skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ah, I see what you mean, but if you contrast "automatic differentiation" and "algorithmic differentiation" with each other, it's counterintuitive to me that these terms should be "oriented" differently. Either I imagine that the differentiation is automated or algorithmized, or I could imagine that it's an automaton or algorithm being differentiated. But it's confusing to me if it's algorithm being differentiated vs. differentiation being automated. Not sure if that explains sufficiently clearly what confused me.
You can buy a EV crate motor for about $4500: https://www.fordracingbyspeedshopdirect.com/ELUMINATOR_MACH_...

You do need a battery and the rest of the electronics too. But it's only a matter of time when you start seeing 100% drop-in replacements for classic cars.
Wouldn't you still have to go through KYC when you cash out your USDT?
.. which is why in the real world central banks are there to act as lenders of last resort. If there's a bank run, print money and lend it to the banks until the run stops.

This is separate from the issues facing stablecoins. I'm reminded of the British government's failed attempt to maintain a "stablepound" against the "stablemark", in the proto-stablecoin mechanism known as the ERM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

Many of the same features are there. Spend the reserves! Increase the interest rates! Ultimately they had to de-peg.

The person on the other side of that trade? George Soros. Yes, really.
It is specified this way on OpenBSD: https://man.openbsd.org/man7/hier.7

> /bin/
User utilities fundamental to both single and multi-user environments. These programs are statically compiled and therefore do not depend on any system libraries to run.

> /sbin/
System programs and administration utilities fundamental to both single and multi-user environments. These programs are statically compiled and therefore do not depend on any system libraries to run.
More feedback:

- Order your dropdown alphabetically, it makes them easier to read and find information you care about.

- (On jobs page) Type of work has a select all button but all values are selected by default. Change Select All to Select None otherwise you have to click a bunch of times to get just the one you care about.
Actually, now that I look at it, make it like the other dropsdowns. Have a Clear button, have nothing selected (with selects everything).

- Searching for a tag in Job title or keyword (like C#) pulls up irrelevant jobs

- Searching companies by country would be great (I think someone else mentioned this)

- Also consider adding more filtering dropdowns for companies to help people determine available values for example: Primary Industry, Benefits, Job Type (ie list all companies with openings for DevOps)
Ofcourse. they muscled Argentina to prevent banks from dealing in it, despite popular support and the banks announcing it.
> Well, don't vote for weeks.

They didn’t say anything about voting taking weeks, they were talking about counting. Counting the votes alone takes weeks. Cyber Ninjas took over 3 months to re-count votes from a single county in Arizona. What’s your proposal there?

> There is complaint that people don't trust the elections, but there are common sense methods to improve said trust

Far and away the biggest common sense thing that could be done to improve trust in elections is for the loser of the last election to stop saying he actually won but for the fraud can’t produce.

> I am not saying there is fraud.

Then why are all the measures you propose designed to stop fraudulent activity? If you don’t think there’s fraud then why the need for anti fraud provisions? If there’s no fraud how would the results be changed with anti fraud measures that don’t prevent any fraud (because it doesn’t exist in the first place)?

And if there’s no fraud, what plans do you have to make sure your anti fraud proposals (that do nothing about fraud) don’t actually end up disenfranchising American citizens and deprive them of their rights? Because you had better go to the ends of the earth to prevent that if your changes are to just make you personally feel better about the process rather than fix any concrete and identifiable problem.
>Well, the only thing that really changes is technology. We don't need 30% of the population doing agricultural labour as we've automated most of it. We can transport goods long distances, giving us access to things no dreamed of 100 years ago. We can communicate instantly across the globe. These are all incredible achievements.

The world is a much better place to be sure. Capitalism has dramatically dropped poverty world-wide. It's great.

>What is the case is that inequality may not go away, but if one's own standard of living is increasing with relatively little effort, then that's the main thing.

Inequality starts before high school but is established at high school. Not everyone is equal, there are kids who are barely passing and there are kids who put the work in and earn top marks. This difference in personality will produce a different outcome.

The barely passing person who ends up in a mcjob earning minimum wage should not get the same benefits from society as the top marks kid who becomes a neuroscientist.

The neuroscientist should be driving his Tesla plaid edition while the mcjob is driving the 10 year old beater.

Inequality is not going away until some seismic shift in scarcity occurs; but even after we eliminate scarcity. There will still be inequality in different ways.
Specifically, neoliberalism was a created to return to the Roaring 20s to rollback the post-Great Depression attempts at economic stability.

