skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Therefore, the appropriate measure is not cost per transaction. It is cost per total value secured.

Have you run the math on this? A quick DDG search brings up (https://www.investopedia.com/tech/how-much-worlds-money-bitc...), which estimates about 2.9% of the world's money supply is in Bitcoin.

It's not clear whether they estimated how much of that money supply is actually still accessible (ie, how many dead wallets there are), and it's not a given that all of that money could actually be cashed out anyway (see the recent stablecoin fiascos). But lots of asset classes are vulnerable to runs, so let's assume that it's completely accurate, and Bitcoin is using all this power to meaningfully secure 2.9% of the world's money.

In order to secure that 2.9% of the money, Bitcoin generates more e-waste than a mid-sized country and uses roughly the same amount of energy as the entire country of Sweden every single year. And the problem is that even the most generous estimations of the amount of power that current financial markets use make that energy expenditure look really inefficient. Even pro-Bitcoin articles that I find online (ex. https://news.bitcoin.com/banking-system-uses-significantly-m...) are estimating that gold and banks each use in the neighborhood of 2-4x more power than Bitcoin annually. Which is a little bit embarrassing given that Investopedia above suggests that Bitcoin secures less than 10% the amount of money that gold secures. Similarly, it's tough to estimate how much money is held inside the financial sector (and of course, banks do way more than just secure value), but nobody I can find is giving estimates as low as 6-12%, instead I'm seeing some estimates as high as 25%.

I would not really classify gold as an environmentally amazing asset, but when considering gold we're still looking at a store of value that per-year is basically 2-5x more energy efficient per "dollar-secured" than Bitcoin is.

---

And I feel like this should honestly be kind of intuitive to people, if anything people should be surprised that those numbers aren't worse. Bitcoin's design is such that it uses electricity proportional to the amount of profit available from mining. Until the mining rewards drop to zero, as Bitcoin rises in value the energy/hardware expenditure will also rise to match that value. If it doesn't then the value of the coin will eventually get high enough to make 51% attacks profitable.

So take a step back and think about that: a system that keeps its assets secure via a constant, massive expenditure of energy, that has to grow in energy expenditure as the price of the asset increases, and that has to be maintained in perpetuity in order to win an ever-escalating computing arms race against attackers... well, that's not a system that's exactly setting itself up to be an amazingly efficient store of value. It's not surprising that more traditional methods of running and securing databases and coordinating databases/transactions would be more efficient. It's not surprising that even a mostly physical asset would be more efficient to secure.
The main benefit is it allows some absurd accounting gimmicks that paper pushers have optimized over decades. It’s also a jobs program for all sorts of useless middlemen.
I said this on reddit so I'll just quote myself: This professor invested way too much in trying to understand why his students were cheating and giving them a second chance. While it's good to catch the cheaters and document the cheating, creating an entirely new syllabus and assignments is way beyond the call of duty. Catch the cheaters, call them on it, give them failing grades, and let that be the lesson that they learn. When they actually want to learn the material, then help them. The vast majority of the students he quotes from are trying to play the game of passing, not actually trying to learn.
> When I see "No Haggle, Fixed-Price, Online Only", I think "Rip Off", and I can't be the only one.

Since I'll know a fair price of the vehicle before I run across that, I can determine if it is a "ripe off" or a fair market price, with far less hassle/wasted time. I'd always buy from a no haggle dealership if the price was competitive (and my last vehicle purchase was exactly that, it was +-$1K from normal price based on vehicle loan records).
Often companies have leeway on warranties - when I did warranty work we had a five year warranty but could give a replacement up to six months “out of warranty” if needed.
Im not sure how much more clear I can be.

The example I linked, Amerilink data set, I have a copy of (via my company), sitting on our internal corp NAS drive, and it is 100% raw data with PII. Can query on name, mailing address, DOB, etc. We have an unrestricted license that we pay a good chunk for annually.

1,000+ attributes on every US consumer.
What’s the exploitation? A company offers a job; if the job is appealing to the candidate, they freely take it.

That’s true whether it’s a $250K/yr offer or a $36K/yr offer. In the vast majority of cases, the alternative to a company offering $36K/yr is not for them to offer $250K/yr but rather to not offer a job at all.

