skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Obviously, the legislature intended exactly that, as the decision explains. The dispute here is about whether California has the authority to designate bees as endangered species, not whether it has the authority to regulate fisheries with respect to bees.

In October 2018, the public interest groups
petitioned the Commission to list four species of
bumble bee as endangered species: the Crotch
bumble bee, the Franklin bumble bee, the Suckley
cuckoo bumble bee, and the Western bumble bee
(collectively the four bumble bee species)

[... 2 grafs ...]

In September 2019, petitioners challenged the
Commission’s decision by filing a petition for
writ of administrative mandate in the trial
court. Petitioners asserted the Commission’s
determination that the four bumble bee species
qualify for listing as candidate species under the
Act “violated the Commission’s legal duty, was a
clear legal error, and was an abuse of
discretion.”

There's a bunch of problems with the argument that California can't legally designate bugs as endangered species, one of which is that the act was amended specifically to protect endangered butterflies in the first place, the other of which is that it would be an insane result.

It's an easy opinion to read. You can just get this from the document linked on the thread. It's all right there.
Unlocking the mitochondrial genome for autism research
Indeed, I should have mentioned that as well. Nearly all of the people who compulsively[0] respond ASAP have an expectation that their recipients will do so as well. Sometimes they have an anxiety response, like apparently your son, sometimes they have an anger response, or a hurt response… it's like "expectation is the root of suffering" in action.

[0] - As opposed to people who do so for other reasons, like others in these threads have mentioned doing.
> I think what you said only applies in iterations of revolutions

I think a major problem is ever since general relativity, all of our (existing and potential) new revolutions are very abstract and hard to relate back to human perception.

Take dark matter/energy for example - if we get a better model to understand that, it will revolutionize how we think about the universe, but it will (hopefully) have less impact on day-to-day society than the nuclear model of atoms did.
Not for nothing, but these "American tech giants" offer huge credit programs for startups to use their platforms for free to launch.

AWS offers $100k for a year if you've raised some funds, and I saw that Azure is offering $150k pre-funding (I don't know if or what the time limit is on the Azure credits). I'm sure GCP offers something similar, though I don't know the details.

These are huge, and a smart startup could quite easily leverage these to skip an entire funding round (with some amount of luck). I'm not sure if you can daisy-chain these offers, but if you can, a quarter of a million dollars saved on engineering infrastructure cost is pretty much the polar opposite of "making life tough for startups".

You might note use the full amount of credits, but if you've found a product/market fit (and if you haven't after the first year, that may be it's own sign), and you've not been particularly cautious about your code's efficiency, $100k is a godsend, at least insofar as you not having to actually fork over cash for your missteps in the first year.

I don't know if those programs were offered when this article is written, but they're offered now so the title is no longer true.
Some of these measures are not really convincing, most obvious Nobel prices/paper, the rate of Nobel prices/year is fixed so when the number of papers goes up, the rate of publications that get a Nobel goes down.
Does anyone have a knowledgeable story for what YC sees HN as? Without knowing that, it's difficult to say why this site gets to exist.
The Problem with Elixir’s `With`
It is incorrect to assume that the only, or even the most important, purpose of bitcoin is for transactions. Bitcoin users primarily hold Bitcoin as a store of value or speculative savings technology, typically held over long periods of time (years) with an expectation of price appreciation at the expense of short-term volatility.

It is not, as many on HN have correctly pointed out, a viable transactional currency for most use cases due to price volatility, taxation related friction, limited real-world adoption for payments or transaction costs. The only compelling transactional use cases I know of are censorship resistant payments (e.g, Wikileaks) or high value international funds transfers outside G8 countries where wires are slow and risky.

Most Bitcoin is held by savers or speculators over long periods and transactions are infrequent. Therefore the primary purpose of Bitcoin mining is securing the network from bad actors. Bitcoin is a secure vault on the internet. Just because people put money in and take money out of a vault doesn’t mean the purpose of a vault is transactions. It is security against 51% attacks.

Therefore, the appropriate measure is not cost per transaction. It is cost per total value secured.
This seems like it relates a lot to the bizarre structure of hiring and salaries. You need to get any job and then any other employer will offer you a ~20% better one but no one will match inflation the next year let alone give you what they would offer if you worked somewhere else.
Node is great for this usecase
sadness. Thanks for the efforts.
Perhaps it could be sortof simulated in uring using the splice op against a memfd that has been mmaped in advance? I wonder how fast that could be and how it would compare safetywise.
The Crown owns parliament because it is in England.

