skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is always nature AND nurture. Why is this still being debated? Probably because it means we have to look at each person as an individual, and that's hard. It means we have to be caring, observant, and patient. You know, that thing they call loving?

What is true is that parents want "perfect" kids and they have a million people offering a million different ways to accomplish that goal, and that is driving them crazy. That might seem like it is driven by love, but it is driven by fear (FOMO), and that will damage a child.
Join us at www.reddit.com/r/taiwanindependence.
> the AI is human enough

That could count as sentient.

I mean, look at most people - we follow a preset course from birth to death. Anyone doing "their own thing" is the exception. And even they have limits.

Enter the job market and you're almost guaranteed a heavy grind (maximum productivity) with no time for novel thoughts, or indeed any thoughts at all.

Of course, there are professions where that's not true, but for the majority of people, who are at the bottom, it's not an easy life and intelligence either fades or is an obstacle (pesky thoughts like "I need to escape this bs" but lacking resources is even less pleasant than just working mindlessly till you die).

Just wait for retirement. And the governments hope you die 2 days before it :)
Except software isn't long hours. Or at least there's plenty of good-WLB jobs where 40h/week avg is an upper limit, not lower.
But they could easily change that by requiring everyone to submit their government ID. Look at Facebook's Real Name Policy [0], which was already not well received. Determining if the users are actual humans is easy, doing it without any loss of privacy is hard, because at in some part of the trust chain, a person has to provide proof to some trusted organization they are human.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...
The reference to ARC in the article is broader than just the one Rust type Arc<T> (the footnote even mentions python, c++ and swift). In many contexts ARC does indeed stand for Automatic Reference Counting.
The postmortem is worth reading:

https://poolp.org/posts/2020-01-30/opensmtpd-advisory-dissec...

It's worth reading through the systemic mitigations that would make a clone of this bug impossible in the future.
Every once in a while you read a comment on hacker news that crystallizes your intuition about something. Your last paragraph is especially powerful and something I will incorporate into my thinking going forward.
Most of them were pleasant to walk around in at one time!!!
GPU-accelerated video decoding
What Are the Problems with Measuring Inflation?
> Originally proposed by Judith Rich Harris in The Nurture Assumption, and promoted by popsci big shots like Matt Ridley and Stephen Pinker, the idea got another push from Robert Plomin in his 2018 book Blueprint. The latest proponent is economist Bryan Caplan on the 80,000 Hours podcast. Their argument is backed by heavyweight research, but simple at heart.

I'm just outlining the arguments related to this discussion from most of those author's works.

This podcast "Final Thoughts on Free Will" by Sam Harris presents some compelling arguments, if you're interested.

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/241...
> The idea is so manifestly ridiculous that I suspect those who think it is true, want it to be true.

It seems like a far fetched idea, but it's very much not. There's a large and popular trend today that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Much of the anti-racism propaganda from 2020 highlighted that the nuclear family was part of "white privilege", or "white culture". You can still find the Smithsonian's infographic, or watch the "$100 foot race" that makes these points.

It's such a tangled mess of nonsense that it's difficult to unweave -- but the premises is that children don't actually need a nuclear family, but American society has artificially created a need for it. It is perfectly sufficient for children to be raised by many different people in their lives. However, they argue that American society has been specifically structured to make that difficult, or impossible, with the specific intention of putting the underprivileged at a disadvantage, to somehow maintain privilege for the upper class.

Saying that the nuclear family was designed to oppress families without a father is like saying gravity was designed by thin people to oppress fat people. The fact of the matter is that children need parents -- but don't think that opposition to this idea is far fetched. It's quite a prevalent idea, they just do a very nice job of making it sound sophisticated and intelligent.
Reviewing Privacy Enhancing Proposals for Bitcoin
Great article. I’m curious what ideas people sent you after publishing for solving the gratification problem. What was the strongest, even if you still don’t think it would have worked?
Not sure about struts but here's what the rest mean.

Dynamic tiling: When a new window is created, the window manager automatically decides where to place the window based on it's rule. This is usually contrasted with manual tiling where the user usually has to decide where a window should go before creating it. In this case, the ruleset Work uses appears to be master-stack based tiling. Which leads to that.

Master-Stack Tiling: A layout where once window is considered the master window, taking about about half the screen. And the rest of the windows stack up on top of each other on one side.

Floating mode: A lot of tiling window managers also allow you to designate a window as floating like a traditional desktop environment such as Gnome where every windows is floating by default and can be dragged around into any position. This is useful for certain applications, for example I like to have my media player be floating. Also I set up a certain terminal type to be floating so I can quickly popup or dropdown a terminal to run a quick command in it before dismissing the terminal.

