skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My alma mater has special library privileges for alumni, but when I've looked into it it's missing some of the most important resources, so it's not worth it. Our local regional public library system also has access to materials but they're also pretty spotty.

I think the OP's question is a good one. It's unusual in some ways, in that even if you are willing to pay for library access you often can't obtain it.

The problem related to access to academic resources in this way isn't just an issue of "open versus closed" in the sense of intellectual property, or even a problem of financial barriers to access, but also a gatekeeping problem.

Someone who is willing to pay, say, an amount equal to student services fees should probably be able to access the equivalent of a university library. It feels like, say, a US citizen should be able to access journal articles through the library of congress, maybe through a nominal yearly fee. You could even limit access like ebooks etc and it would still be better than the current system.

There's so many things like this in contemporary society that shouldn't be this way.
10-20 minutes/day was enough to teach me how to be 'mindful' on demand and mitigated a lot of mild ADHD-type problems in my life (impatience, anger, finding queues unbearable, high sensitivity to noise etc.).

I spent a few months doing more, and it may not be related, but I became increasingly detached from the outside world, more self-absorbed and less motivated. Spent a lot of time just sitting and being content with nothing, which made me question why I should strive for -anything-. Always focused on improving myself, and the way I thought and felt, but it kept me stuck in my own head and not engaged with other people. There is a benefit in doing loving kindness and other forms of meditation that connect you with others.
> In both cases the agent promptly hung up on me.

That sounds odd to me. I've never had an agent hang up on me, let alone two.
It's only for people who are "in the system" of poverty:

"If you aren’t receiving support from Shelter or one of our other partners, you won’t be able to access the No Fixed Address programme. View the list of supporting charities. To access the scheme, you'll need to call the charity, or visit their website and complete an online referral form."
There are a whole bunch of bad assumptions here just in the first few paragraphs. Those include the idea that group are homogeneous (every white person is advantaged, every woman is disadvantaged) and that it is even possible to improve one person's position without worsening someone else's.

It's actually so poor I am having trouble assuming good faith on the authors parts.
> I think it's fine to be uncomfortable without your phone. It's understandable: they do so many useful things.

The problem is that you can't take what's in your phone and have it somewhere else: for example a web-browser in a public space like a library or an internet cafe. If that were possible, then it would be less of a problem to leave your phone at home.
> people understandably don’t like to let strangers use their phone

Sounds like you're projecting here. What's your data for this?
In short, keys are stored in a hash table in RAM, k/v pairs are written to log files. Dead simple, but powerful enough.
thank you for taking the time to add this -- in the first six months of covid-19, there were some US gov'ies that took the small business story very seriously, and conducted direct, public surveys and published those numbers. The trends now, two years later, are still hidden from even intelligent people here at YNews, since the mainstream news won't print stories that refer to it, for fear of causing panics(?); and that ridiculous, cynical number called unemployment just floats along in the news every day.

I have done some initial quantitative analysis on the raw survey responses, but not gone further, since you know, daily troubles. The small business situation is deeply changed in the last two years, and this is not over at all.
Well not that I live in a bad neighborhood or anything like that, but you really don't know what could happen at any given moment, and need to phone emergency services. This is not paranoia (well maybe it is), but paranoia doesn't work retroactively, you have to be proactively paranoid.

If you're concerned about privacy buy one of those cheap Nokia dumbphones that old people use. Keep your smartphone at home, and swap out the SIM from the dumbphone to your smartphone if your threat model requires you to.
> Translation: the knowledge economy isn't as robust as the industrial economy because, reasons.

While I didn't agree with everything in the article myself, I would say the translation is actually more along the lines of:

"As a civilization becomes more efficient, fewer of the members of the population need to know how to actually do anything. The civilization becomes less robust in the face of new pressures because all everyone knows how to do is sit around in their underwear and play Call of Duty when they aren't LARPing being a knowledge worker."

If you can survive without chopping wood, soon enough you'll forget how to chop wood. If a civilization can survive long enough without anyone knowing how to build/repair the technology that sits a level below the current water mark, it will. See: Cobol codebases.
That is what it means by encrypted data storage. Only the user has access. If they managed to see/recover your files then it is not encrypted.

(at the end, people will complain at both ends - some want convenience and do not care if companies see data. Others want total encryption and do not care if lost.
Palladium magazine was founded by Wolf Tivy and Jonah Bennett. It is funded by Peter Thiel. Jonah Bennett previously worked at The Daily Caller and he resigned from Palladium when it was discovered he had authored some racist messages and was friends with various white nationalists.

Samo Burja, the author, is undoubtedly a more serious and educated person. However, he promotes a “Great Founder Theory” which is not so very different from the old “great man theory” of history.

