have a political agenda and are hammering on that instead of having an actual dialog
controls unintuitive
But that's not really true either - there's __len__ which len() calls: https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__...

You can add iterators with __iter__, reversed() calls __reversed__, etc.
"If roads are funded by fuel taxes, then what are vehicle registration and license renewal fees for?"
The true (actual, Marxist red pill) answer: work is exploitation of laborers by capital and "not good enough to be worth employing" isn't really a thing. The bosses make off with so much money, who cares. Maybe there are a few useless people at the bottom sucking off salary. What about the useless ones at the top, though?

All this being said, in the context of an organization that actually deserves to exist (a rarity, given that we live under capitalism), it is impossible to say what percentage of people will be ill-fit to their roles, let alone what percentage will be so ill-fit to any role that separation is the only option.
HN also has moderators who can step in when things look like they're getting out of control which really helps. Or in some cases just point people to the rules and tell them to stop causing flamewars or get out.

It really makes a difference to the overall discourse. Something that is missing on most other places on the web!
Here’s the problem - if you don’t already watch a lot of YouTube the non pay version is such a bad experience that you avoid watching on it so you’d be unlikely to want to pay for it.
This wouldn’t work.

I interpret musculoskeletal MRI studies in my practice. Small joint (what this would be used for) ligaments and tendons are incredibly difficult to see and assess even at ultra high res studies performs on 3T magnets.

With the spatial resolution of this you would be way better off using ultrasound.
Peer to peer payments is still not a big deal compared to consumer to business spending. Even if you consider eBay to be P2P, it still mostly went through PayPal.
Wow and all they would have to do to fix it is not plow their roads? This sounds too good to be true!
Well, I am not a physicist, but I can fake it well enough for HN :-)

Before I say anything, if you have never heard of amplitudes before, you should read the Feynman lectures on physics vol. III, which you can find here: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html Specifically read chapter 1 and chapter 3. The specific situation about distinguishable/indistinguishable particles is described in section 3-4.

Your question is kind of phrased backwards. Probabilities and amplitudes are human inventions to describe Nature's behavior, so by themselves they don't imply anything about Nature. The implication is the other way around: Nature has decided that some particle pairs are indistinguishable (proton vs. proton) and some are distinguishable (proton vs. neutron). Different rules apply to the two cases.

This indistinguishability is a pure quantum phenomenon. In a classical world, all objects are distinguishable---you can in principle label all protons and know which is which. But Nature does not work like that, and there exists this peculiar notion that you cannot tell two protons apart not even in principle. There is no deeper explanation of this phenomenon AFAIK---it is what it is.

You can tell experimentally whether two particles are or are not distinguishable by running the experiment as in Feynman 3-4. If you observe a distribution consistent with the add-amplitude rule, then the particles are indistinguishable. Any attempt to distinguish them leads to the contradictions explained in Chapter 1.

There is an even more peculiar phenomenon. Despite being indistinguishable, swapping two indistinguishable particles is not a no-op because it changes the amplitudes. You must still add amplitudes, but the amplitudes are different, yet different in such a subtle way that you still cannot tell the particles apart. Feynman 3-4 tells you how the amplitudes change during the swap, with a deeper explanation in chapter 4.
If it's an arabitrary choice then the problem is entirely you.
Piping the tail of curve only works if you can prove that people progressively fall from the high ranks and get piped.

I really doubt that companies raise the average with stacked ranking.

The real reason tech companies use agrressive hiring (and firing that funds hiring) is to steal the most possible fresh IP from competitors (in a legal way).
It's not random. More developed countries and richer people in more developped countries have a lower incidence rate. The chance of catching it increases with age. The part of the population that doesn't catch it seems to be avoiding it by luck, higher hygiene, and fewer vectors. See: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/208/8/1286/2192838
I know the book is a bit silly, but I only partially agree with your assessment, because I haven’t ever read anything that better describes existence within most large corporations. Would you be willing to elaborate on what you think it gets wrong?
And the bird has the lowest frequency song of all birds
Totally agree. It was the best.
What goes round comes around.

I can just see the Chinese Emperor from about 1840 smiling and saying "Karma. That's just the return on all that opium the white men are sending us."
Is it really a tax if people can avoid paying it? Or, if we are to accuse Apple of anything, would it be fraud (keeping less informed users from realizing they can buy things with their web browser) instead of anti-competitive behavior (preventing them from doing so)?
Suppression of wrong-think, nothing new when it comes to GoFundMe.
I guess it turned out to be reasonable life lesson for me. Now to be clear I am not gonna go crazy at work and tell every colleague "hey I learned the deep secret of how this company works"

Even before reading this I had this vague idea about my own 'checked out' existence that he describes as loser.

