skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Mostly off topic nitpicking, but...

In the International System of Units (SI):

k: kilo- = *1000, prefix
K: kelvin = the unit of thermodynamic temperature

In the IEEE 1541-2002 standard:

b: bit = the basic unit of information
B: byte = a set of adjacent bits (usually, but not necessarily, eight)

This thread contains all possible combinations of the above, with unclear intent, and I don't like it at all. It's not that hard to be unambiguous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1541-2002
"As you may know, Fisker has outsourced Ocean production to Magna-Steyr. However, it's partnering with Foxconn to produce the PEAR."

Foxconn has wanted to produce cars for a while now -- it looks like 2022 is the maturity date for some (related?) projects [1].

[1] https://www.foxconn.com/en-us/press-center/press-releases/la...
Why Mistakes Get Made
We just need a big state to try it: if California or Texas tries it that rule will get repealed very quickly.
People need to learn to take personal responsibility and grow as a person instead of blaming 'social media' because they're a self-admitted asshole.
You had my interest but this is too hard to read when you dont define any of the variables, or explain how a payoff matrix works before jumping into equations
What Marc Andreessen said:

> The enormous payoff from decentralization and permissionless innovation. I cannot believe more people don't understand this. It's so obvious.

What Marc Andreessen meant:

> The enormous payoff for a16z from centralization of our platform and fees from both innovators and users to run on on our platform. I cannot believe more people don't fall for this. It's so frustrating.
Definitely agree. If I ever did get brilliant one day and make something useful or simply exist, I don't think I would post it here. Inevitably the comments would scar me.

I get that founders quickly learn to get past that stuff, but I'm probably too much of a softy.
I just want to chime in to say how astonished I've been in the past with Harvard's behavior, not necessarily with their affirmative action practices, but how they defend them.

I did skim the article, but may not be familiar with the latest stance from Harvard. However, if memory serves their legal defense really just seemed to be that the racism was right. Asian people have inferior personalities (obviously untrue, but that seemed to be what they were saying at times). I was surprised there hasn't been more backlash that this is their present stance (at the time it was and this was not being talked about).

Also, it's worth pointing out that many Asian people are totally playing the game and still getting boxed out. There have been a ton of families that have just said "Okay, this is what we have to do. Be a well rounded person. Show your leadership skills, participate in activities, and be a full person in the community. No problem. We'll just do that."

Many of them don't even have that much of a problem with the policy, and have no issue getting their kids to achieve on that front. They still get denied. I don't have the answer, and don't agree with using criticism of affirmative action as a Trojan horse for white supremacy. However, pursuing an openly racist legal defense that Asian people essentially have worse personalities seems quite shocking to me.
I’m very surprised that there was an image at all. Usually, these articles about movies, clothing, art, or geography don’t have a single picture, even though what they are discussing is inherently graphical. I suspect that it’s because people who read these articles don’t care, because they don’t read them to become actually informed, they read them simply to feel smarter.
There are definitely cliques of thought on HN, it is probably good that politics is largely off limits.
I do not like Microsoft being of an age that saw the anti competitive behaviour and trashing of open source but there is a large group of pro Microsoft people on HN (It is OK).
What would you like to see more of or less of?
I always find it funny when people like this are referred to as "expatriates" rather than immigrants.
This is not directed at the parent, I know nothing about the parent's situation.

But god damn am I sick of rich kids. I thought I would get some catharsis from kicking them around like a soccer ball on the biggest field in consumer technology, but it didn't really make me feel any better.

One guy stomping the shit out of legacies at Ivies for a few years doesn't change anything. This year, next year, ten years from now: paper-failures like @sama will still know the right people.

"I didn't make anything anyone wanted, and I'm still rich as fuck."
Google Rewards Indian Techie With $8.7M in vulnerability rewards
The reason that the quality on Reddit is higher is because there’s people moderating those quality subreddits. Without those moderators it would all turn to crap and be just as useless as Google.
Loss of connectivity to Ukraine's Bank impacting ATM and banking services
Is there evidence for the finite balloon option?