Nobody except the Crown can hold land in England. You can only own an interest in land (Freehold being one of them). If the holder of any land dies intestate, then the land reverts to the Crown 'bona vacantia'.

The same would happen if Parliament ever dissolved itself as an institution.

Another little quirk of history.
> finding them comforting if your ideological biases align

Actually this group’s political positions are all over the map. The thread that connects them is a lack of influence from DC/Wall St/arms industry. So in other words the comfort is to the extent that I completely distrust those institutions. For someone who does trust those institutions, corporate media is probably fantastic.
CNN was turned in to a cartoon version of itself once warner acquired it from turner in a quest for more profit. Everything became an important news break and the anchors reported it that way. Great to hear they are racheting it down. I hope this is the first of many changes that brings it back to what it used to be.
They also have one that imitates a diesel loco: https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/cargo-train-10875 but it's out of stock.

The train base is actually the same as the Duplo truck base so you can put a truck body on it if you wanted.

And as to the answer, steam train go Choo Choo.
Which decision?

How a feature UX should work based on the PM having a fair bit of expertise in the field? Maybe.

What task you work on next? Maybe not.

You see the problem with letting someone who's not an expert in the work decided the work goes both ways. The PM is in charge? Good luck getting patching on the backlog. Don't consult the PM? Good luck getting the functionality right.

My takeaway is the PMs often aren't the experts in writing, maintaining, or running a production system, thus they probably shouldn't actually run the backlog. But said production system is pretty useless without market fit, so you want to strongly align with whoever your version of a PM is.
Comparing a Voxel Game in F# and Rust
That’s not my point. Bringing up how conservatives are or how any other group is would not be germane to the article without giving evidence that it is appropriate. By asserting that progressives are a certain way and inserting this into the discussion is a form of framing that is not appropriate. It is sort of like a complex question in the logic sense as it assumes a conclusion not established.

Instead of talking about how the company will shift its focus we end up talking about how hard it is to get progressives to change or to be compliant. This then establishes in some peoples’ minds that it is well known and assumed that progressives are hard to deal with. They are pig headed one might conclude. I believe the intentions are underhanded and without merit. I could be wrong.
When America accuses some nominally left-wing tyrant of crimes against humanity, Chomsky sees fit to proclaim their innocence for no better reason than because it's the opposite of what America is saying. He's even gone as far as proclaiming Pol Pot a victim of American propaganda. Chomsky and Kissinger are both relics of the 20th century and I hope to soon drink to their demise (assuming they even can die, did these guys make pacts with devils or something?)
Illegal as in breaking the law? /Honest question.

I'm using F Droid on all my Android devices. They are version 8, 10 and 11. It works with no problem, no root required.
Imagine we somehow were able to purge all political and media influence, past and present, from the minds of each person today. And then had them rank the issues they find most relevant in the world. Where do you think the things people today spend all their time politicking on would rank? Similarly imagine they wrote out their 'oughts' of what the world ought look like in their eyes. How much overlap do you think there would be with the political platforms of today?

Of course we can only speculate, but to me it seems self evident that there would be effectively 0 overlap. The issue is that politics invariably turns into a viral team sport where people pick some side, adopt that side's views wholesale, convince themselves they're the most important thing ever, and then set out to convert everybody else to their team, beat the other teams in any way possible, and of course always fanatically cheer on their own team regardless of whether or not its deserved.

And then when things get hot enough, you get violence. Politics is precisely what started WW1. An otherwise irrelevant Archduke was assassinated and then that politically snowballed into everybody killing everybody everywhere, because politics. Then we chose to engage in extreme political myopia imposing absolutely harsh punishments on the losers of the war which, shockingly enough, didn't really lead to them rejoining the "world order" but instead declaring war on it again, and nearly winning.

And the only reason we haven't yet had WW3 is nuclear weapons. War doesn't really work when you can guarantee that your country (and you, for that matter) will most likely not exist at the end, "win" or lose. But now political frenzies are overriding even that most basic aspect of self preservation and inching us closer to WW3 than we've ever been. So no, I do not think he was being tongue in cheek.
Meeting Owl videoconference device used by local govs is a security disaster
This register idea amounts to a permanent scarlet letter, and probably is going to have an effect you don't want. What do you think people are gonna do if they are unable to have a normal job?