Less sardonically, neoliberalism is classical liberalism in the 20th Century but with an 18th Century perspective that ignores the oppressive potential of corporations that are more powerful than nations. Neoliberals have a hard time figuring how to hold "corporate persons" accountable for their violence against humanity and our environment, because they never cared to solve the problem of dilution of responsibility.
It's because we're a society of plenty now. Nobody thinks they need taxes if they already have a road. And a lot of people are just ignorant and don't comprehend the compounding effects of societal inequality.
I think that is wrong.
Understood.

However, it’s also not my problem to solve. That’s a problem for Wired to solve. How I feel about these UX patterns and business models is not negotiable; it’s an honest reaction. How Wired makes money and deals with free use is negotiable.

The internet has not been kind to many business models, particularly, it has been rough on paying for content. That’s just what happens when copying costs basically $0. You can pirate almost anything and people definitely do. Many people will immediately hop on archive.is if they hit one of these patterns. Personally I often just don’t read the article and leave.

In the end, it isn’t my problem if people don’t like my attitude. Wired is trying to sell to me, so it is absolutely their problem if I don’t like this pattern. And guess what? I am, in fact, a former Wired subscriber. Maybe they make more money now that they paywall, but I don’t even care. I’m still going to hate them for it.

Likewise, I will never like or respect being forced into advertisements. If I like something enough, I will pay for it. I pay for YouTube and it feels like a win/win for me.
Me grabbing a gun and a baseball bat and terrorising the neighbourhood into paying me protection money is "me doing my thing" which "leads to some people getting more than others". Yet it's hardly Liberalism (at least as understood in the classical sense of the term, not sure about current "neoliberalism" :))
Innocent until proven guilty.

AFAIK Trump has not been convicted of any "illegal activity" in that regard.
If this were the case I would expect more people to give a shit in higher paying office environments but I’ve actually seen the exact opposite of that. Having more opportunities available allows people to have even less potential consequence for not actually trying.
Or just block the Facebook and Tiktok pixels at the browser level and save yourself the hassle.
https://nitter.net/brian_armstrong/status/152423348004071014...

In other words: We only disclosed these risk factors because we were legally required to. Please ignore our SEC disclosure and half-billion dollar quarterly loss, and instead trust my unregulated statements posted on Twitter. There are no risk factors, your money is safe, the music will never stop.
Wonder if they're trying to bait him away from Truth Social (his failing competitor platform)
counterpoint: we purchased a used Ford Fusion Energi from Carvana via a trade-in. it was seamless and worked way better than my purchases through dealers. they couldn't deliver the car to our house, so we drove to the vending machine to pick it up. one of the carvana employees drove the trade-in and did a light visual inspection to confirm condition and another handed us our new car. we even saw it go down the vending machine chute.

that was four years ago. car's in great shape still even after several tens of thousands of miles.

they paid off the old auto loan within a few weeks. it was straightforward.

only tesla has this experience beat, but it's close. i hope they expand.
So throw your hands up and close the office. It's a win-win. No wasted effort on their part, and no flow of garbage websites on our part.
No. When we're 100% trans human robots -- that's when science will really start to advance!
An interview is a two-way street. Presuming you're the candidate, the organisation is selling itself as much as you are you. The key difference is that there tend to be more candidates than positions --- the employer has a superior BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement).

That said, I've had several interviews I'd concluded I wasn't interested quite early in the process. In one case I wrapped relatively quickly, and immediately told the recruiter I was not in the least interested. In another, the situation wasn't hostile, but was so bizzare I continued the interview simply to try to understand what the heck was going on.

It would be extraordinarily rare for an interview to pose a direct threat, so continuing with a viewpoint that the experience is simply practice doesn't hurt. I've also had other staff who'd interviewed me and then left that position contact me with other offers, so from a networking perspective, the experience can still be useful.

There were other opportunities I should have passed on but did not. Having additional options is extraordinarily useful. Those are among my regrets.
3 months ago J Powell (of Kraken, not Fed lol) adviced his users not to keep their crypto on his exchange[0]. Not the best business move either. A possible explanation might be provided here: https://twitter.com/jespow/status/1498112744754606081

0. https://twitter.com/jespow/status/1494462097161220104?lang=e...
Eh, in my experience that’s about the same weight as an old Ampeg SVT head.
No, I left custodial holdings out of those numbers.

The dead reply to my comment at the top of the thread makes a good point that loss of the custodial holdings in a hack would bankrupt them.
> Nobody wants to have to carry dead weight.

But there's a lot of "dead weight" to carry. And it has a voice and a vote.
He's been proven guilty. He did it on live tv.

The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.
In Finland McDonalds has been installing 350kW chargers at their locations for a few years now.

It's pretty much the perfect location, the car usually charges faster than you can wolf down your Big Mac and fries.