I've always kind of struggled with understanding what people mean when they say "the universe is expanding".

My simple mental model is that the 'universe' is topologically R^3, simply going on forever like in a math class, but there's a finite amount of matter, and so there's a giant ball where all the stuff is. And some people might call that ball where all the stuff is 'the universe' and _that_ is expanding into the infinite R^3. Of course, if that's the case some matter is on the edge and some in the center.

Then there's the option of R^3 and homogeneous with and infinite amount of stars. I _think_ this can be disproven by arguing the night sky would be bright.

And there's the balloon bit where the universe is homogeneous with a finite (but growing) volume and a fixed amount of matter getting less and less dense.

But, I'm curious if first option has been disproved in favor of the third.

(And yes there's the theory of relativity so R^3 is wrong, something something spacetime which I never quite got.)
One of my favorite genres of HN posts is the "hey I'm 25 and got into a FAANG, lemme tell ya about life" posts.

It's second only to my all time favorite of "I left a company, and here's a blog post about why you should care" post.

Only in this industry can people lack the self-awareness and realization that nobody cares.
My friend briefly had a copywriting job writing weed strain descriptions for dispensaries. He was never provided the product he was describing, just told to make it up.
There is a bit of a catch 22 here. I think you're right. Most of the garbage floating about our public discourse (and I would submit most of it is garbage) is rooted in some legitimate facts. So your MIL will get some of these skeptical headlines, perhaps with some of these more conspiratorial groups capitalizing on and embellishing the these things. I think what you say is happening is....

... but on the other side, the same thing happens. Stories such as yours get posted about and even reported on and then different organized movements build these up into narratives and use these narratives to push for the silencing of skeptical points. In the end it's really the exact same behavior: get a few facts (in context or not), build your own narrative, add a substantial amount of emotionalism so it's less about the facts anyway, and you have a ready population of true believers that for the most part won't change their views.
He may not know you don't want to be a "tech bro"
Sure, it's possible that if I put in the effort and practiced I could get better at conversation, and this might be a good venue for doing it.

But if I put in the effort, I could also be a much better artist. Or a much better cook, and there are plenty of venues that would be good for it.

I get along fine with my coworkers. In all the horrible peer-judging that goes on in Google performance reviews, "Hard to work with" almost never comes up for me. Nor does, "doesn't know what is going on". Nor does, "I wish they would be more socially confident."

I get along just fine. But enforced social time with people who I'm not doing projects with? No thanks. I'll do my job, communicate about my job in the standups and whatever normal checkins we have.

Fortunately, my skills are in high enough demand that if a role puts more social demands on me, I can just bail for another team or company. It's nice that way.
I'd pay some serious money to have an iPod like that again. Just music, no bullshit, long battery life, top notch UI/UX. We went backwards.
One could argue that the initial trigram-based google search is essentially "grep for the web" in terms of the results it provides.
Trying to remove judgement from my comments has made a huge positive change. I think your comment is true, and I think most of those people mean well. I just don't know that they understand the implications. I sure didn't.
Definitely is; NYC wasn't as bad as the west coast cities you named, but it's been a few years since I visited.

Part of the reason is the “temperate” climate in those coastal cities making it possible to live in an RV or camp most of the year. The other one is that there’s a policy of not preventing the encampments in the first place (check out Santa Monica for instance).
I have been appending reddit to my queries for 1-2 years now. I agree with everything in the article, but I believe that the whole AI trend had a larger negative effect on Google than more ad optimization.

Just like the gmail effect, teams internally have been pushing to integrate AI into search results. Not necessarily because it's the best thing to do, but because someone needs to get promoted. They can't just leave search as it is.

