skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That would take 10-20 years to build out...what will you do next year?
Thanks al_borland. Appreciate you writing out your honest feedback.

The landing page could use a lot of updates - completely agree. We're drawing that up now.

I've used OKRs and RPMs. The way Ive used them is within slides which are pretty static. I have yet to find a great way to visualize them and make them more effective / part of the process.

Retaining knowledge: Its hard to piece together project plans, kan bans, statuses to understand how past team members accomplished a project (mission). The goal of this is to retain those steps, steps that become more efficient over time, in a branching structure.

I love the comment about putting mission at the top to stick with our products vision. Thanks for recommending that.

Video is on its way! Stay tuned.

Thanks again - cheers!
The real solution is to renegotiate the Colorado River Compact acknowledging that historical flow is several million acre feet less than what is allocated. Desalination and pumping is prohibitively expensive and would require as much interstate cooperation as reopening the original deal. And at the end you have hundreds of millions of gallons of brine to deal with.
Tell that to my intel macbook.

Seriously, using a popular Turbo Boost Switcher makes it a lot colder and live longer on a battery
> Pena was assigned to the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force in the Uvalde County Sheriff's Office in Texas

What is going on in there?
This is because IBM had huge layoffs in the early 90s but kept the buildings. One upside is that everyone even co-ops got their own office. It was just as bureaucratic and political back then.
I've been getting random crashes from Gimp lately, so it's nice to see a bugfix update. Let's hope my issues go away!

Unfortunately, it looks like this long-standing bug hasn't been fixed: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/3104

That one is really common and really annoying.
Language itself will likely evolve to be almost indistinguishable from its present form. You may preserve the words but the meanings may drift or be lost. People have to be "taught" how to pronounce Shakespeare and how to understand the puns, and that's only a few hundred years old. It's an interesting problem and I look forward to solutions that will be proposed in these comments.
For a good overview of the progress of 3d GBA graphics over the console's lifespan I'd reccomended this video history:

https://youtu.be/79fgH08z6xs
I'm no fan of Russia but I've read Putin moonlighted as a Taxi driver in the 1990's, just saying.
GRLevel3 Version 2
Many thanks for the recommendations! Ordered all 3 of them :) Really looking forward to this idea of self improvement, by learning to sell.
As always, why is the magic number a billion dollars? And how do you draw the line in regards to stock ownership, prevent a founder from owning a certain amount of stock once its value exceeds a billion dollars?
Maybe I am getting this wrong, but I think the reason you're being redirected through so many sites is because they're not using third-party cookies. They have to redirect you through each domain so that they can all set their own first-party cookies.
> it actually is how much he earned last year

No it’s not. It’s how much his assets appreciated. If he tried to sell that much it doesn’t convert to cash that easily.
> I find myself shocked by how little regard people have for the intelligence of other animals.

This observation can be generalized quite far: humans in general have abysmally poor empathy skills and generally have very little respect for everything outside their in-group. Other humans in the out-group are similarly less intelligent or less worthy. And yet despite this, humans also think overly highly of themselves.
Purchasing real-estate commercial or retail primarily for speculation should be taxed/disincentives. Basic needs with no alternatives should be shielded from speculation forces
I think it was only in the 10.0 beta: https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/1h39-png.780020/

But I've been wrong before! At least twice.
> If you think billionaires should exist at all, then that's one of the least-bad injustices imaginable.

I highly disagree. The existence of these billionaires and their untold influence on the U.S. government and policies while being unelected persons is extremely dangerous to what little democracy is left and people at large. I view most billionaires as national security threats, and I think the government should as well.
>"They don't want to do anything about Yemen or Syria."

"They" were fine with their own government killing hundreds of thousands in Iraq and whole bunch of other countries. They're fine with their government threatening ICC as organization and its members. They've definitely picked their battle and frankly I think by doing all those things without any repercussion they are being hypocrites and setting example to other countries. No high moral ground here. The whole world affairs are quite disgusting for that matter.

Personally I just try to think about nice things that humanity still manage to produce and as I am a creative person my brain is always busy with rather more inspiring matters.
Why chemists can’t quit palladium
NHL used to use MLBAM. Now the NHL package goes through ESPN+.
I honestly don't remember much of the debate being on the EU, though that could be my memory or just my experience of it. It's clearly important, I simply don't agree that it obviates the pledge. UKIP were around, and as I pointed out in another comment (and confirmed by a sibling's helpfully finding the polling info) there were (are) plenty of independence supporters who also wanted out of the EU. If we take the low percentage from those polls of 25% then that eats that 45% by around 500k.