If anything, I’d argue that a company offering a consistent salary for the job anywhere in the world is acting more ethically than one offering $X in Mumbai and 5*$X in Paris.
Flagged this for editorialized title. It's not the title as of one hour after the post was made. Also the editorialized title is wrong. This can't be "Glassdoor salaries based on real W-2s" because users can't view a company's pay, just by job role and gross geography.
We’ve Got to Stop Requiring Parking Everywhere
I've never found any need to do anything more complicated than frying a pack of bacon, in order to season a new (or newly cleaned) cast-iron pan. shrug
I don't follow this logic. The article says Ford is going 100% online for these cars, meaning there will be no other reference price available. Ford can charge whatever they want, so long as some people are willing to pay it - and during COVID we've seen people more than willing to way overpay on cars.

There is no competition with Ford's direct sales website. None.

At least dealerships attempt to compete on price.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2011-11-22
Before recent markups because of parts shortages, dealers mostly made almost nothing on new cars. Even now I'd assume most of their money comes from service and used car sales.
That’s often a side effect of lemon laws and similar requirements.
So is gitlab.com — sadly

The FSF have a list of issues. At least GitLab (even EE) has freely licensed JavaScript
Well, for a customer, I think you want the luxury to try before you buy, easy returns, fast delivery, easy upkeep and repair, good warranty and finally you want the lowest prices.

Dealerships are very good for "try before you buy", "easy returns", "fast delivery", and "easy upkeep and repair".

They don't change anything for warranty, and they don't necessarily provide the biggest selection.

So I think best price is the only dimension that dealers could be worse at, but at the same time, you can often negotiate paying below MSRP with a dealer. I guess we're assuming most of the time they take a premium, but it's hard to predict what the prices would be if dealers didn't exist, would they be lower? By how much? Maybe they'd be higher?

The only thing about online orders that is pretty sure is convenience, you can buy a car in your bed and pyjamas, no need to talk to anyone, browse online and purchase, car arrives at your door.
I feel like any repair at the dealership costs at least 50% more than if you go to another establishment. Does that ring true to anyone else?
I'm mistook that you were. You said pretty much he needs to do some math on how he spend his own time because he was wasting it in your opinion and from my read it was an implication that this was a bad decision for employees and the company. Maybe employees prefer having fun, being on the bleeding edge of tech, being part of a profitable company an d job security, and earning higher wages over the convenience of being allowed to work from home. I'm not saying every does or doesn't but this doesn't feel like an everything else be damned scenario just requiring most employees to show up.
Concerns over kids' screen-time a modern-day “moral panic”, says study (2020)
Is big tech’s red-hot jobs market about to cool?
That's why u never become an employee in the modern age. The only way to become wealthy nowadays is to own things: own companies, securities, certificates that allow you to perform certain useful jobs. The actual work is dirt cheap; access to the results of the work is pure gold.
Just to clarify: I was applying "historically" to "fsck", not to the use of "yes" in general. I can't remember the last time I've had the need to use "yes | fsck"
"He makes paper. Really fancy paper."
There have been many great scientists from all around the world, from all kind of backgrounds. Your view is biased.
Buy $F.
Sorta. Most of the big names already make more with financing than they do from the car.

Cars are odd. Shipping is not cheap on them. And will never be cheap. If there is not some contractual obligation to ship inventory closer to consumers, I see little reason to think prices won't go up in a market that is dominated by direct sales.
This is a good reminder that I need to extract and open source the Shiki integration stuff from my personal site. I doubt I fully addressed the limitations in the linked issue, as my usage is fully static (both build and runtime), but there are other parts people might find useful: mapping inline styles to unique generated class names for more generalized styling (currently depends on Fela for atomic classes, but can be generalized further), which also enables support for light/dark mode without JS. Shiki is fantastic, but unfortunately still fairly obscure. Hopefully making it easier to adopt for more use cases will help.

I also agree that tree-sitter is a pain to use in web projects, but I’ll be open sourcing my solutions for that too (either as direct contributions to web-tree-sitter where appropriate, or as plugins for ecosystem tooling where I had to do additional work to support specific tools) as it’s part of ongoing, already open source project work.
Plenty of people rooting for their demise, too.
It's actually really fun once you get the hang of it and realize the compiler is there to help you ship code that runs! This person hit a rough spot and got very frustrated basically... It happens, it's part of learning.

The hardest thing about rust is, it tells you straight up when you don't understand something you are trying to do. For people who are otherwise productive and think they know certain things, this can be an ego slap. In return it makes you a better programmer because you learned something, it's just a bitter pill sometimes.

In my opinion this person should have gone to rust discord/discourse, and asked for help. A lot of this would have been explained. Some of what they dealt with are rough edges that require practice to overcome though. But yea, lots of people are happily shipping async code in rust, right now. It's very possible.
Are you sure you are talking about Haskell and not Erlang? I'm not aware of how Haskell IO would be "automatically async".
All manufacturers can suffer from poor repair times, not only Tesla. Especially these days.