Of course, "best thing to do" is meaningless. What are the metrics? Getting reliable metrics and running big A/B tests is really hard if you have to measure fuzzy things like user satisfaction instead of concrete metrics like CTR. But that's really what's going on here. Initially, users may have been clicking and interacting with results more, but after realizing that those results are not actually what they wanted, or are SEO spam (hello Medium), they become disillusioned and append reddit to their query.
Being paid to take a walk and talk to some people seems reasonable to me. So long as they don't expect me to stay late to "make up for lost time" while doing the exercise.
Judge orders the release of alleged Bitcoin launderer Razzlekhan on bail
It's very interesting to me as somebody's who's been making and burning Reddit accounts since before the Digg implosion. 15 years ago, I trusted what I saw on Reddit when it came to things like products: If I came across a post on the best can openers, I had some certainty that people were just sharing their opinions on can openers.

Now I don't trust a single damn thing I see on that site.
try Yandex, it's really good
Some years ago, I read an autobiography by Jim Clayton, the founder of mobile home manufacturer Clayton Homes, now a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary.[a]

One anecdote in the book stuck with me: In the early days of the business, Jim kept getting pestered by salespeople from the Yellow Pages, who told Jim he would benefit from advertising in the Yellow Pages to attract new customers.[b] Jim decided to run a test. He ordered and installed a new red phone in the office, ordered a new phone number just for the red phone, and bought a big ad in the Yellow Pages listing only the line that rang the red phone. The ad ran for a year. No one ever called the red phone. Jim never again spent a cent advertising on the Yellow Pages.

By then, the only consumers and businesses who actually searched the Yellow Pages for products and services were those who didn't have a choice, e.g., out-of-towners needing a plumber who couldn't get the name of a trustworthy plumber from a trusted neighbor.

As regards Google, as its search results and rankings become less trustworthy, more and more people will stop using them to find products and services. Other platforms will benefit, like Reddit. And advertisers will follow, as always.

--

[a] https://www.amazon.com/First-Dream-Jim-Clayton/dp/0972638903...

[b] The Yellow Pages were in essence a low-tech printed-paper version of the search business. Businesses paid to advertise in a thick yellow book, and consumers and businesses searched the index of that book to find products and services. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages
Mastodon's lead dev has always been pro-following the laws of his country, which precludes supporting certain kinds of speech. That's a long way from being anti-free-speech.
Maybe it's gotten worse due to the current economic crisis, or maybe it was just really bad luck, but multiple people we asked for help/directions tried to scam us ( by saying there's this amazing ceremony happening now and you have to take a tuktuk to get you there quickly, and waving to a seemingly random one from those passing on the street).
Slightly different take. The advantage is consistency of goals and simplicity of governance. Private public partnerships are weighed down by a vast number of stakeholders. You can't follow the engineering as easily if your programs are bound to customer review meetings to renegotiate requirements and budget gating every 2-4 years. This adds incredible friction to development.
A product manager's guide to Web3
That inauthenticity comment really hit home for me, too. I realize that I do not trust the internet at large, and haven't for a long time. That's been the real trigger for my retreat from mass social media into smaller, tigher online communities.

Even HN is starting to feel like it wants to sell me something.
I dunno, looking at the growth curve in Paul Graham’s tweet I expect most of the drop in average comment quality can be attributed to the size of the user base. It’s hard to keep high-quality content the norm even in much smaller communities.

/r/nfl had a reputation for high-quality content and wasn’t a particular battleground in the Trump Wars. It’s still a good breaking news feed, and the live game threads are fun, but every post is dominated by joke comments and memes.
I am not an expert, but any advertising >>> no advertising. I would go with your first instincts, slap some cash down in a few different places, and start refining later.
Yeah, I didn't think you were, it was more of a general clarification!
>how do make o (lower case o), O (upper case o)

Actually, that example is perfectly doable on 7 segments.

>coexist on a 7-segment display without ambiguity?