The big super market chains are the other big player, they're taking customers from (overpriced) gas stations. It's usually a 5-10 minute detour to get to the local mega-mart and they have cafes and restaurants in there anyway - without the gas station markup.
That is literally what socialism means: you get a stake in the place where you work.
You owe much of what you are to the society that supports you. It is a fantasy that anyone living in a society achieved their successes in a vacuum.
Nice that some sites better remember ancient history than I do!
Like freedom buy from slaveowners and to dump poisons into the environment, as long as you don't interfere with others freedom to suicide or starve or clean the poison.
>75% of global poverty reduction has been due to China lifting over 800 million people. The real number is even higher if you account for Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. Then there are also many nations that don't classify themselves explicitly as government-planned economies where the public sector plays a huge role in providing a wide breadth of basic services to the people, rather than the private markets doing so.

You can also make the opposite argument by pointing out China's growth only really got started with Deng's market liberalization reforms, which did the opposite of what you described.
If this was a brokerage with stocks, the customers own those stocks. There is no reason crypto shouldn't be the same. There is no reason crypto shouldn't have top priority to their owners. It isn't okay for a company to put other creditors above the owners of that crypto
I think that mob incitement is an excuse used for selective enforcement of the rules. If you're on the left, you're clearly operating under different rules: https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864
No one thinks meritocracy is bad. Many think the modern meritocracy is a pretense used to justify rewarding people not for their efforts or contributions but because of their inherent “worthiness” as a member of the wealthy class.
People can't change mind?
Nerd Theology [pdf]
15mins of charging every 400-500km for a 80% reduction in travel costs seems fair to me.

10€/100km with diesel/gasoline and 2€/200km for electric is a complete no-brainer.
Eh, lightning bolts are impressive on the scale of individuals but not on the scale of civilizations.

The standard figure for the standard lightning bolt is 1 billion joules, or about 250 kWh. If we assume this lightning bolt was a million times bigger, that's 250 GWh, which is a big number, but like 1/500th the annual crypto usage.

Meanwhile, there are about 1.4 billion lightning strikes per year, so the total lightning energy is about 400 TWh/year.

That's nothing to sneeze at, about 40% of China's annual electricity usage. But to harvest it you need a global system to perfectly capture every joule from every bolt (or more likely, bleed it off before the bolt would form). Assuming lightning strikes are equally likely over land and sea, you lose 70% of your energy right there -- now your peak harvest is 150 TWh. If you have a million installations scattered around the world -- each one harvesting the lightning-energy from about 150 sq km, that's 150 MWh/year, or about 17 kilowatts per installation -- and once you start adding losses and inefficiency you're probably lucky to get 1 kW.
SNL should put it in a preshow ad of Avatar 2 screenings.
He says he wants it hackable and secure. I don't think he favors lock-in or throw it away when doesn't work.

The dilemma there seems how do you keep it quickly hackable for yourself but difficult to crack for the bad guys. What are your counterproposals if this is a nightmare?
Godwin would be proud.
Sensationalized title and that's from someone who doesn't even like crypto and thinks it's a scam.

Title: {Sensationalized title}

Intro: {Waffle}

Middle: {Sentence that gives context to sensationalized title}

Ending: {Facts & figures to legitimise article}
> but magically transformed itself

It loads just fine with NoScript enabled. It also loads instantaneously (well, almost - ~200ms) and doesn't autoplay video or nag about cookies.
Jack is a just another super-rich guy protecting his interests. He sees the political climate shifting hard right and is acting accordingly. Should there be another mob, he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of it.
> Ukrainian airforce got quickly overwhelmed in the first days of war

that's not strictly true. While russia has majority air superiority, they don't have complete superiority which prevents sorties from ukraine.

I think ukraine is fighting quite valiantly at the beginning, when the world expected them to lose. And the west probably was shocked at their actual performance (as well as the incompetence of the russian military). It was direct evidence that ukraine could at least hold out, which means the support and equipment from the west could have time to roll in.
I doubt Thiel is some kind of central master mind behind all this. Musk seems quite independently driven and probably found this a necessary move with only minor chats with thiel (if any). I'm not sure Thiel has any more or less influence than Sam Altman or Paul Graham.
For and Against National Service – Yes, Prime Minister – Comedy Greats
It’s not just that, if you issue debt in a currency you control you can theoretically never default, you can just keep devaluing your currency to pay off previous debts. El Salvador has two currencies right now and they control neither of them.
Trump got banned by his own accord
> Through the Japan Central Bank.

Then its meaningless. It should just be subtracted form total debt.
First off, you can have competition and cooperation. Take a look at any sports team. It's a highly competitive environment that's also highly cooperative. You can't win unless you play as a team. I don't believe the strongest players on whatever football team you follow are squashing or squandering anything. You can't get to good graduates schools, even in garbage dump of politics the social sciences have become, without being more clever, interesting, and intelligent than your peers. It's laughable that people who make it to the more prestigious institutions, because of slavishly hard work for most of their lives, then turn around and say that merit based systems are inherently flawed. Should the Columbia just accept students at random? Even if they did, it wouldn't matter. The irony, in a world that isn't competitive, no one would pay more attention to their paper than a paper from Crappy Backwater University on why peanut consumption makes people more sedentary.

