skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see from the comments that many here don't get what he is talking about. I think he sums it up nicely in the end:

> I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: we see in the concept of games —here it comes again— a double mouvement, and indeed something approaching an autoantonymy. The concept in question can signify both a free play of the imaginative faculty, a Schillerian Spieltrieb; and it can signify a situation in which one is bound by formal constraints on one’s motions, and is therefore compelled to respond to one’s existence fundamentally through coming up with strategies. The gamification of our social life, which was honed and perfected on social media before it jumped the fence to affectivity, labor, and who knows what’s next, forces us to sacrifice free play to strategic play, and the leisurely flight of the imagination to narrow problem-solving.

> On the face of it, the gamification of reality looks like fun. But when everything becomes a game, it turns out, that game ends up dissolving into its merely apparent opposite: work. The dupes of the new ideology, underlain by the metaphor of the game, think they’re giving us life in an arcade —a child’s dream!— but what we’re really getting is life in a global warehouse, monitored and metricized, forced at every turn to devise strategies that maximize engagement with whatever it is we’re putting out there… all in the name of scraping by.
Yes! Crossing the boundary between code + DB allows things like showing "this url could read/write these table columns", down to "hover over data to see the source" levels. This can track what has been accessed in the past year vs. no longer used, etc.

You can also reverse engineer missing foreign key relationships by parsing all of an apps' stored procedures (for relationship diagrams, etc.). Or just what external entities are referenced from "other" databases to get an idea of minimal schemas needed for automated testing.
The claim that skill does not exist or that people are totally unable to recognize how good they are at anything is quite radical.

You are sort of smuggling in the assumption for example that Olympian medalist lifters, when asked how much they can deadlift, will have the same distribution of answers as people who never deadlift (but are aware that totally sedentary men can probably deadlift like 200lbs and totally sedentary women can probably deadlift like 150lbs). If this were true, it would be worth publishing a paper about it.

It's sort of surprising to me to read your comment because TFA is an extended rebuttal of your comment.

> I think a lot of controversy comes from how Dunning and Kruger's paper leads people to interpret the data as hubris on the part of low-performers, and the statistical analysis demolishes that interpretation. Not knowing how well you performed is not the same thing psychologically as "overestimating" your performance.

D-K actually found that low performers were less accurate at assessing their skill than high performers, and the article you refer to obviously did not find this effect in random data, so I'm not sure how it was demolished.
I have multiple github profiles, because GitHub did not allow me to keep commits to certain public repositories from being broadcast to my public activity feed on my profile. I did not want to broadcast certain commits to the world just yet, so I made a new account for that purpose. Now that I can set my whole profile to private, I can try to merge the accounts.
> Imagine if Musk had tried to buy a big three automaker in order to make electric cars happen.

Bad analogy. Social media platforms are natural monopolies. The utility of a car doesn't grow with how many other people own that model. By contrast, Twitter's utility is basically just a function of the fact that all the relevant players use it.
Sadly in Europe a lot of these transactions are done on debit cards, which make redress much harder if not impossible - once the money is out of the account, it's gone for good. Banks may or may not eat the loss depending on a number of factors, size being one of them: 4+digit amounts will likely never be reimbursed.

But yeah, CC are safer, it's one of the things you pay for (typically by mean of higher prices, as merchants pass on their CC fees to customers).
On a related vein, I managed to identify the source of a leak via the scammer emailing me with the password I used only on LiveJournal: https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/anatomy-of-...
This sounds like they're trying to prevent people running farms of Mac minis AWS style, rather than using them as a server. But a highly paid Apple layer may still disagree.
> Most of their main arguments (...) evaporate as soon as you start using the correct tooling.

You silly! Just use these carefully curated list of 28 different tools (that I got to after years of trial and error) and you'll have a somewhat acceptable tooling and type support in Python.
The reasonable middle ground is, or probably should be, closer to the latter end than the former end unfortunately.

Put simply, science is advertised as self-correcting but in reality it's not. Representative experience documented here: http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2021/01/i-tried-to-rep...

So, the reasons people learn a generalized distrust of science are that often the sausage doesn't get made. Bad science is published, applauded, cited, breathlessly covered in the media and may even be replicated, yet the first time outsiders to the field actually read the paper they realize it's nonsensical. But then they realize nobody cares because careers were made through this stuff, so why would anyone inside the field want to unmake them?

The degrading trust doesn't come from bad results per se, but rather the frequent lack of any followup combined with the lack of any institutional mechanisms to detect these problems in the first place beyond peer review, which is presented as a gold standard but is in no way adequate as such.