To a large extent, I applaud anyone who can make a good living grifting off of Thiel’s self-regard, but most political economy essays should be read skeptically, and doubly so for anything in Palladium.
I’m just guessing, I don’t want to conduct a scientific study on this topic, that:

- $5 per month seems very cheap to IT people in USA.

- they think that if someone is willing to pay, $2 or $5 dollars makes no difference to the customer because it’s so little anyway.

I wonder how these companies do their market studies.
> In todays world women welders are encouraged and hired with little difficulty.

This is where you go off the rails. I know two women that are journeyman electricians. The amount of bullshit they have to continuously turn the other cheek on is incredible. They're put in a lose lose situation where sticking up for themselves will backfire, but not being confrontational means they continue to get thrown all sorts of harassment, abuse, and a lot of nonsense about who works what task on big jobs.

When we see disparities this huge, in jobs that are definitely desirable, it's smoke. Then you actually go talk to women in these industries, and they will indeed confirm that there's a huge fire.

This is not some great philosophical question about equality of outcomes and the sad unknowable complexity of how it relates to equality of opportunity. That's just an excuse to tell people trying to put out an obvious fire that they should just stop.

In particular I'd suggest you read the history of what happened to women that learned industrial fabrication skills during WW2 and wanted to keep working with them.
Nope I don't take any drugs of any kind. Low fibre in keto diet caused an obstruction and perforation.
If they suspect stolen items they can suspend the account and require proof of purchase or extra ID verification (to make it as inconvenient and/or risky for a criminal) instead of just banning it forever with no explanation.
at least individual spot meters were reduced to block meters so that there was less physical infrastructure to maintain.

in my city part of the motivation is data collection; rates are adjusted block by block based on the last quarter's occupancy relative to targets, and among other things the app nudges people towards slightly less optimal parking spots that are either cheaper or more available.
I liked that reflection. I’m lucky enough that my manager is very intentional in actively avoiding and mitigating any possible work related anything during the weekends.

When I get a call (as opposed to a slack message) it’s only because something is REALLY on fire.

This really allows me to disconnect completely from work with the assurance that in an extreme situation I could still be reached.

It’s also important to clarify what is considered important because honestly I get a call over the weekend to implement so “quick feature”, that would be a clear signal that it might be time to part ways with such company culture.

All I’m saying is, it starts with the individual marking the boundaries and then either talking the the manager or finding a place that respects those boundaries.

(I’m aware of some violations of boundaries from bosses that if they’d happen to me I’d likely seek for a restraining order!)
> I'm having a hard time imagining a society with unequal outcomes but equal opportunity.

You ever been to a gym or a basketball court? Plenty of equal opportunity vastly unequal outcomes. How big of a society are you talking about?
> The scientists have this prejudice that some groups are advantaged, and that if they complain it’s caused by a misperception.

100% correct. Calling these people "scientists" is giving them too much credit. These are propagandists using sciency sounding language to push a political agenda.
>It also seems to seems to suggest that if marginalized groups have drastically worse outcomes

If they have equal opportunity, how can they be marginalized? Why can't remaining differences in outcome be explained by cultural or character differences? Given the opportunity to do what they want, people who don't value the same things probably aren't going to do the same thing.
"Stories set in the Culture in which Things Went Wrong tended to start with humans losing or forgetting or deliberately leaving behind their terminal. It was a conventional opening, the equivalent of straying off the path in the wild woods in one age, or a car breaking down at night on a lonely road in another.

A terminal, in the shape of a ring, button, bracelet or pen or whatever, was your link with everybody and everything else in the Culture. Without a terminal, you were never more than a question or a shout away from almost anything you wanted to know, or almost any help you could possibly need."

--Iain M. Banks, in The Player of Games
Hmm was this for WSL v1? The previous implementation had pretty bad filesystem performance, but I haven't had any issues with WSL2. I host an app where I write gigs of data to disk every day without any perf issues.

But WSL1 would've been super slow for the same use case
> the wet dream of every power grabbing seeker and wannabe authoritarians

Not at all. By definition, power grabbing is the opposite of equality of outcome.

History shown many times that past dictatorships made people in power very wealthy very quickly.
A semi-interesting read on a topic I often think about.

I’ll boil it down to “new systems generate new social systems, that become imitations of themselves, that then cannibalizes the initial system.”

The insight I see here is we need new social technology.

The “hands on” founder is back with Gen Z, along with verticalized ambitions. There were easy wins building on the institutional tech stack we've inherited, but today you are more likely to conform or fail if you launch a transformational innovation on that stack.

Instead, I see founders going to the source of each institution to create change. Cul de Sac in AZ going after that.