Gaps: Tiling window managers traditionally take up the entire screen. For example, with only one window it will be fullscreened. With 2 windows, they will be tiled side by side with no space in between, etc. Gaps means that the window manager allows spacing in between these tiled windows (and often between a window and the edge of the screen as well). This can allow bits of your wallpaper to peek through. Some people find this more aesthetic.

Tag-based: Some window managers just call their implementation of traditional virtual desktops (workspaces), tags. They make no differentiation. However more accurately, a tag is a label that is put on a window. Most implementations allow a window to have multiple tags put on it. That's the most generic definition of tags. Usually window managers use these tags to allow for interesting virtual desktop workflows. One way this can be useful is if a window has tags 1, 4, and 5. Then if you were to switch to workspace 1, 4 or 5, that window would show up. More advanced implementations would allow you to adjust how that window looks per tag. For example in workspace 1, that window might be fullscreen, but it 4 it's tiled on the left and it 5 it's floating on the bottom half. There are other implementations of the tag concept but it gets complicated fast.

Hope that helps. This is just my general understanding of these concepts. I have no idea how Worm defines or implements them.
At this point wouldn't it be cheaper to do mass vaccination with a more effective vaccine and lift the lockdowns?
What does "remnant" mean? (in this context)
Just paid for 1password because of this issue. Still other issues that annoy me like safari issues with my kids online learning sites that I have to put them onto my laptop so they can use Firefox or chrome.
And yes, it also means that only the passwords I actually use are exposed if a machine is compromised. Because each password is encrypted individually.
The argument that deep network algorithms are just matrix operations is not compelling to me as a reason we aren’t getting there…

I believe two things:

-1. the universe itself operates on mostly simple rules which can be simulated to high enough precision on hardware to approach what happens in the real world. If we can simulate nuclear reactions, we can simulate consciousness, and that will result in real consciousness. The simulated entity will believe all the same things as a real one. And there are likely huge shortcuts we can use to optimize so we aren’t simulating a whole brain or person. Maybe matrix math is all you need.

- 2. I don’t know how to build consciousness, but I believe wherever it exists in the universe, some kind of interconnected network like we find in the brain or neutral networks will exist at its foundation.

Given this, I don’t think it’s crazy to say we are making in roads to sentience.
Native SRS is a nice thing to have, especially if you are forwarding to Gmail.

A shame that DKIM wasn’t built in too, but there’s a filter/plug-in architecture and you can add a third party filter to do DKIM for you.

Sometimes a commitment to supporting a plug-in architecture can be a little overzealous. Yes, it’s a nice general purpose puzzle to solve if you are the engineer writing the code. When DKIM is such a critical part of email in 2022, I wouldn’t mind if it were treated as a special case and supported by default.
If it didn't matter how you raised your kids, then we wouldn't see reliable pathologies, but we do: abusers and emotionally dysfunctional adults strongly correlate with certain parenting styles.
I really sympathize with the POV of the article you link - having grown up with an absent father myself. But I feel forced to point out that it cites exactly the kind of statistic that gets hit by the original geneticists' critique. A guy who ducks out on parenthood may have genes which drive that kind of behaviour, and those may also be associated with other forms of bad stuff. Causality isn't so easy as that.
>[0]: https://sass-lang.com/documentation/#older-versions

This is awesome, really glad to see things have progressed from the node-sass days. Might have to give it another look.
Maybe the coolest thing I've seen this year.
Here is the actual decision:

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183

It is very readable, and it tries to present a review of the relevant facts and the reasoning for the decision.

I would encourage people to actually read the original court opinions themselves. For the most part, court decisions (especially appellate and Supreme Court decisions) are very readable and try to give the pertinent facts and the reasoning behind the case.
Started gardening 5 years ago. Before that I never realized how messed up the climate was. Long period of drought mixed with intetmittent torrents. Last year was also a disaster year due to unusual temperature fluctuations.
Why did I think this was going to be about gas chromatography of alkynes
We could even turn malls into arcologies, walkable and highly social housing and amenities
And here I was hoping that companies pulling in $20m revenue could continue their multi-billion dollar valuations.

An end to absurdly cheap money and all the market distortions it brings will be a good thing in the long run.
But you do control your kids genes massively through mate choice. This is what Plomin captures with parents matter, but they don’t make a difference.
I believe the Fed also owns some non agency mbs. On top of that bank regulators manipulate capital adequacy requirements to make them more attractive to banks than they would be otherwise.
> They’ve focused a lot on IQ and personality — both constructs which were designed to be robust, i.e. hard to change, over time.

I thought this was an interesting observation that suggests that a lot of “conclusions” in this space are actually tautologies.

If nurture easily affected personality, we wouldn’t call it “personality” - what we call personality is exactly that which is unchanging in the face of a dynamic environment.
The claim this article is rebutting has been relentlessly promoted for over a hundred years, and can be summarized as: Societal outcomes for human beings are genetically determined.