I agree though, to not take life lessons specially when people take these things very literally. Because they can really come up with statement "I have worked with some of the smartest 'clued in' managers. So on the face of it 'Gervais principle is bullshit."
Can you explain why you posted this?
> He just doesn't have any proposal for what or how that could be. He wants to wave his hands and say, "well, we have detectors for this and that and these predictive capabilities and these modelling systems, and so ... ta-da, we're conscious!"

I don't think this gives Dennett enough credit, because what our instruments are all telling us is that there no single, indivisible "self" at all; we are all made up of constituent parts either none of which have consciousness themselves (eliminativism), or all of which must have consciousness (pansychism), because ineffable qualia cannot simply appear from nothing. This reddit post does a great job breaking down Dennett's position sensibly:

https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/shneug/can_someo...
Yep. Russia's largest federal subject (Yakutiya) is a third the size of the entire US, and it's one of 85 subjects)
Of course it is. Windows is a proprietary system that only a single company has the keys to. You trade control for convenience.
For those wondering what a nit is (in this context): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candela_per_square_metre
Very cool, very hard. In fact I'm wondering if the shapes (when randomly chosen?) don't make it impossible for the player to keep the game going indefinitely (as you clearly can in Tetris). I wish I had the proof chops to examine this claim.

(I only managed to clear one row.)
I've no horse in the game, but it sounds like you have a pet hatred towards Facebook, to the extent that you don't seem to realize that there's a difference between "facebook was used as a tool in an undesirable way by people with ill intent" (similar to how Parler was used by a specific segment of the voter base around the last US presidential election) vs the much more farfetched "facebook employees deliberately rigged the system somehow to promote violence in myanman and anyone that could be remotely perceived to be siding with FB must be shilling for it" conspiracy theory. It's an entirely reasonable position to shake one's head at the media's portrayal of a political instability through a interwebz-colored lens, but also dislike what did happen in the FB platform as a result of the simple fact that people involved in the conflict happen to use the internet.

The point your parent poster is making is that sensationalism and the easily outraged tend to ignore the nuance between unintended butterfly effect consequences that are hard to prevent vs deliberate malice by the company itself for its own profit.

It's a good idea to reflect a bit on hatred to see if it's really warranted. It's very easy to think "oh look at all these negative things I heard, facebook should shut down". What's hard is to realize that what you read online and your mental categorization of things doesn't always neatly mirror reality accurately. Nobody thinks we should ban chocolate on the grounds that violent people eat it and the rest of us would still have food even if chocolate was gone; we only get molded to think this way about things like Facebook because of media narratives.
This is a surprisingly well written and entertaining read. 5 stars in my book.
I don't understand why that invalidates my idea though.

In this case, Gates would be the funding agency. And its published findings would hopefully steer much academic teaching and research away from bad assumptions.
Of course, they use it as an expense to offset taxes on profits probably, even though the "product" is unusable (who's checking anyway?)
The IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl
Becoming Universal: Historical Reflections
Everyone is excited too. "We're excited to announce..." and "We're excited to hire..." and "It's so exciting to work at..." and "So excited by the release of..."

It's like everyone takes a dose of Adderall with their coffee before posting.
There was a homeless guy peering in. As a group you noticed his attention to detail, a skill important to a good lawyer. You unanimously agreed to invite him in and offer him a job as a corporate lawyer. He's now the CEO. His name? Jeff Bezos.

The biggest advantage of someone with no experience is they don't know what's scary, stupid, or impossible. So they end up doing magic.

#HireNoExperience #TakeRisks #PoorNowLaw
Busy testing searx - selfhosted front end for search engines. Results seem decent enough.

And set up protonmail today.

I've just about had it with google's bullshit.
not exactly sure, but...

"They work in similar way but this this project has features that could not be added easily into winapps.

It also aims to add more features while being easy to setup and use !"

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/skmh28/i_made_an_app...
I had to shorten it to apps to fit the title length limit
Living Inside Your Own Black Box (2010)
Very true! But probably for different reasons. Interfacing to a micro-controller or a PIC is a bit more complicated than plugging a keyboard and monitor in.
This is one line, posted out of context, from a very large codebase. I don't agree that you can learn much about the culture at Twitch from this snippet.
That's never been the definition. The fold is the bottom of the viewport on initial load, meaning nothing below the fold is viewable without scrolling. This is an analog to the fold in a newspaper, hiding anything below it.

It seems like most of the claims you've made in the this thread are false.
> Yes, if you use Facebook for 30 minutes a day, you probably won't miss anything. But if you use Facebook less often than that (like an hour a week, or once a month)

Which I'm sure is complete coincidence and not at all intended to draw you into using Facebook every second of every hour of every day
Except that govt will ingratiate itself not by force, but by the stroke of a pen. This may not affect you if you have means to deploy your own E2EE in a lawful or covert manner, but it will affect the masses.