For example, consider how programmers use peer review. We use it, and we use lots of other tools too because peer review is hardly enough on its own to ensure quality. Now imagine you stumbled into a software company that held a cast-iron policy that because patches get reviewed by coworkers you simply don't need a test suite, nor manual testing, nor a bug tracker, code comments, security processes, strong typing, etc. And their promotion process is simply to make a ranking of developers by commit count and promote the top 10% every quarter, and fire the bottom 10%. Moreover they thought you were nuts for suggesting that there was any problem with this. You'd probably want to get out of there pretty fast, but, that's pretty much how (academic) science operates. So of course this degrades trust.
Two sources:

1. Companies who use dark patterns to spam you even though they implied they wouldn't, and who continue to spam you even after you try and unsub from them. Even Google are bad at this... you can explicitly unsub from everything but dare to purchase another product and they'll yet again include some tiny checkbox somewhere that has resubbed you. These feel like Sisyphean subscriptions.

2. Individuals with similar names who cannot get their own email right and seem determined to never receive their travel documents, insurance policies and other things, and who leave you subscribed to obscure local mailing lists like the one for dog rescue in Florida which I am a BCC on and I can't get the list owner to effectively unsub me, or the school in North Carolina who keep telling about my namesakes child who needs to prep some piece of homework and they tell me this via a no-reply address.

There's not a lot of "leaked email address is used for spam" as one imagines... at least, it's almost zero.
To be even more fair, counted constant sized loops never required particularly good branch prediction, especially if the code is well laid out so that your "miss" does literally one more cheap step.

Misprediction there means you computed one more vector or value, not a huge loss compared to a cache miss. Branch misprediction hurts a lot when it forces a cache miss mostly, whether it's for data or for instructions, or ties up a deep instruction pipeline completely with lousy abort, which most CPUs do not have. (See: Nehalem.)
Scenes when Twitter algo is literally just what you and your friends like and retweet - not even clicks or anything. Wonder if Jack Dorsey will have been responsible for the end of democracy then.
Group think exists in science too, I mean Newton calling Leibniz a copy cat was a set back and it's crazy that I still had to learn about the priority controversy almost 300 years later. We feed on unneccessary controversy.
> Without becoming an expert yourself it's very difficult to know who or what to trust.

Who says there is anyone who can be trusted? People keep looking for leaders they can trust and it takes only a brief look at history to see that the search won't stop despite the jaw dropping futility of the exercise.

The important thing is to check that people have incentives to tell the truth and no conflicts of interest. I'd trust someone untrustworthy if they were making money off my well-being. The only thing to watch out for is them not being forthright about their incentives.

We shouldn't trust that skyscrapers stay up because engineers are trustworthy. They stay up because the engineer goes down with the building.
Just hash raw bytes. Treat it as data and set a maximum byte limit.
the code is provided as is, without warranty.
When I saw the graphs in the original article I immediately came to a different conclusion - that people with a given amount of skill have low confidence in their ability to gauge how skilled they are compared to an arbitrary group.

For example, if someone gave me (or you) a leetcode-style test, and told me I'd be competing against a sample picked from the general population, and ask me how well I did, I'd probably rate myself near the top with high confidence.

Conversely, if my competitors were skilled competitive coders, I'd put myself near the bottom, again with high confidence.

Now, if I had to compete with a different group, say my college classmates, or fellow engineers from a different department, I'd be in trouble, if I scored high, what does that mean? Maybe others scored even higher. Or if I couldn't solve half of the problems, maybe others could solve even less - point is I don't know.

In that case the reasonable approach for me would be to assume I'm in the 50th percentile, then adjust it a bit based on my feelings - which is basically what happened in this scenario, and would produce the exact same graph if everyone behaved like that.

No need to tell tall tales of humble prodigies and boastful incompetents.
lol. Yeah, censor my reply instead of explaining how exactly my comment is against the guidelines.

The double standard is palpable. Criticizing Scholz for lying is apparently a no-go but we can call Putin a monster https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Obviously not helpful now but could be of interest to someone. This article has always stuck in my mind for when a well known vegan considers leaving. Turned out she needed more fat in her diet which I guess makes sense considering the naturally lean vegan diet especially when combined with raw.

http://bonzaiaphrodite.com/2015/07/when-vegans-get-sick-exce...
Some of the missing features from box to box are annoying for sure, e.g. also no arp on here or Digitakt, but to be fair Elektron do support their devices with significant feature updates for quite a long time so I don’t feel hard done to. But there’s definitely an element of feature segmentation to make you want to buy them all (and it works, lol)
Ask HN: One Single Framework for Developing Mobile, Web and Desktop App?
Considering the amount of expertise each of the framework requires for developing applications, it becomes cumbersome & time consuming to learn many. Is there any single framework out there which can do all the things? We have separate framework for developing application depending on the platform. Something using which one can develop code for all platform - Microservices are good & it's completely ok to build separate microservices too for each platform but is there any single framework which does all of it and have library for the same?
Thank you for your thoughtful response! Lots of insights here!

