skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The observation about dating apps that needs to keep being reiterated is that their business interest is not to quickly find you someone you will spend the rest of your life with, because then you'll stop visiting the site and paying them money.

Some governments have tried to solve this by offering their own dating apps for their citizens, but another approach would be a community-run dating system, built on the Fediverse. Unfortunately searching across instances and stopping people from scraping all the profiles on an instance, are two hard problems with that architecture, although there are probably creative solutions to both.

Another approach that could be tried is limiting the number of introductions a user could make per week, to prove that someone is really prepared to invest time in a relationship. That might also discourage people from wasting their introductions on the most superficially desirable profiles they find, since those people are likely flooded with introductions anyway.

Finally, to add AI into the mix (and maybe generate some hype and investment offers), what about having "AI matchmakers"? A user could be required to converse with the AI for a few weeks, answering questions, taking personality tests, reacting to simulated date scenarios, and the AI could apply some super advanced proprietary algorithm (which might be just staff choice and a random number generator to start with) and then give one "match" per week for you to go and get to know properly. The feedback given by each user on their suggested match could also help refine the AI's matching process.
"cancer ward" is well worth reading. A tale of hope tempered by realism in the political springtime of the post Stalin period.
At some point it boils down to profits. The MagSafe decision was made to increase profits. Apples assumptions turned out to be wrong and they realized it didn't increase profits.
Remember when you were considered weird if you met someone through the Internet? Now it's mainstream. Man, how times change...
Yet most Americans have almost all of their wealth inside of their home and they pay a tax on it every year. Hmmm, interesting. It's almost like we made a system for this and made it easy for people to pay this tax... It's almost like there's ways to tax things easily and effectively... Hmm!!! Even for assets which can change dramatically in price every year like houses do! How does it work?!

The practical problems are all very solvable. Again - this is just propaganda the rich sell into the minds of the masses to avoid taxation further. Don't buy into it. And stop spreading it.
Past discussion has been prolific... 3 years ago, 528pts, 297 comments[0], a year ago, 51pts, 72 comments[1]

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19694207

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24233339
Okay. But your own experience doesn’t represent the majority of retailers out there. Having a retail business is about figuring out where your customers are and advertising to them. Your customers aren’t on Facebook or Instagram. Fair enough. But this isn’t just about hyper local, literally millions of business love those platforms (as much as I hate those platforms).
TL/DR: bring back the old OKCupid features. There’s a lot of pent-up demand for it.

I’m surprised none of the existing comments contrast the unproductive on-line dating of today with the very successful OKCupid model of the mid 2000s to the mid 2010s. Practically everyone I know ( myself, siblings, and more college friends than I can count on one hand) met their spouse on OKCupid during this time period. The old OKCupid where people filled out quizzes and the software just gave them a compatibility score ( based on their answers ) worked exceedingly well.

OKCupid got sold to the match group around this time, and they started aggressively removing features, such as search and messaging. This made it effectively a tinder clone, which works for nobody.
Hadn't heard of the RP2040. It's quite impressive.

I see even the Arduino organization produces a board that uses it.
Frankly it was inevitable because time and time again, politicians and celebrities violated Twitter's TOS and got away with it because of who they were and it eventually caught up to them.

I don't necessarily think Twitter was right to act in every single case that they did, but there were absolutely blatant examples of leaders violating Twitter's TOS. If you feel that politicians should be able to say anything they want all the time, then it's time call for abolishing the TOS altogether.
This take is ignoring the social nature of much of gaming. Changing which set of games I play is one thing, convincing my friend group to go with me is another. Especially for my friends whose primary way of playing games is on an XBox, meaning we rely on cross play as much as we can
How does this translate to "as a result we must force all children to socialize together in person until they are 18"?
If you want the actual data sources used by the paper, read the paper. I'm not trying to replicate an academic's source-finding, that would take months. I'm trying to quickly demonstrate that the US was a thoroughly bureaucratic nation by 1920, not some kind of backwater where we have to guess and infer demographics.
This book talks about how having too many choices (or the perception of too many choices) mean you don't make good decisions

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13763042-why-love-hurts
The article never once tries to define what it thinks would be good "cultural health". You can kinda infer that the current level of vitriol and animosity is bad, but what kind of society would that look like and how would we get there?