Their result isn't surprising. When you value and reward competition - you get more inequality. However, societies that don't favor competition often have completely rigged and sham economies. I'm racking my brain to think of one economy outside the US, UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc, that isn't based on competition that isn't a morass of local bribes to the dictator's cousin's uncle or whatever. In China, for example, "common prosperity" is the cudgel wielded against any perceived alternate power center. It has little to do with actual prosperity.

What I think is right to criticize, is how do we deal with the impact of inequality. It's fine to have inequality as long as certain needs are met. Access to medical care, housing, food security, and education are all things that should be available to everyone. It's okay to have inequality and competition as long as we mitigate the emotional and physical impact of inequality. But the thing that will allow us to pay for that is a highly competitive and effective economy.
I remember having discussions about this exact thing over 20 years ago. The fact that it's still considered ultra-paranoid or cynical after all this time is unsettling to me.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/10/chicagos-lori-lightfoot-urges-...

One rules for me, others for thee, no?

Disclaimer: Trump also made a massive mistake by suggesting what he suggested.
In the case of cede & co going bankrupt (a nearly impossible thought) your street side shares would not be used to settle their debts. You don’t need direct registration for that protection. The same is true for your brokerage.
This is a formal filing with the SEC [1]. Companies are either incentivized or outright mandated to disclose every possible risk, even those which are highly improbable. In this case, due to new regulations that directly affect Coinbase, customers' claims in a Coinbase bankruptcy are clarified. Also, some implications for the accounting thereof. Coinbase is not a bank, and assets of customers are not insured. Thus, customers would probably not be made whole in the event of a bankruptcy. Coinbase says it is possible that these facts could harm business if current or potential customers find this risk sufficient to reduce, halt, or not start doing business with Coinbase.

The filing says nothing about how probable a bankruptcy is, but Brian Armstrong, Coinbase CEO, has given his perspective on this topic here: [2] Here is the lede: "We have no risk of bankruptcy."

[1] https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/89c60d8...

[2] https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/15242334800407101...
When a CEO requires 8 twitter posts[1] to essentially convey the message "Don't worry about this legal clause", it sort of has the opposite effect on me.

[1]: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/15242334800407101...
Here's my story:

I've had 3 "dream jobs." I only regret joining one of them and it basically followed the pattern you describe, and I think I just narrowly avoided entering into this cycle in my most recent job search. In the last year, I had multiple opportunities to continue the cycle and switch jobs to another local maxima, but I think I broke the cycle, but mostly by refusing to keep playing the game.

I had weekly conversations with my friend who ended up hearing about all of my job complaints and this friend was able to see how my feelings about work changed over time. At times this friend was ready to hit me over the head because of how repetitive my complaints were.

Every time I interviewed and got a job offer, I would convince myself that I wanted to switch companies because company Y was offering me more money and responsibilities than company X and I thought company Y would give me growth opportunities beyond what I would have at company X. I would rationalize the decision in a lot of ways and would be thorough in comparing the pros and cons of switching to company Y.

And then I would talk to my friend. And my friend would say "okay, so company Y is offering you more money than company X. What do you want to do?" And I would say something like "I'm not 100% sure if I will be happy at company Y, but they're offering me more money and the company / team / product is cool. If I'm not happy in 1-2 years I can use that money to start my own company and be in a better position."

It didn't seem like I wanted to work at company Y that badly if my answer to "what do you want to do" isn't "work at company Y!" I justified my decision to change jobs by finding the things I didn't like at company X and contrasted them with the things I liked at company Y.

Leaving company X needs to be a separate decision from joining company Y in order to make the best decision. In the past I always considered them as the same decision. Even when I was interviewing at lots of companies which should have given me more choice, it always came down to making decisions about company Y based on company X instead of being about what I wanted to do for the long-term.

I talked to a bunch of other friends and family about switching to company Y and everyone else except this one friend went along with whatever I said. Some people lightly questioned what I said but only to see that I had an answer for their questions, but the human mind can rationalize basically anything and I had already fooled myself into thinking I wanted to switch jobs when I was just unhappy with company X.

I fooled everyone except my one friend, because my friend realized that my decision-making process was fundamentally flawed. That gave my friend the confidence to push-back on what I said. Having a contrary perspective gave me the space to reconsider my decisions.

I quit my job at company X and am currently trying to start my own company since that's what I wanted to do all along.