Re your edit: Yeah based on all the replies so far I think I must've given the wrong impression in my original post. Too much emotion, makes it hard to interpret reality.

I think this maybe gets to the core of the problem, that it's not really to do with the social setting per se, but my attachment with it, and the expectations that go along with it.

Just like here on HN, I easily get carried away with idealizing the place and then become overbearing, too eager to impress. Same online or offline. Except maybe offline, what I've realized, is that people easily get overwhelmed by my eagerness, so they kinda just step back from it all, not wanting to get involved. Whereas online, I can't really overwhelm anyone cuz it's all thrown into the air, and anyone who cares will respond, and those who don't just move on. That's my theory anyway.

But in general, I think the context around us really does matter a lot, like you mentioned. Not just the types of people we meet, but the expectations we/I set up with it.

Another thought that I'm starting to explore, is that perhaps I'm the one that isn't smart enough or well-read enough to carry a conversation with anyone about anything. Whereas online/HN I can pick the topics I know about and go contribute there.

Lots to think about. Me + social life = confusion to the max. And I've been thinking about it and trying things out a lot, and still can't figure it out.
I doubt that. The social features act like a strong gamification feature that keep people hooked. Those chasing this gratification won't go opt into these privacy settings, but those who want the privacy settings might stay in github instead of going elsewhere.
That seems to hold only for new versions of their hardware/software.
Welcome to Apple style of marketing. Want to buy a Magic Mouse?
You don't seem to understand the basic concepts of free speech, securities laws, or what Elon Musk is actually doing. Your question is irrelevant. Accusing me of being intentionally stupid isn't helping your argument.

We have a free market, multiple social platforms exist. Ones that moderate certain content lose certain users. You can chose what level of moderation you want as a customer and platforms can choose what level of moderation they want a business. Moderation technology as a service exists already.

Elon is trying to short-circuit the basic principles of free speech because he lied in a way c-suite executives and directors are not legally allowed to lie as it runs afoul of anti-fraud laws. You may not yell fire in a crowded theatre and you may not use free speech to commit fraud or when you are subject to disclosure laws you may not use free speech as a defense for breaking them.

When you are a corporate officer or director of publicly traded company you agree to following securities laws, specifically not making false statements that may impact stock prices.

Elon's antics got him a twitter-sitter and now he wants to own twitter in some sort of byzantine strategy to get around rules he agreed to (and their consequences necessitating a twitter-sitter) and have helped make him incredibly wealthy.

His arguments about open-sourcing algorithms and protecting free speech are not the actual reasons for his bid to take over twitter, he has simply amassed enough money to try to own a media outlet for the influence he could wield with it. He probably also thinks he can skirt SEC/Judicial rulings about his behavior on twitter if he owns it outright. At Elon's level of wealth, the only thing left to buy is more influence.
That makes you vulnerable to an employee who keeps a list of these magic phrases as he is legitimately calling people for the bank. Practically untraceable.
The answer I get, when asking for an extension, is "we can't take incoming calls" (I think this is supposed to hide the call centre locations?) and they say they can't provide a reference.

So then you call a number for the company that you know and the people have no idea who called or why, and then you think it was phishing ... until it becomes apparent it wasn't -- like a transaction is stopped.

The whole thing is so frustrating.
I believe the poster was implying that contracts should not be superior to law, should not be able to remove a person's legal protections. Enforcing contracts no matter what (or in other words, placing no limits on which contracts it will enforce) should not be a legal system's goal.
I was recently diagnosed with cancer. I've had brain surgery to remove 2 x tumours, targeted Gamma Knife radiotherapy to isolate treatment on an additional 18 lesions in my brain, and a week ago, started immunotherapy for my lungs. All of this has been handled through the NHS, some very clever blood tests and a ton of scans and cross checks. I welcome the additional work being done by the NHS and Cancer Research UK to improve the diagnostic and treatment quality of the disease. Very thankful that I happen to live in the UK as I go through this.
Looks good! Congratulations to the team and the community.

I've always wanted to like K-9 Mail—it is _the_ open source email application for Android, similar to Thunderbird on desktop—but I'm always turned off by the antiquated user interface. FairEmail came on the scene a few years ago and displaced K-9 for many people. It has boatloads of features, is open source, and is fast, but I found the opinionated UI design choices hard to get used to. Eventually I found ways to tone the inbox down to a more traditional list, but I've never been happy, wishing we could have something more like the Gmail app for normal (non-Google!) IMAP/SMTP services.