Just from a harm reduction standpoint, this is a bad idea. You will absolutely increase the amount of crime in the world. I think the world is better when we don't know about all the misdeeds of every random person.
I don't care if you view that line of thinking as something worse satirizing. Companies who treat developers as kings and get out of their ways produce amazing products, content, and experiences. Valve is my favorite example of this. More companies should strive to be like them.
I found it fascinating to play with the software version of Wavestation, which includes all the sound banks they released for it. Growing up in the early 90's the sounds were everywhere and just playing the default patch from most banks evokes nostalgia of countless TV shows, movies, and commercials. I'm pretty sure more than a few daytime TV shows just had some guy press 2 or 3 keys from bank 1 patch 1, "Ski Jam".
I do think it is getting harder, but that is not necessarily bad at all. One big bottleneck in science is the technology to do experiments. A lot of the discoveries that required lower tech are for the most part over, now we need some serious technology to make discoveries. Hubble has its limits, so we need the James Webb Telescope. Einstein predicted gravitational waves, but it took almost 100 years to develop the technology of LIGO and get it up and running to run the experiments. Also, the technology needed is also insanely more expensive. Newton needed time, pen, paper to writes hit laws of motion. Now we need satellites out at the L2 point that can be put in place remotely since it may be awhile before people can swing by and make repairs or troubleshoot physically.

Maybe just spit balling. Maybe it isn't that science has gotten harder, but science needs more engineering support than what it currently has to develop the technologies to allow more a more rapid discovery.
Yup, when I put those in my pocket, then I'm in electrician mode. And if an electrician says his hammer, also means kleins.
Their T handle allen wrench sets are also much better than average. I recommend them wholly having used them for a year.
Yeah, maybe that stretches the analogy too far. I think it is distinct from ministers governing in their own right (or in the right of the semi-fictional unitary 'Secretary of State') though. Most statutory instruments, for example, are issued by and in the name of a minister. Obviously the appointment of the minister is an act of the Crown, and so is the passing of the original Act which authorises the order-making power. But the power is used directly from their own ministerial user account, IYSWIM.
I haven't considered taking it over until your comment just now. I've always told myself I'd write a book and do some talks at some point in my life, but I've been heads down either trying to survive or building companies that I put it off.

Thanks for the idea.

Richard, I'll shoot you an email.
...
checkcast java/lang/String
areturn

Looks like a typo.
Part of this problem, IMO, is that we as a society have largely eliminated subordinate supporting roles, in favor of adding more organizational work to both the ICs and management tier. Which leads to needing more managers, which leads to beaurocratic bloat as the people who have the power to make decisions end up being in a position where increasing management overhead improves their standing.
>"Is anything you're attributing to "progressives" not a quality of "conservatives" as well?"

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate - keeping in mind I am not talking about all conservatives or even trying to estimate a percentage of them who fit this observation.

There are many conservatives who hold an "I just want to be left alone" or "the free market will fix it" mindset. The result is that when they are upset about something, they tend to act individually and "vote with their wallet" while hoping that the silent majority will follow suit. This is not to say that conservatives don't organize protests or mass boycotts, just that it seems like they don't do so as readily because they expect the free market to produce the pressure that brings about change. Again, this isn't true for every conservative cause and certainly not the major ones like the 2nd Amendment or overturning Roe v Wade.

I contrast that with how progressives tend to see problems as structural or systemic. In this worldview, they have to be active and vocal to dismantle these systems in order to bring about change. If they don't, the system will continue functioning because that is how it was designed. Because it takes much more energy to reform or replace a system than it does to maintain one, I sense progressives necessarily have to be active and vocal.

Broadly speaking, I believe that conservatives expect that "system will fix it" while progressives expect to "fix the system".
This is especially true in math and physics. You will find that no matter what problem you can think of, either it has already been solved to the highest level of abstraction, or it's an unsolved and famous problem, or not worthwhile/trivial. Like, what about analogous of elliptic functions for non-elliptic integrals? already been done. The past century has seen a huge explosion of research into STEM subjects, from math, to physics, to biology, to computer science, etc.. Tens of billions of people people ever lived since the 1800s, and even just a tiny, tiny fraction of them are doing research, is still a huge amount of output. There just isn't much new ground to break, so this means discoveries will either be much more incremental or require considerably more mental horsepower.

Psychology is sorta the opposite: there is no limit to the number of experiments you can run on people or possible associations between causes and effects. It's not like psychology , literature, philosophy, or history has gotten harder over the past century, unlike math, physics, or economics. Sure, there are more advanced statistical methods, but running experiments hasn't gotten harder. This is also why the vast majority of physicists and mathematicians are teachers rather than researchers, and why econ papers have gotten much longer and are full of dense stats methods. There are always going to be new discoveries in biology and medicine, and same for applied math and applied physics, such as engineering or astronomy, but theoretical math and probably also theoretical physics are as saturated as can be.
> The Crown Estate Commissioners have done this under the terms of the Land Registration Act 2002, which allows the Crown to register an interest in otherwise unregistered land.