Comments about consequence for adhering to such a hard line still applicable.
>we will work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities verified by GoFundMe.

>All donors may submit a request for a full refund until February 19th, 2022 using this dedicated refund form.

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that their decision not to disburse funds to the protests is justified, I don't understand why a legitimate business operating in good faith would not give the donators refunds as the default action. Requiring them to submit a form in order to possibly avoid re-appropriation of their money feels like theft from the donators.
> But this kind of functional composition often doesn’t have first-class support in the language syntax.

Are we talking about Ruby? Because it does.

It has both:

(do_thing >> do_another_thing >> do_the_last_thing)[arg0,…,argn]

And:

(do_the_last_thing << do_another_thing << do_thing)[arg0,…,argn]

(Where the things in the composition are procs/lambdas, the closest thing Ruby has to functions as distinct from methods.)
That misses the point of what I was saying. I was replying to a claim "X character is so strong they should be threatening, and it's CGI's fault that they aren't" with a counter claim "they aren't threatening because so many characters are so strong and their strength is written to be meaningless and inconsequential, bad writing not CGI is why X character is unthreatening". Powerful characters are not what I objected to, as evidenced by my comment mentioning Dr Manhatten. Poorly written characters where their strength is incredible but also uninteresting are what I object to.

In Game of Thrones, The Hound outpowers all normal people and can take damage no ordinary human can, and is still threatening. He has his own demons and is outpowered by The Mountain. He is taken down by poison and becomes Cersei's slave, she uses him to demonstrate that strength isn't power, "power is power". The Hound sacrifices himself to kill The Mountain. What would be bad - and more like some of the stories I cherry pick from - is if The Hound had been blessed by the Lord of Light followers and was now borderline invincible, had taken out The Mountain in a 2 minute flashy punch up, then one-man-army'd his way through Ramsay Bolton's army, then Daenerys flies in and inexplicably Hound is now immune to dragon fire and punches a dragon to death, then goes to the thousand foot high magically reinforced Ice Wall and pushes it over, and then is inexplicably immune to the zombies and...

In one of Christian Bale's Batman films, there is a setup of two passenger ferries full of civilians who are stranded and rigged with explosives. Each boat has the detonator to the other boat. The civilians are put into a Prisoner's Dilemma situation by The Joker. The options are: do nothing, Joker kills everyone. Blow up the other boat, Joker lets your boat live. Both groups rush to do that, everyone dies. We don't know these people, neither Joker nor Batman is enormously strong, but the scene is good. Now Affleck's Batman fights and guns down a stream of generic villains like any scene from The Matrix or John Wick or a Jason Statham movie, and then fights Superman, and the scenes aren't good. It's not his increased strength which makes them bad. Dr Strange is hugely powerful, I've only seen one movie with him in it but it was decent - he was struggling against his demons of losing his great surgeon skills, humbling himself, rising to the challenge, etc. etc. and he defeats Dormammu in a way that is more clever than forceful (yet requires a high power level to even try it).

Speaking of The Matrix, Morpheus vs Agent Smith, Neo vs Agent Smith, were good scenes with inhumanly powerful characters and CGI. Later on, a zillion CGI Neos fighting a zillion CGI Agent Smiths were dreadful scenes with boringly powerful characters where nothing felt tense, nothing mattered, and CGI.*
The right thing for the wrong reasons: FLOSS doesn't imply security
At a minimum, you'd need a US agent - note the specific callout at the end of the first section:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-m-chapter-...
But apple can pull the plug on it, right? It would hurt business of course, but it's probably a good position to have that hypothetical power.
Elon Musk’s ‘Sci-Fi’: Top analyst calculates Tesla’s worth is just $138 a share
I am on Kagi Beta but IMO they do not have a valid monetisation strategy that I would pay for. Their current pricing model is planned to be $30 a month for an 'all you can eat' subscription, or $10 a month for a 'lite' membership that gives you 20 searches per day and then charges you $0.02 per search after that on a pay-as-you-go model (but if you check your search history, you may be suprised how many searches you actually do!). Users who join the $10 lite plan for instance and then do 70 searches a day (I hit much more than this during a full day of programming!) would get hit with an overage bill of $25 at the end of the month, as well as the next months 'lite' charges of $10.

On the 70 searches point too, if you search for "business news" and then click the news360 tab to get news results, I believe this is actually counted as 2 searches so would get charged at 4 cents if in the overages category.

When I searched up I thought maybe $5 a month, or possibly $10 at a push, but $30+ will be too much for mass market adoption in my opinion. I also think there is an inevitable situation that someone searches a lot and suddenly finds themselves getting a $100 bill after they signed up for $10 a month!