Long story short: I'm going to try K-9 Mail again!
I was thinking all-digital where possible, only using analog for 1 or 2 channel legacy connections
Here is a talk by Dr. Yegor Derevenets about this project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_0EF2BqeQ4
I don't know why you should be apologizing for this. Your employer has benefited from FOSS products, your PR is the payment back for the community.

I hope you can voice your opinion back. It would be such a dystopia if your employer's attitude become widespread.
Ha look at this guy saying things. What an idiot. DK effect amiright?
A lot of people do avoid the Washington Post because of Bezos' ownership, though. Although I don't really see Bezos using it as his megaphone. It seems to be more or less the same center-left paper as it was before. I don't read it every day, but I don't see articles saying Amazon is great or that unions are bad in it when I do.
No human can perceive lag in the range of 1-2ms. In fact you'll need to put in a lot of effort to reduce input delay between keyboard and screen to 30-40ms under ideal conditions, the average computer is much slower than that [0].

My usual issues with Electron apps are about performance in general, not (just) input. There's a good chance the browser version runs better, and afaik it should also have a smaller resource overhead.

[0] https://danluu.com/input-lag/
End of the road: Apple is killing macOS Server, the place where Mac OS X began
I think the rust-std code added for this project could already be pulled into rust, then. The target names should probably be something like i586-windows-msvc-old. (BTW, if LLVM supports building for plain i386 or i486, support for this should also be considered.)
Vcpkg April 2022 Release Is Now Available
I'm afraid if you're credulous enough to believe a guy claiming that a particular quack's "parasite cleansing" service not only cured him of 24/7 anal sex obsession (which is totally how real gay people feel) but also his friend of late stage cancer is a real life data point and not transparently false advertising for said quack's services, you're probably not in a position to cast aspersions on the quality of medical research, and not because medical research is above criticism. No, you don't need any credentials to testify that you have personally experienced parasite cleansing miraculously curing homosexuality and ailments apparently mistakenly identified as late stage cancer in YouTube video. Nor do you need to have ever been homosexual, or to have the slightest idea what's involved in cancer diagnoses.

Trust me, it's entirely possible to get funding for research into post natal causes of homosexuality and the last high profile study on genetics reached the rather unfashionable conclusion that the most obvious candidate "gay genes" not only had little explanatory power but were more to do with sexual openness in general than homosexuality per se in a blaze of publicity with no career-limiting consequences whatsoever. Please don't mistake professionals' lack of faith in the veracity of stuff like Jennifer Daniels' patient testimony for rigid adherence to their own dogmas.

You are of course free to use your time how you want, and there's value in pursuing unconventional theories, but the ability to screen out palpable nonsense is pretty fundamental to that.
Thinking you know enough to critique others is a self-evaluation.
I think if you wanted to poke holes in the paper you'd start with the generic issues that are typical to much psychological research:

1. It uses a tiny sample size.

2. It assumes American psych undergrads are representative of the entire human race.

3. It uses stupid and incredibly subjective tests, then combines that with cherry picking:

"Thus, in Study 1 we presented participants with a series of jokes and asked them to rate the humor of each one. We then compared their ratings with those provided by a panel of experts, namely, professional comedians who make their living by recognizing what is funny and reporting it to their audiences. By comparing each participant's ratings with those of our expert panel, we could roughly assess participants' ability to spot humor ... we wanted to discover whether those who did poorly on our measure would recognize the low quality of their performance. Would they recognize it or would they be unaware?"

In other words, if you like the same humor as professors and their hand-picked "joke experts" then you will be assessed as "competent". If you don't, then you will be assessed as "incompetent".

Of course, we can already guess what happened next - their hand picked experts didn't agree on which of their hand picked jokes were funny. No problem. Rather than realize this is evidence their study design is maybe not reliable they just tossed the outliers:

"Although the ratings provided by the eight comedians were moderately reliable (a = .72), an
analysis of interrater correlations found that one (and only one) comedian's ratings failed to correlate positively with the others (mean r = -.09). We thus excluded this comedian's ratings in our calculation of the humor value of each joke"

The fact that this actually made it into their study at all, that peer reviewers didn't immediately reject it, and that the Dunning-Krueger effect became famous, is a great example of why people don't or shouldn't take the social sciences seriously.
I can kind of mostly sing up to 35ms or so, but at 40ms and up it's a real clown show.

My playing is already sloppy enough to not be affected till maybe 15 or so.... but it would clearly be different with a pro!
Seems more likely that vinyl and polyester is from furniture and carpeting and such.