I'm not saying that's how it would be this time but it doesn't make for a strong case.
The conspiracy theory that one person can't rise to great wealth on their skill and talent and some luck rather than mostly luck and connections, is a conspiracy theory.
the most ridiculous thing is: they tried to recruit me 8 months ago. it was all unicorn and rainbows and bullshit this is the future. so if just 8 months ago, the CEO who has a 110 MILLION DOLLARS house couldn't see 12 months into the future, and required 18% reduction in headcount because of some unforseen crypto winter, who really is at fault here?

what a fool that CEO is, and glad I turned the job down and feel bad for the people who were sold the cool aid.
Do you have a source on the solar power Israel desalination? They use natural gas and coal.
But I'd be curious if there's any practical examples of this happening in other countries

Certainly. For example, in Germany it is illegal to curse at the police. There is a rather well-known video where police confront a man at his door but can't do anything more until he calls them cunts, at which point they turn around, force their way in, and arrest him.
finally support for webp?
Anything is possible for enough money but I don't think you understand how much money what you're proposing would cost. In electricity alone desalination costs around 3kwh/m^3. 3.7mwh/acre foot of water. Last year we got 9.2 million acre feet of water in the Colorado River of the allocated 15 million acre feet. So if we say we want to supplement flows with just 2 million acre feet of desalination water, that's 7 Pwh of electricity. Per year. That's approximately 1000x the annual generated power of the largest nuclear plant in the world.

And we haven't even pumped that water 3700 feet up from sea level to the elevation of lake Powell.
> But this article makes the same mistake so many make: blaming this on climate change. It's not. It's simply usage. See Figure 2 on page 10 [1].

> [1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...

I don't trust that a 2012 report is up to date on our latest climate modelling, or even that this is a climate-adjusted projection at all. Actual data past the point of publishing has not followed this graph. Anything more recent that supports your claim?

Your source also says:

> In the long-term (2041 through 2060), the futures that consider the Downscaled GCM Projected water supply scenario [not shown], which incorporates projections of future climate, show a high inability to meet resource needs, regardless of the demand scenario and the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead.
This is very hard to do in practice. Bezos could spin up a thousand new companies within days and use them to buy property.

Plus we shouldn't restrict ownership when that ownership is put to productive use. Buy up thousands of acres for for a ranch or to build factories is fine. Buying up land just to sit on it is bad for society, and that's a problem that LVT addresses.
The point of the exercise is based on a fundamental understanding of wealth vs incomes. There is nothing to miss because the whole point pushes a misinformed narrative that makes you think billionaires have cash to just take.
You need on the order of millions of qubits for quantum error correction algorithms to work.

We have, with superconducting circuits operating at 20 milli-kelvin, managed to corral 53 qubits into a circuit. In the error-correcting model, we must perform simultaneous gate operations on at least thousands of qubits. We have managed to perform simultaneous gate operations on two.

The levels of engineering effort required, and the orders of magnitude separating what has been realized by those efforts and what is required by theory, lends itself towards narratives of impossibility. Unlike the transistor revolution, there is no clear path forward upon which we might improve these initial results.

To quote my second source:

> I believe that, appearances to the contrary, the quantum-computing fervor is nearing its end. That’s because a few decades is the maximum lifetime of any big bubble in technology or science. After a certain period, too many unfulfilled promises have been made, and anyone who has been following the topic starts to get annoyed by further announcements of impending breakthroughs. What’s more, by that time all the tenured faculty positions in the field are already occupied. The proponents have grown older and less zealous, while the younger generation seeks something completely new and more likely to succeed.

> All these problems, as well as a few others I’ve not mentioned here, raise serious doubts about the future of quantum computing. There is a tremendous gap between the rudimentary but very hard experiments that have been carried out with a few qubits and the extremely developed quantum-computing theory, which relies on manipulating thousands to millions of qubits to calculate anything useful. That gap is not likely to be closed anytime soon.

> To my mind, quantum-computing researchers should still heed an admonition that IBM physicist Rolf Landauer made decades ago when the field heated up for the first time. He urged proponents of quantum computing to include in their publications a disclaimer along these lines: “This scheme, like all other schemes for quantum computation, relies on speculative technology, does not in its current form take into account all possible sources of noise, unreliability and manufacturing error, and probably will not work.”
This is a good point. I was recently having a conversation with a non-scientist (I am not one either) about two different studies. One was an RCT that found no effect for a treatment, and the other was a "case control, test-negative" design study that found a beneficial effect. My friend said the latter was as good as an RCT because it also has a control arm.

