skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What do you think about the argument (presented in this 2hr video[1] and elsewhere) that cryptocurrency, by its nature, is contrary to ideas like equality? For example, the deflationary nature of many cryptocurrencies means that early adopters get a huge leg up. But not all late adopters are late by choice, for example someone not yet born can't choose to invest in Bitcoin early and ride it "to the moon".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
China’s friendship with Russia has boundaries, despite what their leaders say
Art, as well; Van Gogh died a failure.
I don't think there's a reason, tbh. See the list I added to my earlier post. It's all kinds of countries with relatively little in common.
That's unfortunate. Does your company buy a lot of these?

Perhaps they can get in touch with your supplier to pass a complaint about the poor update so they might be able to pass it on to their devs and hopefully fix the issue?
You're basically right, but hardware manufacturers are not known for writing sane firmware and a lot of people have been burned enough times to absolutely never ever trust that reasoning.
That sounds more like Google sending you to the wrong page on Home Depot's site, no? If you punch in "belt drive garage door opener" on the actual Home Depot website it returns the results you want.
> despite all the theoretical work, it's not physically possible to bias a coin to any notable degree.

> I get the idea as shorthand for a binary outcome, but the way you make a coin fair is to flip it.

That's a case of working from false assumptions that aren't necessarily true in practice.

The way to make a coin flip fair is to control as many variables as possible during the flip and landing - because that is what is done by people who bias the flip. Only one of these variables is the coin itself.

Bias sometimes exists in the apparatus around the coin. After all some historical coins have ferrous metal in them, as the simplest example.

Bias can also be introduced by the people performing the flips. For example, there are people who can flip a coin onto its edge or with an outcome biased towards heads or tails. A flip onto the coin's edge can even be done by an amateur. [1]

After all, even without bias a coin can land on its edge. See this CBS News video from a Soccer game's ref flipping a coin. [2]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0I-xm7iCBU.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz3VwRLsfX0
Thomas Kuhn has a model for characterizing the stages of science. One of these stages is the paradigm shift -- a completely new framework to represent theory replaces an old one. I would suspect that the major contributions of geniuses correlates with paradigm shifts.

It may be possible (albeit difficult) to quantify when paradigm shifts have occurred in different fields over time. Perhaps that can be used to roughly determine whether genius output has decreased.

My interpretation of this idea presented in the article is that these days most paradigm shifts are smaller, but they happen more frequently. So an individual brilliant person ends up having less of an impact themselves, relative to someone in the past. No one is individually remembered for being an incredible genius. But a huge number of very brilliant people makes smaller but faster incremental changes to science.

This may also be happening in the arts, but I don't know if it applies the same way.
Here's looking forward to the acronym becoming "AANG" so we can make Airbender references and quote the show.

For today I think I'll just go with the pithy "If I try, I fail".

Edit: More charitably and optimistically, I just googled Avatar quotes, and found Aang also said: "When we hit our lowest point, we are open to the greatest change".
Russian is ambivalent in this way. For example, they say "on the plain" but "in the field." It's just generally accepted usage, not a rule. Sometimes the choice depends on a local or family's tradition, even: some say "in the hallway" but "on the kitchen" while others would say it the other way around (either way they would never use the same preposition, strangely enough).
What an interesting link! I really enjoyed the story titled "Helps for Homely Women" about the dangers of mouth-breathing/breathing exercises for corset wearers and the blurb about the etymology of the word "doily". Although I can't seem to find anything to corroborate the doily tale...
Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20220316152807/https://www.econom...
> While if we look around today, we see all the people who will never make it into the history books

I think this is largely because modern geniuses don't market themselves well. I mean the world is undeniably rampant with genius, but if you can't market your genius via social media or other means, then you fade into the background.

Consider that there are people on the spectrum who are bad at social interaction and can't be a 'Youtuber' or 'influencer' so easily.
Words mean things. It's when they're applied to contentious topic that they become political.
To be fair, the protection in this case is the threat of retaliation.
how many amps does the PSU draw at the wall under full load? there's probably something like a pico/nano PSU that will work with AT (those were AT, right?)
The maximum is 4% or €20M whichever is HIGHER.

So, for a one-person startup, €20M means game over.

https://danuker.go.ro/gdpranoia.html#fines
There was a previous attempt at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29149054 s2
Is there proof that tiger parents are not effective? Many high achievers I have met have had parents that pushed them from early on. Casually dismissing this effect without any metrics seems an error.
I appreciate this article, but this strikes me as the latest wave of Western style virtue signaling (for people who aren't actually fighting), and an attempt to create a new offensive reference out of nothing.