In the same way, we’re designing a vertical reinvention of the org as a guild. There’s institutions we’re build on for sure, but the security comes more from community than the enforcement of agreements by traditional institutions.
I have had this same thought in the past. I came to the conclusions that it’s a psychological trick we’re playing on ourselves. The mitigation against such a low risk event is not worth the price we’re paying.

- sent from my iPhone
How Do React State Management Tools Like Redux, Recoil Work Under the Hood?
Can you mention some of them?
Is that saying that grit is less important?
> In the justice system of most western countries, the general trend is: "Rather 10 criminals who go free, than one innocent person behind bars".

> To live up to that statement, society pays. … As a society we pay this, because, well, take the frustration of OP and now imagine the penalty is not 'banned from ebay', it's 'in jail for life' or even just 'most employers will no longer employ you because criminal record'.

Aren't you describing a cost that is alleviated by (allegedly) making sure that the innocent aren't imprisoned, or, rather, a cost that would be borne if the legal system made sure to imprison those whom "the cops are 80% sure" were guilty?
I guess the distinction for my setup and the parent poster's is having an actual DNS setup? Typing foo and letting it autocomplete to foo.xyz.com in my address bar is faster than going to a dashboard and then clicking a link on the dashboard.
> “Please program a .contains(), without using .indexOf(), and no need to optimize anything, I’m not looking for anything fancy.”

If that is the statement that was given to me, I would clarify the interviewer is not looking for optimal run-time or anything fancy like handling UTF-8 or right-to-left -- because an interviewer often says "nothing fancy" and then will nitpick the fact the code you wrote on the whiteboard doesn't follow precise PEP-8 standards or use idiomatic Ruby or doesn't adhere to the latest C++-23 syntax -- and then I would write a total of six or seven lines of code C code (variable declarations, return statement, etc), which would be two for-loops and an if-statement. I could probably get that down to just the for-loops if I want to be "fancy" and bury the conditional in the for-loop test itself.

I think the real problem is, we tend, in an interview situation, to overthink what the interviewer is asking for at times. I see this in a lot of take home tests people do when applying to companies, then ask me if they have done enough before submitting to the company they are interviewing with. That said, I've dealt with interviewers that give the take home test, or the white board test, and then complain that the candidate didn't go far enough by adding on un-asked for stuff. "Going the extra mile" as they say. The crux of the problem is the vagaries of interviewing style.
Will the card contact allow small claims? Doubt it.
Somewhat off topic, but earlier this week I saw a guy on the train signing to someone over FaceTime.

Until then, I didn't realize how life-changing video calling can be for some people.
This is what i liked most working a bit in JS. How you can deconstruct, even in the function definition!!! Using {}. Why did they have to use that for sets in python ahhh.

Also using ? For attributes that might be there and being able to chain that is sooo awesome.

These two things make for example working with nested Json in JS so much better than in Python.
The more constraints you have on pushing something to production, the less it makes sense to deploy logging dynamically! Those constraints are there to minimize risk, ensure quality and security, etc. Dynamically deployed logging seems to provide an extremely large loophole. For example, consider the recent Java logging fiasco.
Is this the study with N == 2 (one pair of twins) and with the lower-IQ twin who suffered three concussions, unlike the other twin?

How can something like that be even called a "study".
Journalism would be so much better with context like this.
I wonder if there any initiatives that provide it. Maybe the blockchain would be of help here.
Lets be honest - not having cards working for a day is not the same as earthquake. Sure people will miss trains/rent etc. 1 or 2 business may go under but for 90 % people all will be fine. Heck I am sure if many shops/metro will be free if some one like erste bank or Sparkasse does not work.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say here.

I would assert though that in a world of unique individuals there won't ever be "equal outcomes" regardless of the distribution and nature of opportunities, which is not a statement about how to improve or maximize opportunities.

I would also assert that there is no agreement that "equal outcomes" is a desirable goal nor is it even a well-defined goal.
> What would prevent Twitter from sending a specific party a special version of their JS that sends an obfuscated unencrypted copy of your messages to the mothership?

I'm glad you asked.

This is exactly the same problem that WhatsApp have been trying to solve for their web app, and they came up a browser extension called meta-code-verify[0] which checks the hash of the code received against an external append-only log. The extension only supports the WhatsApp site so far, but should be flexible enough to support others that opt into it.

Of course ideally this approach would become popular enough that the technology would be integrated into the browser itself, so that users wouldn't need to install the extension at all. I also hope that ProtonMail push for this too, since they are subject to the same threat model and care about open source security.

[0] https://github.com/facebookincubator/meta-code-verify
Oh this feature is great. Solves my problem completely.

I wish github would also implement word-diff option.

Edit: Github actually does some form of word-diff! See example here: https://github.com/chaoxu/chaoxu.github.io/commit/6d9ab6eefc...