There are a lot of co-claims that go into this, such as intelligence being genetically determined, and that there's a competitive natural selection process that results in the most intelligent humans acquiring the most monetary wealth and political power and hence ending up atop the social pyramid.

If you go back a few more centuries, you'll find essentially the same argument, but presented as religious determinism, i.e. the divine right of kings. This implied the obligation of the kings to be 'wise rulers of their people' as well as their right to absolute power, and that such rights would be passed on to their children:

(Burgess 1992) The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered, Oxford Historical Review

https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/574219

It's not hard to see that the concept of inherited divine rights in the religious era has been passed on to the concept of inherited genetic superiority in the rational science era - both being arguments in favor of the status quo when it comes to the structure of existing social power/wealth pyramids.

Now, the converse argument supported largely by Marxist theory in the 20th century is: Societal outcomes for human beings are socially determined.

This is widely derided in right-libertarian circles as the 'blank slate' ideology, and it's true that the likes of Lysenko used this ideology to push really poor agricultural and scientific policies in the Soviet Union that entirely ignored the realities of natural selection and basic genetic concepts in plant breeding:

(Borinskya et al. 2019) Lysenkoism Against Genetics... Oxford Historical Review

https://sci-hub.se/10.1534/genetics.118.301413

> "Progress in genetics and evolutionary biology in the young Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was hindered in the 1930s by the agronomist Trofim Lysenko, who believed that acquired traits are inherited, claimed that heredity can be changed by “educating” plants, and denied the existence of genes."

Those are roughly the two poles of the debate, and as usual, reality falls somewhere in between. Plants may not be all the 'educatable', but human beings certainly are. There also seems to be such a thing as 'innate human ability' at the upper end of the spectrum of physical and mental prowess - i.e. if we take the same human cohort, and supply them with identical training and educational opportunities, some will do better than others. However, the notion that 'IQ tests' are a reliable measure of inherited genetic intelligence is utter nonsense.

In reality, children of wealthy parents tend to have far more access to educational opportunities than children of poor parents do (with outliers on both sides related to parental involvement as this article notes), so what we see in reality is highly skewed - not so much by genetic determinism, but by unequal opportunities and parental input. This seems like a solid, rational viewpoint.
During one of my internships, a guy talked about his career and specifically one job he had in the IT department of a big French TV channel. His team had a lot of turnover to the point that only him knew everything about the projects and how to make them work. In this context, he asked his boss for a raise and he said: "Cemeteries are filled with indispensable people".
I graduated from highschool at this time and I checked the Bureau of Labor Statistics in order to help pick my degree. Computer disciplines and health disciplines dominated the top 10 most projected growth and top salaries at the time.

If I recall correctly, "Computer Systems Analyst" was one on the top of the computer-related jobs.
Everything you've mentioned I've had to support. The horrors of the past echo forward as business critical apps that know one really knows anymore.
Keeping aside the content, the article is hard to read. Lot of disjointed blabbering!
I think the fundamental flaw in the "we are who we are when we're born and can never change it so don't try" hypothesis, which posits this because "we can only do what our genes and lived experiences tell us to do",

is that those genes and lived experiences give us the ability to change our programming, IE make a choice in changing how we behave, by adding new experiences of our choosing.
That's a more generous way of looking at it and certainly a fair point.
> If you get it from the author you've no more idea whether it's infringing copyright (in UK, it's more liberal with Fair Use under the USC) than if you get it from scihub.

It's normally standard academic journal licensing terms that the author is permitted to distribute the work in pre-print form on a person-to-person basis.
>Those infrastructure improvements sound great, don't get me wrong, but walking in a snowstorm in windy 10-degree-Fahrenheit weather would still be considered unpleasant by a lot people even with good plowing and lighting. (I personally hike all through winter, but some people just want a comfortable place to walk.) Maybe climate catastrophe will "help" "solve" that issue, but in the meantime I think a lot of folks around here will continue to walk in malls and gyms.

The key to this is that there's no 10F snowstorm every day. It's perfectly feasible to optimize for the case where it's a simple and pleasant snowy day.

I don't think the climate catastrophe is likely to remedy the problem of unpleasant weather up north, unfortunately. It's liable to just get more extreme.
I was a skeptic as well initially but when you really look into it, the details are suggestive of something bizarre.

https://youtu.be/l4EXL7jgqns
This.

I eat at my desk because I want that break time to do something else that actually matters to me and furthers my own personal goals
I think that you need more than just computing power, you need high levels of interconnection with low latency.

So while we undoubtedly have sufficient aggregate computing power, I don't think it is structured in a way that would allow it to emulate human cognition and problem sovling, not just pattern recognition.