Unfortunately there isn't a way around the price too from an architecture perspective because it's a high cost engine to run - the costs are driven by the fact that Kagi uses the paid Google and Bing api's, then adds a bit of it's own index and instant answers, but the Google and Bing API's both charge quite a lot per request (c$0.015 per request).

Search quality is usually pretty good (until it isn't), and it's getting better as it's manually tweaked to meet common queries, but the maps search is pretty much unusable. The search doesn't seem to "understand" queries in the same way Google does, particularly ones that are semantically hard (despite the results coming from google, Kagi reshuffles them). The founder, Vlad, seems pretty great though and is very active in the discord community. I really wish them luck, and particularly that they manage to crack the cost/pricing challenge they have.

However I have gone back to Google with adblock as my daily driver as I just didn't get the same quality of results, and found myself going back to Google enough times to make it frustrating. I appreciate it is a beta though, and that it will only get better over time.
JavaScript supports monkey patching by modifying prototype objects too. But it is considered to be bad practice because it modify the behavior globally, and some method name conflict may cause trouble. An example is Array.prototype.contains couldn't be added because it will break another library, so it is renamed to Array.prototype.includes. (Source: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-Array.prototype.includes)
I've also made a page with a map (World and US States) and tables: https://stevenprins.com/snippets/hn-where-do-you-live
> The question is not whether perceptions are true -- that's irrelevant. Undoubtedly perceptions present a skewed and unreliable view onto reality. It's whether they exist at all.

Perceptions are not experience. Nobody denies the existence of perceptions, the question is whether perceptions carry something "extra", something "ineffable" that we call "qualitative experience", something that cannot even in principle be captured by a third person objective description.

Algorithms and machines arguably have perceptions but not experience. Eliminativism is the position that we don't have experience either, we're only a collection of perceptions arranged in such a way that it leads us to the conclusion that our experience is real.

> This is begging the question in the other direction.

I'm not begging the question because I'm not saying eliminativism is true because matter is all we can measure. I'm simply saying that it's demonstrably true that by every measure currently available, we are just a bundle of atoms changing from moment to moment. The only people who claim otherwise and are given any kind of credibility, are people who cite fallacious thought experiments like Mary's room as "evidence". Not very compelling frankly.
The Biggest Cheater in Guitar Hero History Was Finally Caught
I'm on the beta and it has both of these things.

You can choose to boost particular sites, or to down-rank sites with trackers.
>but it did work on that OS

This will probably work correctly on any POSIX system (well, except that it completely ignores escaping). Also I'm not sure why you would want to reconstruct cmdline in your program (that will lead to Windows-like horror where kernel only passes single string as cmdline and every component along the way interprets it with different escaping rules).
Both DR and Canada allow extradition.
Fantastic! You should be very proud.

Took a while to get used to it, but I was very satisfied to clear a few lines.

I was curious what effect it would have to change or add to the concept of "row" to be not horizontal, but instead a "strip of contiguous triangles from the bottom to one of the sides." I might also try instead of a flat bottom, one shaped like an inverted triangle.
There's also https://twitter.com/BestofLinkedin

Edit: Nitter

https://nitter.net/BestofLinkedin
> What they should do is force Apple to allow competing stores.

What's to stop Apple from charging the owners of any competing store 30% of their store's revenue?
I think the real scam is the tax forcing everyone to pay for the warranty whether they want it or not.
As if all other tech companies are too boring to talk about
It isn't an either or situation. Personally I used to watch Youtube quite a bit more but barely watch it at all these days thanks to their oppressive censorship policies.
p.s. Thanks to the author for pointing out how much non-core stuff there's in AS. Forced me to go read the docs, to find out how much awesome stuff I am not using, but should!
My only thought on their refunding process is that maybe they don't have a simple way to just click one button to refund everyone for that specific campaign?

We should probably not assume bad intent on their part!
AdGuard on your iOS devices and AdGuard DNS servers on your whole network is the key to ad-free bliss.
this is what the MAGAs and half of the West has been clamoring for since ages.. no more immigrants. immigrants finally had enough. if the people don't want them and the immigration policies and border patrol officers are more unwelcoming everyday, why should they come? the global population age distributions are set anyways. They can figure out how to fund their social security as retirees go from 20% to 40% of the population. I'll be eating popcorn and watching this episode of "be careful what you wish for" with glee.
That's part of what it means to be a melting pot culture. The Big Leplowski isn't insulting or deriding some individual or family out of malice - it's a celebration of an important cultural production.
He did in fact, you're using points to represent (ironic!) the point-free style, prefix style and circumfix style, they're all function composition.

Which, believe it or not, they still teach function composition as good old g(f(x)) in high school algebra...