I can see three versions. First is a homogenous culture where there is nothing to fight culture wars over. I don't think such a thing is possible, nor desirable, since the author's free speech argument rests on a diversity of thought angle.

Another is a culture where people are free to disagree but do so respectfully and are willing to compromise on the larger issues. This sounds good on paper but the truth is a disturbing minority of this country believes Trump won the 2020 election, that COVID is at once a harmless prop for a government powergrab, and also a Chinese bioweapon, that climate change is a lie, that gun ownership is sacred, that abortion is murder, etc. Ignoring your personal stance on these issues, how would one compromise on any of them? I believe climate change is an existential threat, we're already careening past the point of no return, the time for debate ended some time around 2007, and you still want to talk about it on Twitter?

Lastly is a culture where you're simply not allowed to disagree, and perhaps this is where the path of least resistance has led us. We use AI to separate like-minded folks into clusters so they can avoid arguing with each other, and as a bonus we can sell a few trillion dollars worth of ads to them. Citizens can head to some culturally-appropriate venues for disagreement (i.e, the Youtube comment section) when we feel like tilting at some windmills.
Here is the Facebook growth for the last 4 years:

2018 2019 2020 2021
37.35% 26.61% 21.60% 37.18%

This does not look like a dying company.

The article is very quick to jump to conclusions. The silicon valley is way more than Facebook. It is not clear even if Facebook will decline from here. Microsoft was able to survive 10 - 15 bad years due to their enormous size.

I don't expect Metaverse to bring them significant revenue anytime soon, but they have a good chance to copy TikTck and slow them down. They did a good job in slowing SnapChat before.

Source: https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/FB/income-statement#view_typ...
Not everything can be solved with technology. Not every human behavior is a problem to be solved. Part of the fun of being human is all the messiness that comes with having autonomy and precisely not behaving like a mindless inanimate object subject only to physical and natural laws.

Trying to “solve” human behaviors is effectively equivalent to trying to dehumanize humanity (even though it isn’t fun, of course , to be on the receiving end of some of the behaviors called out as problematic in the OP, it’s part of life).

The term “problem” has become so overused in the digital age, and, in fact, I think it causes engineers to ignore the reality of what they’re doing sometimes (e.g. in the case of building a dating app you’re solving the very small, already solved problem of giving people a communications platform, which is about 10% of what you are doing, the 90% of what you’re doing is making the nth dating tech company execs rich off a niche/fad by providing a slightly different flavor of stuff that already exists).

It’s easy to ignore the potential negative consequences of what you’re doing when you cast it as “problem solving” which is generic enough to suppress all your alarm bells and has an inherent tendency to bias you toward thinking you’re doing good (nobody like problems right? But that’s the problem with ‘problem’—what exactly are we designating to be a problem in the first place? It’s not always cut and dry).
Thanks for finding/sharing those links. As I read them they reminded me a lot of what I've been seeing as I have been using Remix (remix.run)

For example: in "how to update content", they discuss path dependent updates. Those are how remix does all it's updates - they use nested routes, so it knows it only needs to update a part of the page (eg only update the content of the page, leaving the nav alone, since an update occured only in the content part of the page)

I think the htmx folks would have a lot of issues with remix but I think remix takes a lot of the best of both worlds. Remix focuses on using basic html/http concepts and layering some smart JavaScript on top of that.

To return the favor, here's a couple docs I found helpful:

https://remix.run/docs/en/v1/tutorials/jokes - this is their advanced tutorial and it's a bit long but once you get past the setup steps it's a really well written introduction to the concepts of remix through useful examples. One of the better tutorials I've ever read.

And then two of their technical docs which are a bit hidden in their site but useful:
https://remix.run/docs/en/v1/pages/philosophy

https://remix.run/docs/en/v1/pages/technical-explanation

The key concepts is remix is understanding the loader(), UI component, and action() interactions and how those work with minimal code changes in:
1) server side only mode (with only raw html served)
2) server + smart JS client mode
It might easily happen via antitrust intervention. The big internet companies might be forced to adopt federated standards and "open up" their big walled-garden platforms to enable free interaction among users across different "social" service providers. Then the service providers would start to compete and differentiate by adopting things like user-facing AI scores for content.

The feasibility of this varies by platform; it seems especially hard for some platforms like YouTube or TikTok, which are doing the "core" work of hosting video content and providing recommendations. Others though might be easier.
What actually happened is Twitter strained all credulity to avoid punishing Trump for constant rule breaking until he was out of power, because they knew he'd literally have them killed.