But when I looked up what "case control, test-negative" means, I found that it is observational, and there is no intervention provided to any of the individuals. Some of the recent discussions of the design indicate that it is understood by scientists, but can mislead laypeople, who assume that its conclusions are much more robust than they actually are.

We should definitely continue to do research of many types, partly as a way to figure out where to spend the time/money to do RCTs (which are more expensive than other types of analysis). But we need people reporting on studies to be very clear up-front when they are not describing an RCT. They should say what the study's conclusion means, versus what it would mean if there were a similar 'finding' in an RCT. Otherwise people will not understand that they are being told a weak conclusion, not realizing there is a strong conclusion that has gone unmentioned.
I shared that view I thought Obama, while supporting the right to abortion said, “we already have agreement, we both respect life, we both view abortion as a moral tragedy.” This seemed to recognize that no one should really be "pro-abortion" even if they have different views as to what role the government should be involved.

My view changed when I heard Ilyse Hogue give a speech where people applauded and cheered when she said she had an abortion. It was at that moment that I realized that some people are indeed pro-abortion and do not see it as a tragedy.
First impression:

- Site took 19 seconds for DOMContentLoad
- 55 seconds for Finish on a 600Mbps connection
- 1.7MB of javascript for a landing page
- Non-refundable billing at start of month/year
- Twigflo does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components. Seriously?

Sorry, but there is no way I will sign-in, added the site to my blocked hosts.
Peripheral Vision Transformer
You're not doing any of those things and no one here believes or envies you.
Is that any different than the argument that was being made about infants? Would you test for it in the same way?
>It's totally absurd to argue that loans from assets isn't income

That seems kinda whack to me. If I get a $500k mortgage, it's not like I received $500k of income that year-- the house belongs to the bank, and I'll be making payments for 30 years. If I stop paying my mortgage, I'll lose "my" house and have nothing to show for it except an insane tax bill (just like Elon would have to give up some of his Tesla stock if he gets margin called)

The collateralized loans trick was really only semi-viable because of historically low interest rates. SOFR will climb up to the more standard rate of 5-15% APR, which we saw with LIBOR back in the day. At that point, the one-off 23.8% capital gains tax on selling stock becomes more competitive.
Eh, I'm not saying it was a net terrible thing, but it wasn't just gaming; there's value in being able to run old software. Or maybe it's better to just go full virtualization at that point.
Vegan here, too. It’s totally duh-level obvious that nonhumans are plenty smart to feel emotions that we shouldn’t inflict.

I don’t have such optimism towards people. Look at how poorly we treat each other. If we actually had some strong empathetic tendencies as a species we wouldn’t kill each other. There are many species which don’t. Instead I’ve got a coworker who’s gladly told me about killing his cows calves in front of their mothers and all manner of other things. “Because I’m a vegan.” And he revels in those mother cows suffering. Something like around 1/100 of humans (or males?-googled) are psychopaths.

I don’t worry about a super intelligence spawning from AI and wiping out humanity. At best that’s just projection. I figure a super intellect is equally or more likely to be benevolent since nonzero sum games require cooperation (or something like this). If that’s wrong then at least I suspect a super intelligence would see cooperation as greater than decimation.
As always, pick one and deal with it. This whole "billionaires are geniuses and figure out the world's hardest problems but simultaneously can't figure out how to be taxed" shtick has run its course. Of course, no solution will be perfect. That's life and how everyone else deals with things.

There are several ways to accomplish taxing the mega-rich that don't require rewriting the laws of the universe. It's just that nobody in charge, because they're either the mega-rich themselves or puppets of the mega-rich, wants to address it.
This is a great comment. Thank you for doing the math. I thought the word "just" was doing a lot of work in the original comment.
This haiku is deep

You will 'get it' in the end

Might take you ten k years though
RigNeRF: Fully Controllable Neural 3D Portraits
If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all.
Object Scene Representation Transformer
Turning your webflow site into a rocket ship
There is obviously an upward limit on the debt they can acquire. The problem isn’t that this is an infinite money cheat. It is a tax avoidance cheat because now the income is all long term capital gains that can be realized whenever is most convenient and gains can be offset by losses. That is how these people have tax rates below 5%.
Amazon is 1.5 TB, so is Microfuck and Google and I think Facebook...why is Amazon being targeted? Microsoft has been the root of all evil since Gates was born, or a few years thereafter. Gates is buying America's farmland, Google it. Google Google doubling, trippling its commercial real estate holdings.

When Clinton decided to become chummy with Gates as Clinton's career was ending and miraculously the DOJ stopped working on breaking up Microsoft, it paved the way for Google's and Amazon's and Facebook's monopolies.
There are far more middle class people who might give up $5 than billionaires who might give up $2 million.