I'm married to a Ukrainian (half of whose family has fled to Poland, the other half who is stuck in Kyiv due to the conscription laws), so the war has impacted us quite a bit and I wish it to be over soon.

With that said, I've been informed that before this conflict started, there was nothing offensive about this linguistic difference (between saying "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" in Russian). Similar to how British and U.S. English has subtle differences (in spelling or idioms), but one nationality hearing the other isn't offended by one practice or the other.

Am I wrong? I'm curious what actual Ukrainians think about this. Was saying "the Ukraine" actually offensive to you, before this whole conflict started? (If so, I'll shut right the hell up.)
Government research is for breaking ground that is too costly for the private sector or doesn't have a financial pay off. After the private sector steps in government should move on to new frontiers.

Taxing billionaires will not solve anything. It is just a shoe in the door for more taxes for you. No matter what the government gets in taxes it will never be enough to satiate the desire to spend other people's money. Just remember, anything that is applied to billionaires also will be applied to you. After all, we are all equals.
Maybe something to do with orbital forces / sea currents...?
Is this actually how it is done? I would assume that the complete ENTSO-E grid cannot be perfectly phase-synchronous anyway, simply due to the physical dimension of the grid and the speed of light.

I would have guessed that frequency-synchronicity is sufficient for coupling two grids, and then you could use something like a phase shifting transformer to control the power flow?
Works for fictional characters as well, like Goku who is a genius martial artist.
THIS!!

I've also been using CAD professionally for nearly two decades (RhinoCAD), and was intrigued by the title. When I saw it was just a GitHub code page, without even much for documentation, etc. My response was basically "nevermind", although I did come to check the comments - the video definitely highlights capabilities in a way I would never have guessed form the GH link.

In short, some basics that I learned while building software companies (before doing materials & CAD):

1) Most users have very little imagination - we MUST really spell everything out and draw the connections for them, at least until they get to the "AHA" moment.

2) Most potential customers have no interest or knowledge of software and how it works (software for artists this goes double++). They want to know what it can do FOR THEM, not how cool it is for us

3) A decent approximation for how well users will understand something is what we as software experts would understand with a new application or feature set when we are very tired and in a huge rush - think what you can figure out in less than a minute at 3AM when you've been crunching for days under a deadline, and someone brings in a new thing - it isn't much; you don't really GAF about the new thing, if it isn't really obvious, you'll skip it for now. That level of insight is what is available for a non-expert after a half hour of presentation. So, whatever it is, you need to design it and the presentation of it so that it meets that criteria - you could present it to your peer at 3AM in crunch time and they'd be able to pick it up and use it (or at least get the "AHA" moment and see the utility).
Those statements are not grammatically questions, but they are questioning statements. You can easily turn them into rhetorical questions:

"LOL, do you really think someone is going to use your search engine over Google?"
Are you trying to sabotage yourself here? Your rant is completely innefectual as a means of communication.

Please try to adhere to the site guidelines and perhaps try citing a single source that backs up any of your claims. Until you learn to discuss this stuff in an constructive manner, I'm done trying to help you.

> Given that there are only 3900 of them in the country, I just don't believe that any of them were actually telling the truth.

I didn't claim to be an active operator. In fact I made in clear I haven't been an active operator in a long time. In addition, I would be absolutely unsurprised to find that a significant number of us are on HN given the type of people who are drawn to that field.
If it was about equality, there would be nothing to miss out on.
"It shows that Democratic run states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington, etc.) have lower murder rates than Republican run states (Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, etc.)"

It's only showing the top ten. If it's actually claiming that, then we would need to see the comparison of all states, because some of the Republican run states have lower rates than some some of the Democrat run states. So it seems that we can't make that absolute statement.

We can see things like how New England is split between party and yet the rates are similarly low regardless of party running the state (still not addressing the city level claims). The article makes no mention of this. It simply picks the top ten, as Republicans could do for the cities with the highest murder rate. Neither address policies or the true underlying issues.

On top of that, it's looking at states that voted for Trump. Why did they choose this instead of looking at the governor's party? If they did that, the top state would flip categories.

Again, this article feel like a distraction that is highly politicized, mismatches counter argument to argument, and offers very little actual substance. Not to mention, the article is not presented in a way that would do anything other than validate one side's already held belief rather than dig into the topic.
> You said "When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture."

That’s at least the second time you direct quote me on something I didn’t say. That’s the definition of dishonest or you don’t know how quotes work.