This is wild to me. What do you mean "unregistered land" ? How the hell can you have been a nation for centuries and still have land that no-one owns? How can you be uncertain about who owns a piece of land? How can you have disputes?

Every single square centimetre of Sweden is mapped, surveyed, registered, and owned. There exists one national, public database of who owns what, which means that for every single square centimetre, I can ask who owns it and get a definitive answer. No uncertainties. No secrets. No confusion.
Like most things, I think this is a little more complicated.

If somebody doesn't want to subject future generations to the reality of catastrophic climate change, are they mentally ill?

TBH, I think anybody who has kids and still bothers to recycle is incredibly delusional.

If we just want to label people whose decisions make us uncomfortable as "mentally ill" I guess that's our right.
It also opens up an opportunity to hit the big reset button of life. A new country, new culture, new friends and even new languages in many cases.

People have the opportunity to become a new person, and it's not just those with a criminal past either. Perhaps those who have experienced persecution can also start a new chapter in a safer environment.
Then why bother commenting?

I don't understand the urge to comment on something one hasn't read.
What if you just lie and tell everybody that you're brahmin (or whatever the alpha caste is)?

Do you need identifying papers?

Is there a big market for forgeries?
> Solely relying on these statewide volumes is controversial because they don't consider the fact that most of the volume of water used for environmental purposes includes flows down Wild and Scenic Rivers in the North Coast where there is no practical way to recover it for either agricultural or urban use because it lacks many connections to the statewide water supply system. It also doesn't factor in the amount of water required to keep salty water from the Pacific Ocean from intruding into the Delta beyond a certain small concentration.

These are solvable problems, so excluding that water from the ~40 million acre feet of water California uses every year seems like a convenient way to balloon the other uses. Plus as cited earlier, of the 39% of water use attributed to agriculture, 28% of it actually has multiple uses in addition to agriculture and is recycled (the 11% figure). So only 28% of the total is actually exclusively used for agriculture.
Product Managers today are many times attempting to be shitty tech leads rather than actual product managers, which is a completely different job. If a product manager has more than a superficial opinion about what engineering is doing, then they are not a product manager (more than by title). They should feed the why and when to engineering, nothing more. When do the market opportunities exist and why? Collect and feed the data to engineering (as well as other stakeholders). They should not be the customer proxy, not lead engineering teams, nor be some go-to person for "final decisions" on design matters.
Namely also the American capitalist system that encourages mass incarceration with little to no reintegration plans
You're evaluating an instrument purely from the perspective of the listener and not the musician.

Sure, an emulated Rhodes might be indistinguishable once it's gone through the audio production and mastering meat grinder. But the real question is whether a musician will even want to put one through that if the sound doesn't inspire them the moment they sit down and play it.

I use a mixture of analog and digital synths. While I appreciate the power and flexibility of emulations, I've never been inspired to make music as much as I am when I press a key on an analog synth.
> When the economy and job market began storming back, we were inundated with inbound requests for our services. Our perseverance seemed to be paying off. Except now we were hit with a new gut punch: “The Great Resignation.” Now our workers were reticent to come back to work. And if they did accept a job, they’d often leave after only a few days.

I don't know what's possible for you financially and how much runway you might have left, but if you can stick around a bit longer, the coming economic turbulence is a prime time to reinvigorate the business.
Shameless plug: I have been working on Pixel Wheels, a top-down, arcade racing game: https://agateau.itch.io/pixelwheels.
> The judge took those definitions from other parts of the law.

No, the judge took examples from other areas of the law as evidence against the argument that the Legislature could not have intended what the plain language of the definition in the section of the law in dispute directly says. The definition was not taken from a different section of law, only evidence against the effort to reinterpret the definition in a narrower way than it's plain language suggests.
He specifically says that when people complain about their seasoning not working and he asks where they learned to season like that, they usually refer to this article. So I wonder if this article is doing more harm than good.
I like to read the WSJ
If you like those pictures check out Harmandir Sahib, the Sikh shrine that feeds 100,000 people a day:

https://www.insider.com/worlds-largest-community-kitchen-gol...
I'm not sure how meaningful it is to ask an author who proclaims to not use HN to comport their attitude or behavior to your understanding of respecting HN. But I see this as well within the bounds of HN community spirit — IMO the heart of hacking was originally more about defying authority or boundaries than entrepreneurial or industry interest.