The middle and upper middle class has far more spending power than billionaires. That’s why society generally revolves around catering to us instead of the rich (the most successful companies make products for regular people).
The reason this doesn’t happen is that farmers/farming lobbies have a lot of political power, especially in rural districts and no politician wants to be painted as anti-farming interests.
ReCo: Retrieve and Co-segment for Zero-shot Transfer
> It's none of your business why they want to call a referendum

The intentions of politicians are not my business and that is "absolutely elementary civics". That isn't credible.

As to the rest, obvious and irrelevant. When did I make any comment on someone else's right or reasons to vote? I didn't, thank for noticing enough that you refrain from attempting to use it to obscure the issue at hand - your claim about what is my business or not.
I didn’t say they needed it. But those are the parameters given
Thanks for taking a look at the post!
I mean, if you don't care in the slightest about cost of the plants, the energy required, the land needed to run the giant tunnels... maybe? It's probably technically possible within the constraints of "I have a full country's resources available and can demand they be used to satisfy my absurd requirements and won't face huge blowback for using resources this way."

But you can pencil it out. Cuts next year are 2-4 million acre feet of water. What would it take to bring that in?

An acre foot is 325,851 gallons, give or take. So, four of those is ~1.3e12 gallons of water for a year. A year has 31,536,000 seconds, so you're looking at a mere 41,000 gallons per second, or about 6500 cu*ft/s. Which is a good sized river's flow.

It's also 155 m^3 of water per second, or about 3.5 billion gallons a day.

I'm seeing [0] a plant in San Diego running 50M gallons a day on 35MW, so you'd need ~70 of those plants (or about 2.5GW) to manage your water supply. California's purring away at 33GW right now, so the energy required, while massive, is feasible.

Trying to figure out how to move 40k gallons a second a distance of 1000 miles exceeds my physics skills, but you could probably figure it out with the right calculators or CFD handwaves. But it's not going to be cheap.

Seems... somewhat easier to reduce demand, though.

[0]: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/09/f66/73355...
It would require a tremendous amount of energy. Lake Powell is more than 1km above sea level, which means each liter of water would require 10kJ just in gravitational potential energy.

The reclamation effort is 1 maf (million acre-feet) of water over a year, which if supplied continuously from sea level with perfectly efficient pumping and transport corresponds to ~10 GW of power. A typical nuclear power plant generates 1GW, so without any transport losses, you'd need 10 new plants running full-time just to move the water up the hill.

Add in the desalination challenges and transport losses, and you're talking what, 20-40 new nuke plants?
Unistore, Snowflake’s New Workload for Transactional and Analytical Data
Wal-Mart itself is probably the second-most-thorough online general-store; they know that they and Amazon are in the same business.
what would antitrust enforcement against amazon look like? amazon basics is a bit questionable, but aside from that they have credible competition in every business segment.
Well, then you should go for the Unionization of whatever tech company you are an employee of. And you could experience the joys for yourself.
The only community that practices this archaic ritual is in NYC, so I'm not sure the specificity matters in this case.
Let me also point out that the community is estimated to comprise 250K, "many" though not all of whom practice this. Avoiding granularity, there are approximately 7 million Jews in the US, which means this 250K community represents roughly 4% of all Jews. Given that (from what I gather) all examples of the practice are contained within this enclave, calling it "commonplace" is a mischaracterization at best. It is a practice held by a very small group within the broader community, which means calling this commonplace for Judaism is inaccurate. This is at most commonplace within a fringe group. My conclusion would be that outside of this fringe group, this method is not practiced by Jews at all.
Engrave it on a bullet and use the bullet to murder someone famous. When arrested, eat a poisonous pill with the same inscription written on the pill holder. Historians will take note.
The consolation of fairy stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous "turn" (for there is no true end to any fairy tale); this joy, which is one of the things which fairy stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially "escapist," nor "fugitive." In its fairy tale--or otherworld--setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy; Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher and more complete kind, that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the 'turn' comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of literary art, and having a peculiar quality.

On Fairy Stories, 1937
Why not pipe the water from the pacific northwest, similar to what was done with the Colorado river.
So, I would think that startups do have a better chance on first and second pivot. After all, by the time it's time to pivot, the startup will have more staff than when it started, the social relationships will be established, and the staff's skills understood. It's a huge advantage compared to the day the startup is founded.

> Does past performance matter?

If a startup is pivoting, that means that "past performance" is negative. Does it say anything about future performance? Maybe it says "they'll fail and fail and fail again", or maybe it says "they've learned some lessons and now are staffed appropriately for a pivot".

Investors have to put time in to understand what they might be investing in.