If you had better reading comprehension you would clearly see my post isn’t about what the US should do or shouldn’t do, much less about “they should jump off the bridge because everyone else is jumping off a bridge.” My post was about “why” the US isn’t a a signatory to the Rome Statue. The list of other countries not signatories to the Rome Statute, for the most part, have a history of foreign aggression and human rights abuses, the US included, so of course they don’t want to subject themselves to the ICC because it is against their interests to submit themselves to a tribunal that has jurisdiction over their actual and/or anticipated crimes.

> It's because the US (like the major EU powers) make a choice - get a seat at the table or don't. Joining provides no guarantees that they'll adhere to the rules of membership. If the UN were to pass a resolution saying "Russia rightfully owns Poland and the land within the prior borders of East Germany". You think Germany will go "gee golly, we're a member of the UN so we better just hand it over". No, they'd weasel their way out of their obligations and defend their sovereignty. Just like the US and every other nation would.

And yet the US is a member of the UN and not the ICC. Your response does nothing to explain the question I asked you to defend your position, why the US would be part of the UN and not the ICC.

Good luck in your future endeavors.
> I suspect that it's actually because nobody has actually find the legwork to go beyond that: how much in taxes, levied how, the money goes where, what are the penalties for non compliance?

It seems like everyone paying attention wants to use it, there are a number of proposals for exactly the issues you raise, and yet it still never happens. One might almost suspect that the people who fund the people who make policy decisions don't want it to happen. It even almost seems like they may be beholden to demands for short-term profits.
Not sure I grasp your question really. In this sense, the form you use is correct.

Do note however that Swedish is famous for multiple meanings of words.

The verb "ska" (short form of "skola"), has at least 5 meanings.

1. will do <something>: "jag ska bara äta först"

2. (conditionals), something could happen: "om du hade pengar, skulle du ha råd med en iphone"

3. (enforcing rules): "man ska inte slå sina barn"

4. (signaling intention): "jag ska åka på semester"

5. (communicating an statement, not nessecarily truthful): "han ska vara välhängd"
I guess sample it if you're dealing with some pasta you're not used to, else timer is 100% reliable. I used to like William Rushton's "Superpig" (basics for bachelors) book method of throwing a strand at the wall - if it sticks, it's done!
The cynic in me says: oh no another scripting platform that can be compromised.

The programmer in me says: what cool stuff can I do with that.
The quality of this thread is really disappointing. Conservatively, about 80% of the replies, criticisms, suggestions, re-framings, here are addressed in the article by the author. About 20% of the replies here are responding to the title alone (and therefore focused on Einstein/progress in hard science).

The piece is about the kind of education the children of the aristocracy received and how it has disappeared entirely.
Plus, several passes of lossy video compression.
What is meant by superpower? In the field of International Relations (IR) it has a specific meaning (which I unfortunately don't remember right now!) but contrast it with a regional power:

Russia, China, and Iran are regional powers: they have significant influence in the area near their borders. Russia controls Belarus, part of Georgia, part of Ukraine, has great influence part of Moldova, etc. Iran influences the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, etc. Russia can fight a major war in Ukraine, right on Russia's borders. But you couldn't imagine (or shouldn't be able to) Russia or Iran fighting a major war across an ocean - they don't have the resources to do that. Similarly, if Russia or Iran threaten economic sanctions on immediate neighbors, those neighbors have a problem. If they threaten them on say, Mexico, Mexico will mostly not care.

The U.S., by contrast, is a superpower: If the US threatens sanctions, most countries have to pay serious attention - notice that the US sanctioned Russia, which is crippling Russia's economy. Russia also sanctioned the US - has anyone noticed? The US military can fight wars anywhere in the world, and operates around the world with bases on every inhabited continent. And not all power is coercive and negative, especially for free democracies. The US has a network of friendship and alliances that span the world, as you can see in the response to Russia, stretching from Europe to the US to East Asia (Japan, etc.). The world admires the US (a little less now), follows their culture, listens to their music, uses their iPhones, Androids, Windows computers, Macs, etc. The Beatles sang with American accents. Programming languages worldwide are in English.

China is not a superpower yet. However, the main requirements of a superpower are income, which China may soon lead the world in, population, and enough political stability to focus outside their borders (e.g., not fighting a civil war). China seems to be on their way. But it takes much more: I pointed out the US's network of alliances and friendships. Dictatorships have few friends, beyond those they buy or conquer; the USSR conquered many (the non-Russian countries in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact) and bought more. The US alliances are why the leading power in East Asia is ... the US, not China. Japan and South Korea, among others, would rather align with the US, who promotes and defends their freedom, than China, who existentially threatens it. If you add up the US alliances, China is far behind.