BuT WhAT AbOuT UPpEr AnD LoWEr CaSe d aND q??

No information was lost. It doesn't matter that some glyphs didn't make the cut, because those glyphs were redundant. The engineer didn't get to choose which glyphs they could safely ignore without destroying the underlying message content. That's something that is intrinsic to the underlying alphabet.

Also notice I only included one copy of the 26 letters in the English alphabet bitrate. If you insist that We SHouLD hAvE CApItAl ANd LoWeR CAsE LeTTeRs then the symbol count balloons to 70. That's 6.13 bits per letter which only leaves .87 bits of code space left in a 7-seg system. It should come as no surprise the capitals won't fit. It would be miraculous if they did! I'm sure the precious CaPItAl LeTtERs can be saved by adding an extra segment or two.

>There are other languages of which the scripts do not fit in this view.

Are there, or has no one thought hard enough to figure out the k-segments that would work for those scripts.

>English Roman-derivative alphabet is not "better"

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about anything being better. I said that there is evolutionary pressure towards glyphs simplifying down to the minimum amount of features needed to tell them apart. There is nothing in this hypothesis that is specific to English or even specific to the 7-segment display. This is a purely information theoretic explanation for why the shape of letters evolves in such a way that eventually you could invent something like the 7 segment system.
"you're" you idiot
You could try this if you want to: www.ethicalads.io (by folks at Read the Docs).
It's really not. That was the concensus of many reviews when these things were new. I'm not (by any stretch) implying that DAC differences are 'audiophile snake oil'. There is a difference. It's just that the 'difference' is vastly overstated.
I use DuckDuckGo almost exclusively, and most of the criticisms directed at Google Search also apply to DDG.

I don't think the web can be indexed and searched in the way it has been done. I think it needs human curation.
This is a very misinformed comment. Mexico indeed has enormous issues with violent crime but those incidents are very unlikely to affect expats who choose to retire there.
<sarcasm>Thank god that they "decided" in 2007 that there isn't a limbus for unbaptised babies anymore.</sarcasm>
A quote I saw the other day:

“Decentralized blockchain, hosted on AWS”
I’m working on a new search engine that will allow you to do that. (It’s still a work-in-progress, but you can try it out here: https://entfer.com/).
The phrase "What did [a person] mean by this?" seems easy to reinvent. Are you suggesting this post is trolling us or ... ? I'm having trouble guessing your meaning.
What do square brackets do that quotes don’t?

Potentially related: “Tell HN: Google doesn't work anymore for exact matches” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30130535
Lately, half the results I get are pages that I cant view without paying to some service or signing up for a free trial.. Google literally serves up results that are unreachable ..
> increase the believe [sic] in conspiracy theories

I'm old enough to remember a time before the internet, when the only information sources were newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. I remember reading all of those sources back then and thinking, "man, there's nobody in the entire world who agrees with my viewpoints on anything". I mean, you'd think that, logically, if even 10% of the world agreed with me on anything, at least one of them would be writing for some mainstream media source. But they all seemed to say the same things and believe the same things and agree with each other on almost everything.

I felt like my opinions were so far out of the mainstream that I didn't dare mention one to my close friends. Then the internet came along.

The internet of the mid-90's was almost entirely populated by people who agreed with me on nearly everything. I thought, "how could this possibly be? How could there be so many people who disagree with nearly every opinion you see on TV, hear on the radio or read in magazines or newspapers? Where have they all been this whole time?"

In the past ten years or so, I've seen them slowly disappear though. They dominated the discourse until around 2010 (roughly) but bit by bit we're coming back to the same opinions I used to see on TV, Radio, newspaper and magazines back in the 80's.
Such a simple answer. Thanks. I just did a 10x10 times table and got the following prevalences:

[27, 4, 12, 4, 12, 9, 12, 4, 12, 4]

So '0' has 27% probability, '5' has 9%, and the rest of the evens 12%, the rest of the odds 4%
Quality on any non niche popular subreddits were already abysmal long before 2015. Reddit is useless for anything which is not highly specific but there are some diamonds in the rough: great subreddits exists about fashion, knives, gardening, coffee, shaving and plenty of other weird interests.
> If I were to predict, Google would start identifying trends and slowly start ranking reddit higher for user centric queries. In my limited dev experience, that is already happening for Stack overflow. I love how the results are clubbed together under the first result.