I waited six months for a brake booster replacement in my Audi SQ5 as it sat in the service center. They did give me a loaner the whole time though...
True!

Reminds me of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_%22crisis%2...
Tesla's roadmap is that they're growing > 50%/year as long as their current product line remains hot.
The dealer lobby is extremely powerful. Here in Michigan they give to both parties. When they wanted to stop Tesla from having showrooms in the state they got a bipartisan bill passed at 2 am!

Just was talking to someone today from Ford and chatted about that story. I said how much are you going to pay the dealer for every EV sold in their territory? He said nothing like that has been in the press. I teased him that's not exactly a denial. Are they going to be paid something to have EV's in the showroom or available for test drives? I was told you will have to wait and see.

Dealers aren't going to need the amount of real estate they've got now. Dealers make the most money from service, used cars and finally new car sales. I have noticed that some dealers have made the investment to service EV's which includes training and a minimum of two charging stations.

But some dealers have chosen not to do so. I would imagine the dealers not moving to service EV's are at some point in the future going to take a buyout and close their dealership, but that's just a guess.
The problem arises when there is no other reference price to compare to. By only offering 1st party sales, and only on their website - Ford sets the reference price. So there will be no comparisons available... and gradually cars will get more expensive because they can and people will pay it.
You deceive yourself every day.

You and your “facts” cannot actually account for that which you lack empirical validation.

That you’re certain all circumstance are as you conjecture them to be is an irony of your position.

Is that the only part of the story that disturbs you? If this one part was stretched (easiest way to early assimilation is fake news) what of all the rest of human account?

Resist your false certainty. Take the account of ledgend, history, third hand account, etc on their own terms.

You don’t really solve anything with your nihilistic incredulity. You’re not even on to something as far as ironies are concerned.
Yea totally, however, I prefer real moats that are built on a technological vertical. SpaceX rockets, 5nm semiconductor process, iPhone.
Yemen and Ukraine.

Sending humanitarian aid to Yemen does not help, actually it has very high probability to prolong the struggle.

Sending immediately military aid to Ukraine has high probability to end the conflict and avoid larger humanitarian catastrophe.

It took me some time to figure out between who is the conflict in Yemen, and why, though involvement of Saudi-Arabia and Iran was a big give away. So it is indeed between Sunny and Shia Muslims. They all appear to be Arabs in large part, so it indeed is just difference in minor details of faith. But why? It appears that it is over control of natural resources. Both sides want to have full control and leave other side nothing. In fact it is just continuation of the previous Yemen civil war.

The war was started by Shia Muslims. The conflict is 8 year old by now and it appears to be in some sort of stalemate.

I have no idea if the diplomatic solution is possible at the moment. As it is civil war, neither side has in principle more right to win.

Should we fear consequences of one side losing? I don't know, is there risk of ethnic cleansing that could follow?

Should we fear consequences of one side winning? Perhaps. If Shias win, it would mean that they copy the same conflict elsewhere, for example in Iraq. I don't know.

Most important part here in comparison with Ukraine is that these conflicts are not comparable and solutions to these conflicts will be completely different.

One is civil war and another is full scale foreign invasion with the goal to end statehood of the victim.

It is also very clear that if Ukraine would win, the conflict will be over. There would be no large scale humanitarian crisis because neighboring countries would manage to provide enough help to avoid it. There will be probably some amount of repressions against the losing side but these would be reasonable and in accordance to accepted civil practices.

It is also very clear that if Russia would win, the conflict will just start because of very high likelihood of continuous insurgency. It is also clear that there would be large scale humanitarian crisis because Russia has already stated that it will use humanitarian aid as a way to punish Ukrainians for the resistance, it is also clear that there will be large wave of repressions resulting in end of life and end of freedom on large scale.

It is also very clear that if Russia wins, it would repeat the conflict elsewhere. Most likely against NATO country.

Based on the current information, Ukraine winning is highly favorable.

Current practice has also surely demonstrated that there is at the moment no possible diplomatic solution because Russia is not accepting any except total surrender that is again not acceptable by Ukraine and is also not favorable for the overall situation.

In conclusion, conflicts in Ukraine and Yemen are very different in origin and in possible solution. Comparing these two is meaningless and does not in any way help to find resolution to either one.
> legally bound to prioritize the interests of the shareholders over those of any employee

I 100% agree with you on your broader point. That said, this is incorrect. There are no laws that stipulate a business must put shareholders above anything else. There _are_ laws that say employees get first dibs on accrued pay in the event of a bankruptcy, among other things that businesses must do on behalf of employees.

Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Depending on the region of Canada, I would say 'anglicized' or 'French-fried.'
Rust and Python sit at almost extreme opposite ends of programming paradigms. The question on the table remains if the excessive complexity of the Rust language is factually worth the pain.
None of this amounts to much while Ford's ability to produce EVs remains low. Ford sells about a million ICE trucks per year in the US, but they're only planning about 150k total F-150s Lightning through mid-2023, and the waiting list is multiple years long. (For comparison, Tesla now sells 100k EVs per month.)

What's the bottleneck with Ford building electric powertrains? Is it still the semiconductor shortage? Batteries? Production tooling?
What add-on do you use?
I've used communication compliance for various things and in short - if a communication flags on a policy set up by an admin, it generates an alert that is reviewed by an analyst. By default, the username and associated metadata are masked. The analyst can tag the communication as compliant, non-compliant, or ask a second tier analyst to review.

The analyst can also open up an investigation in the eDiscovery module, which prevents the documents from being deleted and allows attorneys or analysts to perform additional searching and tagging. The username, mailbox, and other metadata is not masked in eDiscovery, and so in order to access the investigation someone would need additional permissions.

The upshot though is that even if the classifier detects a message, a human analyst would need to decide how to tag the message, and the decision for how to do so would need to be done according to a defensible policy.

To your concern about not having to look at every word/message - it's less invasive to only investigate targeted communications than to read every message, or sample a fixed number or percentage of messages. I'm not entirely convinced that a ML approach is that much more useful than having a list of risk keywords because there isn't an easy way to measure and tune to the percentage of true positives detected or how many false positives you need to review to find true positives.

Supervised machine learning like this is used pretty regularly during lawsuits to make the exchange of information more efficient but when people use an algorithm to avoid reviewing documents there is typically a process to demonstrate within a certain confidence level and margin of error that the relevant documents have been produced. But if used in a corporate investigation where you would want a higher confidence level and lower margin of error. And to get a higher statistical degree of confidence you need to review more.
> Wait - so someone accepts a job, implying that the comp was fair.

And if circumstances change, so does that implication.
Hello capitalism?
>"if the borrow checker is screaming at me when I hit a patch of code, I probably have a design flaw not a programming problem".

This reminds me: "you are holding it wrong"
I'm under the impression that the service part of the dealership _is_ the profitable part -- the car sales are more-or-less break-even after the monthly sales bonus incentives, which is why the dealer does the two-part "let me check with the guy in the back" and then "now that you've agreed to a price, you can talk to the guy in the back who will play 'good cop', explain things in plain english, and then try to upsell you on auto insurance, prepaid repair plans, and financing" to try to extract a little more profit out of a sale.
This doesn't make any sense.

You would only feel ripped off because some dealerships say "No Haggle" and some do haggle. If every dealership has the same price for a specific car then literally by definition you cannot get ripped off.

You're also fixating too much on the meaning of MSRP. Before the car shortage MSRP was basically just a marketing number to anchor negotiations at a high number (except for cars in super high demand). Some automakers were notorious for deeply discounting below MSRP and some didn't discount much.
That's not reasonable. The "negotiation" is literally built into the price, essentially both sides assume there will be as a nominal discount, and if there isn't one you're actually overpaying.

So telling people "just don't negotiate" is about as reasonable as telling people "just don't tip" in mandatory tipping situations, it is a nice concept but ignores the economic reality of people trapped in the messed up system.
TanStack Virtual – Headless UI for Virtualizing Large Element Lists
I'm sorry for the outcome. This is is quite a gracious post given the circumstances.

Do you think with the Fed fighting inflation and the jobs market potentially turning in a year or so from now, that going into hibernation and relaunching when the economy has more need for this would make sense?

Asking for a friend who launched a two sided jobs marketplace for a niche market a few months ago and has a heck of a hard time attracting job seekers.
The thing I enjoyed about this particular Applied Science video was his hypothesizing and admission that his hypothesis could be wrong (but then he added why he thought it had merit).

Perhaps it is because this is such a rarified area to be poking around, but in many other videos the content creator seems to often "know it all". It's refreshing when someone says, "I think this is why this behaves like this," and then lays out their claim.

Truly, this guy should leave Google so he has more time to make YouTube videos and tinker/research in his garage/lab. Something tells me he likes his day job too though.