They're still surprisingly soft on Chinese officials right now.

https://twitter.com/chenweihua/status/1334567538534084608
More than 18,000 pot sherds document life in ancient Egypt
I had exactly the same issue about a year ago - missed the fine text. Adobe refused to reduce or remove it on contact, however the moment I mentioned I was happy to take this to consumer affairs to review, they were very quickly fine to cancel it without fee.
I was a software engineer. I had to quit workforce at 55 because of health problem. I felt that i must continue to work on something useful. I had to choose between writing a novel or trying to find an algorithm for P=NP. I chose P vs NP as a hobby since i like tough problems. If you want to know what is the P=NP problem, you will find many good videos on youtube. I am 65 now and this is my last year for this hobby since health problems aggravated slowly. Now i know a lot about algorithms for P=NP and i want to program the last one i found. I think my next hobby will be writing short stories and if i am good enough i will try to write a novel. Have a good day!
Yeah totally totally. But then, its very funny to me that some of the people who complain the most about the censorship of "Right Wing" content by leftist big tech, are also, violently, over-my-dead-body, opposed to many kinds of community/government/centrally-owned collectivist platforms that wouldn't be under the influence of advertising. The Libertarian platforms that we have are the way they are precisely because they're market-based.

The podium requires a public square and the public square is currently privately owned.
Is there any source that has all(or at least 1000+) of the historic shipping forecasts? I have an old tool to do probabilistic parsing that I would like to try on this.
mmm... Learn to fly? It worked for the dinosaurs.
U.S. is considering a radical rethinking of the dollar for today's digital world
The folks at Starbucks are gonna be really pissed if I haul my entire lab bench into their store for the day.
I'm genuinely curious how some folks get even close to this. I feel like my first post or two I did something that got all my future posts suppressed, or some such crazy thing, as my comments always end up with super low engagement, despite an effort to make the bulk of them thoughtful and useful.
There are a lot of (de)personalization settings for Google, and Facebook, and Microsoft.

If you haven't spent like an hour or two, you probably haven't found them all. There are screens, and screens, and patterns to discourage you.

And if you haven't checked them in a month or two, there might be new ones.

My belief is that the game isn't that unfair, that they do allow you to turn stuff off, but it's difficult enough to ensure statistically most people won't.

I believe that FB Messenger is plenty enough explanation for your experience, by itself. Why would they not be processing every word?
I've always been working remote since age 7. Until I did an ISP startup, now I had 10 people in an office. I only went there twice a month, I kept working at home. So I built the datacenter in my home.

I crave long periodes of wild camping in Nature. So I finally changed my work around so I can work remotely from my wild camping sites for the rest of my life. It is even cheaper than working from home.

I now sell remote work houses and mobile tiny houses on trailers and trucks in nature in the Mediterranean and Southern US. With 1 Gbps internet and backups, full off-grid solar energy and water recycling. With or without acres of land for €1/$1 per m2. Less than $50K for everything.
Some things are harder, like 4WD harddisk backup (I have to stay put for the backup to finished or the head vibrations will crash the disk) and outside big screen sunlight glare.

The hardest part of working remote is finding cofounders to apply to YC with me. As you have to get to know them through video chat, it takes up the mayority of my time.
I feel that I made the transition from jr to mid level developer when I was able to come into some new code and judge it, instantly pointing out what was wrong and how it could be improved, and how it should've been built. I feel that I went from mid to senior when I would enter that same situation and try to understand the why behind the code (even though I probably still thought it was poorly architected) before passing judgement or trying to "fix" it with a refactor.
It's an ingenious design. Given a seat belt that cannot be intentionally locked in this way, how would you address complaints from users who want to arbitrarily lock their seat belts? To me, "pull it out all the way" isn't an obvious choice, but is such an elegant solution.
Frederick, not Stephen. Stephen Douglas was Lincoln's opponent in the 1860 presidential election.
>> Money is power.
> Money is just one form of power, not the most powerful.