The hope is that in China, like former dictatorships that threatened the US like Japan and Germany, the people will some day be free to run their country as they wish (i.e., democratically), and then there is no reason for the competition. Their relationship with the US can be like Europe, Japan, etc.: Great trade partners, allies, who would never imagine war with each other. It's hard to imagine why the Chinese people would want otherwise - run their own country, live in peace (with no threat of war), be free, get wealthy - but the Communist Party obviously has other plans right now.
The transition was awful but both Python 2 and Python 3 are good languages
Great question. 1/12 x 1/12 x 1/12 -- odds seem kind of low...but could possibly be related to ocean currents, seasonal flow systems probably significantly shift the center of mass of large bodies of water, maybe related to temperature.
Limitless resources in theory, but in practice the limits will be set by logistics and therefore planning. It is of little comfort knowing there's a wheat shipment 5 light-minutes out when there's a famine right now.
Cool! I can't promise any contributions, but I hope it succeeds. 2 things: it looks like this is a platform for generalized build/tech trees, and I think that is the right approach. I think you need a "poster child" project though, like what Wikipedia is to Mediawiki. Pick something that everyone can benefit from, for example the "civilization build tree". And start drawing attention to it, which will draw attention to engine powering it.

Imo, the biggest area to focus will be reducing the barrier to entry. We're people who are comfortable with version control, but your average person isn't. The underlying software can still be version controlled, but you need a way for normal people to add/edit/remove nodes so that they can start contributing. You also need a system for inferring experts in different areas, and allowing them elevated privileges.
For one, PHP generally outperforms Python by a large factor.

Also, to claim trust has been "broken" is just weird.
Every software engineer should be well aware of the horrible mess that is the PHP language even if they had just had a cursory glance at it.

In any case. I would never pick PHP on purpose either. Even if it was the most appropriate tool in a given situation.
It simply makes my blood boil, and I don't care if it's irrational.
The thing most people don't mention is that after the March 11th 2011 earthquake, we had daily aftershocks, the kind you could easily feel, which lasted for months. Seems to happen mostly at night, most disconcertingly, as I was woken up out of bed more times than I could count with ones large enough to cause me to jump up and think the "big one" was hitting Tokyo.

Took me a good year, and moving out of Japan, to calm down about it and realize just how much daily stress it had caused me, how much on edge you are after something like this. Of course, nothing happened, but when your system is constantly in heightened awareness mode, the way I expect soldiers in a warzone feel wondering if there's someone around the corner waiting to get you, you start to build up PTSD in a real way.

Side note: add in a bit of nuclear fallout concern, plus having young kids and some playgrounds in Tokyo getting abnormally high enough readings they had to close them... oh, in addition to tainted food supply, and you'll maybe understand.
Hmmm.

> ... entrepreneurial individuals all around the world who apply to receive an Orb to run independent operations in their communities

Ok, so they get an 'Orb' ("a custom biometric device") and then ..

> We call these individuals Orb Operators and give them the
autonomy to build their operations from the ground up

Generous of you, what do they do though?

> So far, the best performing Operators have been able to onboard around one thousand users per Orb per week, with our best performing Operator even signing up 2,198 users in one week with a single Orb

So they 'onboard' people with their Orbs. What does that involve?

> 2. The Orb scans the user’s irises and locally computes the user’s IrisHash.

Ok, sounds great. Are they sure that iris scans are unique?
> Asked about the complaints, Blania said that some operators were unhappy that the company would no longer be paying them, and said that some of them “did questionable things or didn’t perform well.” He also noted that the operators can have “very misaligned incentives” with the larger startup.

Setting aside the initial operational challenges (national regulations, smartphone access, operator conduct), there seems to be a serious misunderstanding or perhaps oversimplification of economics for a “world coin.” Of course there is going to be fraud if the system you set up (where each operator gets paid for each person they recruit (a questionable distribution model already)) incentivizes recruitment only with no quality control. Of course there are going to be people scanning dog eyes, dead people’s eyes, eventually fake eyes because why wouldn’t they? You have not created a system where they should not do this, unless you’re relying on honesty, a strange assumption for a cryptocurrency.

Paired with the seeming indignation the leadership has that people don’t like 1) not getting paid for their work and 2) when you close up shop after harvesting their biometric data, this seems to be a very naive system at the outset. Plus, really, you’re answer to “open source our biometric data we gave you” is “we’ll open source our protocol”? Cryptocurrency is about ownership. I own my private key, but now with world coin, I can’t own my own eyes?
Interesting list. It really doesn't seem to have any agenda, I think it would be hard to argue that Switzerland or the Netherlands are somehow regarded less than Austria or Belgium.
tl;dr: Publicly traded company secures its namespace.