That said, consciousness is an incredibly heterogeneously defined term but can probably be pretty widely applied (many people confuse consciousness with sentience or sapience.)
>Mold them into your vision of success

I don't want to mold my children into anything. They can find their own way to be successful, and I'll be there to support them into whatever they choose to do.
1. AI

2. Probably neither if that's how you're deciding what to work on.
The past six months, I’ve been getting recruiter spam every week from companies that sound increasingly like outright scams. Low base pay, but you’re compensated mostly in their wildly overvalued scrip… I mean crypto. Those emails have (thankfully) stopped… I imagine their crypto platforms imploded. I see this correction as dollars getting directed towards things people actually need.
Trump’s Truth Social Is Banning Users Who Post About Jan. 6 Hearings
And there's a bloody vaccine for it.
I went through 2009 as a young programmer. The whole rest of my life has been built around surviving the next recession. I started interviewing when I saw home and rent prices surge half way above average salaries. A couple things I learned from the last one:

- Government adjacent jobs that are needed are good, especially if part of a requirement contract with a publicly traded company

- Geography ultimately determines impact; recessions move like earthquakes. Cities can bounce back quick.

- Cash is king, but be ready to switch back to stock based comp

- You won't get a home deal right away, it takes a bit for people to give up and sell their home. Bankruptcy takes longer.

- Every 5% of unemployment results in 40k suicides, be nice to folks. Everyone's hurting.
I think we're starting to see travel fatigue. When the author was backpacking 20 years ago, there was still enough friction in movement and communication that travel had some mystique. You weren't connected to the rest of the world 24/7 through constant internet access on your phone.

Back then, friends' stories from a trips abroad were a bit exotic. Now, we're less impressed by travel. You can get a $300 airfare from the East Coast of the US to Europe, making a trip to Barcelona as easy and cheap as a weekend jaunt to Chicago. We've all seen a million photos of places that you went, in much higher quality via Instagram and YouTube.

Reminds me of this post: https://markmanson.net/the-death-of-tourism

> Trends will move on and the younger generations will one day make fun of their millennial parents/aunts/uncles for wasting their money on trips to Burning Man and Tulum, and the more the tourism industry will suffer. Not to mention the backlash from the environmental/climate/cultural considerations mentioned above. I think Millennials were the “peak travel” generation and we’re going to appear lame and crusty just like our parents’ obsession with McMansions in the suburbs seems lame to us.

Then again, apparently this will be the biggest tourism summer ever (given pent-up demand due to COVID), so what do I know.
> USB, Bluetooth [...] have no place in a browser

How about letting users decide to which capabilities they give permission depending on what they need? I don't want to push them to download and install a whole software package locally which has usually access to more data and hardware APIs compared to a webapp that temporarily lives in a browser tab.
Apple has enough money that they don’t have to reduce headcount to be able to afford higher salaries.
Ask HN: What do you hate the most about your observability tool/system?
Just an idea: this or something similar could be utilized to generate test vectors, for property based testing [0]. Also for model-based testing, if you consider the model to be a vector of actions [1]

Currently, AFAIK, property based testing relies on mostly random generation of input vectors. It's possible to "shape" those vectors into other data structures such as trees [2] and it's the way it's usually done, but it's difficult and error-prone for more complex inputs.

There's also the option to filter each vector before running, or, after running, by performing the shrinking algorithm to produce the minimal input vector that reproduces the problem.

When I tried using property based testing for my use-case, as a model-based testing, I had to write code to filter most of the random test vectors since they weren't relevant, they didn't make sense.

So it might be possible to guide the generation of the input vectors so they'll be less random, and save time during run.

[0] https://typeable.io/blog/2021-08-09-pbt

[1] https://fscheck.github.io/FsCheck/StatefulTesting.html

[2] https://www.stackbuilders.com/blog/a-quickcheck-tutorial-gen...
I'm not following.

You will not find trust _in people_ anywhere in modern society.

Banks certify transactions, governments certify identity. We can go on and on here. Whole swathes of law around this topic too lol (see: fraud).

Crypto isn't about not trusting people, it's about not needing to trust strangers.

Some of them are scams, ironically, but when there's money involved... well it's pretty stupid to _just_ trust people.

Unless I've missed something?
>but don't think that opposition to this idea is far fetched. It's quite a prevalent idea

Those two concerns are orthogonal.
It's weird but while reading this I kept thinking maybe Google should change their hiring process, with memories of old posts here on HN popping up to bolster this idea.
IMO kids need to be heard and accounted for, on semi heavy important topics. Friendship, passions, emotional intelligence, structure of society.
Maybe, but 9/11 had profound consequences which I don't think we fully appreciate yet. For example, you can trace some of Putin's thinking (apparently) to the US response to 9/11 in terms of security and the hypocrisy of the West.

Contrast the effect of the Spanish Flu: it's just...not really considered important compared to what came a few years after. Covid may well be similar. We will see I suppose.