I've over thought this one a lot and happened on an anthropology book that confirmed my position:

Power is the ability to influence or induce action. Money is a medium of exchange which acts as a mechanism to induce economic activity. Entertainment companies, media companies, and even social media influencers have the ability to manipulate perception which may induce action. Money is an odd beast in the landscape of power because it grants access to "API's" of power. Lobbying, media buys, hiring employees, and even purchasing portions of the economy(i.e. businesses). My point, and where I agree with you, is that money, in and of itself, is not power... it is a medium through which one can express power.
Lots of 1) around here. Not so much 2).
Can you imagine what would happen if we applied your argument to other important communications channels like postal mail or telephone calls? Sorry, someone in your old friend's city was using a robodialler so now none of the local phone service providers available to you will accept calls from anyone in that area code.

We absolutely can regulate the Internet on this kind of issue. We don't have to regulate everywhere in the world to make a big improvement, just businesses above a certain size that operate a commercial email service. If our governments can effectively lean on social networks enough that they add warnings to potentially misleading comments about science, they can lean on email services to do better with this problem. They only difference is that there is an obvious and unambiguous way the mail services could do a better job.

And again, just to be crystal clear, I am not arguing for giving real spammers a free pass. I am only arguing for credible, realistic measures to try to avoid the huge numbers of false positives we get from mail filtering today.
Thanks for writing and I appreciate everything you've said :) I'm certainly not like, inherently distrustful of people or a shut in. Actually I'm quite talkative and find it pretty natural to talk to people.

I just don't think that kids should have to be forced into the same building for so many years of their life. Voluntary school is great, but I don't think the trope is always true that homeschooled kids are "freaks and loners and nerds who will faceplant in the real world", which is my opinion on what the popular sentiment is here.

I don't think the risks of in person school outweigh the benefits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK76j8sdVaw
I'm sorry, but I disagree.

The window if the internet is that has allowed many people, whos voice wouldn't have had any power, to find likeinded people.

Does it have it's drawbacks? Fuck yeah, look at all the damned white power/ neo Nazis!

But by having a minor voice has allowed new cultures to develop. Hell have a look at r/workreform where the smallest of the small are able to talk about their issues.... Without being fired.

Yeah bots will always be there (now), but IMHO the situation for communicating is becoming better.
The exemption, or the mandate? The data shows no correlation with the mandates and transmission rates, right?
> This statement made me think quite hard. Why do I not really believe in quid pro quo's (especially like this)? I didn't come up with any particularly good answers, but it would seem to be related to my own childhood and probably the rest of my life, that seems remarkably free of any such arrangements. I've seen them written about, portrayed on TV and in movies, but never in a way that convinced me that they were real (or common, or something). Now, there's every chance that I'm just simply wrong about this, and quid pro quos really are how the world works. It just doesn't seem that way to me.

Quid pro quos[0] are how the world works; you may not have been exposed to it. If you want a detailed discussion of corruption, the book Game of Mates[1] documents corrupt dealing in Australia. If you want a domestic example, look at Illinois politics.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_college_admissions_briber...

[1] https://gameofmates.com/
The project certainly says it has "drastically improved efficiency" and "uncharted levels of performance".

I don't think "massively parallel" is all that good for performance either, because battery life is part of that.
Yeah - could be! I had never thought of it that way.
> Six publishing sources, requesting anonymity out of fear of angering Google, said their ads load slower than their content on AMP, and that is part of the reason why they make less money per pageview from AMP than they do from their own websites. In one instance, the revenue per page on AMP was less than half of what the publisher got on its owned and operated properties. In effect, the user experience is almost too good, with content loading so fast that people scroll past the ads before they’ve been able to load, resulting in ads that aren’t deemed viewable.[0]

Google used AMP to control traffic, and therefore siphon ad revenue from publishers. I used to work for a newspaper and this was a huge problem for us, and Google absolutely knew about it.

0: https://digiday.com/media/publishers-find-google-amp-loads-f...
IMHO one part of the problem is lack of trust.

When you meet people "organically" through social events there is often at least some level of "social proof" that you get due to the nature of the situation. Eg, you were invited, ergo someone thinks you're a nice enough person to invite. Or, your friend introduces you to someone, ergo your friend is happy to be associated with you. If not social proof then at least being physically present means your body language is available to interpret, so when you crack a joke it's likely to be received as such.

When you first interact with someone on a dating app, you have no social proof and no body language. And the person you're talking to has probably had a lot of bad experiences on the app before. So trust is at an absolute minimum.

Without trust, communication breaks down incredibly easily and quickly, and is difficult or impossible to recover.