I also looked up how word-diff work with Chinese language. Found a useful stackoverflow link with other suggestions.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26135133/git-word-diff-o...
Suddenly startups are having trouble raising money. Why?
I don't think their model just says them "fraud/no fraud". There are different types of fraud, which should be written in their TOS.
This does not require US or EU governments to forbid anything to their citizens. It may require US and EU governments to act so that China will see US and EU citizens as extremely unwelcome.
I use on the order of a half gallon of gas a month. I'd say a village dweller has a larger carbon footprint in firewood alone.

I re-use grocery bags for trash and use no trash bags. I reuse any disposable plastic I can, at least once. That cut's my plastic output roughly in half compared to other people around me.

I've taken to using a water pick now, so a bag of those picks takes me maybe a year to use. That's miniscule.

I don't know if you've ever been to a third world country, but plastic bags even at small street shops are all the rage. I probably dispose of less plastic than they do. And to top that off, most developing nations don't have the infrastructure to handle it, and you see the bags clogging up waterways and blowing around, it's a big problem. So the direct pollution, even if I used more plastic, doesn't compare because most of the plastic I use goes to a landfill, not the local creek that's used as a sewer.
> Most people would say if both person A and person B had the same opportunity to practice Chess that's sufficient.

What if person A and person B had, in theory, equal opportunity to practice chess, but person B has a whole lot of other things demanding his time and energy due to lower socioeconomic status? Or, what if person B never really considered trying out for the chess team a viable thing, because "people like him" don't become serious chess players?

That's the thing that gets tricky here. Equality of opportunity is a nebulous concept. And to the extent that it's tilted towards some, it tends to stay that way in subsequent years and in subsequent generations.

But putting our finger on the scale to favor those who we are guessing had less opportunity to try and even it out screws up in lots of ways, too.
> wrongfully used in the past to justify very real oppression and inequality of opportunity

That doesn't mean that the view is factually inaccurate though does it? I think the best way to avoid oppression is to define and prohibit the practice of it, rather than measure the outcomes. This is what civil rights seems to be all about.

> differences are inherent and unchangeable

I never said that, I said that different childhood circumstances, cultural practices, and domestic environments clearly produce vastly different outcomes. I also think that using authority to standardize how children are raised would be tyrannical.

Most fundamentally, if you want to raise your children without, for instance, an emphasis on educational attainment, you should have the right to do so. Also, no one should be surprised that children raised in such circumstances don't go on to have equality of economic outcome. And no one should get bent out of shape about these facts in combination, as they are not a product of "marginalization".
It has a setting to remember. If it does not it means you have a problem with display detections
I'd rather give it the expression and it gives me the parenthesized form.

I've always thought << and >> should have precedence close to * and /, since they just multiply and divide by powers of two.
> A 49 years old java programmer even complained that the test isn’t fair because it’s stressful to program in front of people, so now I take the habit of sitting in the next room

Whether programmers like it or not, live coding has become a standard for interviews these days. I can see anyone still unfamiliar with this doing poorly, I used to do awful at these until I realized this is just part of the game, but it's not unreasonable to expect candidates to be able to do whiteboard/live coding.

However, you just sitting in the other room, tells me you also have a lot to learn about the structure of live coding interviews. Every major Big Co. that does these has a very well established flow, including providing helpful clues to the candidate. Most companies provide training to all interviewers to make sure this process is smooth, repeatable and fair to candidates.

Common tips are to: first make sure the candidate understands the question, make sure they are thinking out loud the entire time. You don't let the candidate go too far down the wrong path. Most important you have a list of anticipated questions with stock answers to help stuck candidates, as well as a list of stock prompts to help them get on the right track if they are lost.

For example, in your challenge, if a candidate is stuck you might ask as simpler subproblem "so how would you find out if a sting contained the letter 'a'?" and if a candidate starts heading down the wrong path, prompt with "hmmm... I think I see where you're going, but I recommend you back up a bit and rethink this part here"

It sounds like you're in a small shop so I highly recommend you enlist a few friends (especially some that have done interviewing at large companies) to help you work out the kinks in the interview itself.
KenLM ist not a neural network and instead a purely statistical n-gram model. So it's no surprise that it would be faster on a CPU in many cases. However, as soon as you have to deal with noisy data, KenLM gets blown out of the water by DL architectures like LSTM and, more recently, Transformers. There's a reason why purely statistical models have seen very little progress in the last 10 years (KenLM was published 11 years ago) and that reason is that this "noise" is basically just a consequence of the central limit theorem applied to data with a huge amount of nuance - much more than any human coded feature vector could ever account for.
Tips on taking notes from an Engineer