Weird, I'm having the opposite experience with stackoverflow pages. Often I get pages from random websites that copy and paste stackoverflow content with some jammed-in SEO ABOVE the actual stackoverflow results.
"No takebacks." -- the little known Eleventh Commandment.
So you mean the plugins' code, I see, thanks!
I've heard this is why 360 reviews can be flawed. With limited interaction coworkers may only see a small slice of a person's performance, possibly the worst/best.
I know I'm being negative like your article says but your font / background color absolutely obliterated my ability to see for about 30 seconds after closing.
it may not be a good idea, but we can't possibly expect a layperson to have more than one email address.
Looks interesting and something I would love to use but Mac only (I'm using Linux).
I use market manipulation to mean just that, someone manipulating the market in whatever way. I'm not familiar with the legally-oriented meaning of this term.
Apparently, using a machine translation as a basis and working through correcting it to read or write foreign languages is a growing trend and that’s a form of computer assisted literacy if I were to guess.

Bar that, it’s humans outrunning AI in the race to the bottom with a head start. Human people can be forced to be incredibly machine like.
There is a mode that google has which is basically the old mode; since I discovered it recently out of huge frustration with google search results.

After you search for something; select `Tools -> All Results -> Verbatim`

This will get google to actually search the way power users expect. I am surprised how little known this feature is. It should be default, but once known it completely removed my frustration with google search.
This is partially due to the proliferation of data-driven static site generation.

Two types of sites I see popping up are:

1) "shims", which generate the bare minimum static content required to get listed on Google, usually for obscure or long-tail queries

2) "skins", which make exact copies of sites with publicly available context (like Wikipedia or npmjs.org).

Both are enabled by tools like NextJS which allow you to take data and convert it to a static site which does well with SEO.

I wrote about this in depth here: https://zestyrx.com/blog/nextjs-ssg
I like how it makes some aesthetic changes while also maintaining that "programmer" font. That's super cute.

Though honestly, I'm mainly focused on the name. That's such a fantastic and clever name for a font and I can't get over it.
Nothing relevant yet
> If you're deluged with carefully chosen factual information, that's more convincing than outright lies.

I think it's exactly the opposite. It's far easier to convince with outright lies than with carefully chosen facts, because those lies are crafted to match what you want to believe. That's what false conspiracy theories are born of.

Everyone is subject to that bias, even people that consider themselves highly logical.

It starts becoming a problem when it is manipulated to channel broadly held but not expressed resentments.

This is common in ethnically fractured developing societies, where a rumor about something someone in group x did to someone in group y could turn into a coup or war, but it seems that developed societies are no longer immune either.
I've seen it stated that he died of "complications from Crohn's disease" which in my mind would include a surgery gone wrong. I had an unexpected surgery which required anesthesia during a trip abroad myself, it's likely the chances of death from the surgery or event itself were somewhere in the 0.1-1% range.

I'm otherwise young-ish and healthy, and didn't know I had Crohn's before this happened, though I've had intermittent digestive issues that I thought "weren't a big deal" through most of my adulthood. I can only imagine someone who already knew they had Crohn's had it worse than myself.
I love Britney Spears' Toxic.

But seriously, thew world is toxic, rejoice if you ever find a place you feel is not toxic, and then lament that it will invariably become so. Or recognize that the simple happenstance that led you to find it will also be it's downfall because other people will find it via the same means and either you or them are not welcome by a portion of those already on the platform.
Are you debasing the conversation? /haha