skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Echoing a sibling comment, it seems strange it's so common that people look at probabilities like this and say that because the thing that happened was less likely that the model was wrong.

They say explicitly how this works: they run simulations and count winners. That means among their simulations is very likely to be an instance that is similar to the real outcome.
> I've come to the conclusion it's a necessary evil.

You can drop the word "necessary" from that statement. We're just saying that CEOs, by the nature of their job, are not to be trusted with anything that might come between the shareholders and the money they think they are due.

Let's not say that the poor CEOs are in an untenable position, rather, the sort of person who is comfortable with choosing an investor's bank account over an employee's family is also the sort of person who is likely to be chosen to be CEO.
However, even if you read the Constitution and attempt to do apply what it "does say", you still need to interpret it, which is often ambiguous.
Congress already has the option of overriding/veto any EPA adopted regulation. It has never used that power to remove regulation of CO2. This is not a win for democracy -- quite the opposite.
Any functioning society needs anonymous dissent, especially a democracy.
The police have decided that the best way to fight crime is to track my phone and every text message at every time. After all, they are the experts!
Just saw this post and it pisses me off. Not because I disagree - I truly don't know the future for Tesla and it's interesting, but what the hell is "improved prices" supposed to mean? Sure sounds like marketing bullshit for "increased" - I don't consider that an improvement.
These days I’m looking for them to roll back Marbury vs Madison.
If you’re capable of developing a game at all, I wager you’re capable of learning enough C++. But Blueprints are the first-class citizens these days. The most advanced visual programming solution I’ve ever seen, and a joy to use.
It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.
A minority did vote for trump though
Or just dampening the ambient sound?
Because it’s a way to fit their world view. Don’t expect consistency, this will be done per topic.
> You must show your individual name and you may also enter your
business or DBA name on the “Business name/disregarded entity”
name line. You may use either your SSN or EIN (if you have one), but the
IRS encourages you to use your SSN.

That's straight from the W-9 instructions. You _can_ use an EIN. In my opinion you _should_ use an EIN.
"can't pass a law because I can't get enough voters to want it"

Sounds like maybe you don't believe in democracy
> Why should the legal system have to step in to coerce people to behave like decent human beings?

Because the statement below is not true:

> Plenty of other businesses remain competitive while treating their employees like fellow humans who have their own lives to live.

See the widening of income/wealth gap in the US over the past few decades, the movement of manufacturing and industry to places with even fewer labor and environmental protections, even in the US. Nobody is going to pay Target $1 or $2 more if Target started treating workers considerably better, they will all go to Walmart.

> By your reasoning, if anyone is able to abuse their freedom to do something immoral, it isn't that person or organization's fault, it's society's fault for allowing that to happen. Then why bother with freedom at all?

That is not my reasoning at all. Immoral and moral is an opinion, and not offering subsidized health insurance to employees falls far short of the “universal” immoral line. If Walmart was beating it’s workers with whips or something, you might have a point.

But Walmart’s job is to get goods from manufacturer to consumer. Not providing its employees with a minimum quality of life. That falls on the government and society as a whole, simply for practical purposes. Expecting anything else is fantasy.
About 7 years ago I built an Intel Baytrail based server with no moving parts other than two hotswap HDD bays. I keep it in my garage and synchronize other computers' storage to it. Same deal, I put Arch on it and I just SSH in every few months and update it.

The rolling release is great exactly because there's never a disruptive distribution update. Of course there's the occasional update glitch that requires manual intervention, but the community is very quick to document the solution.

I just wish pacman was smart enough to update the keyring package before trying to validate signatures on other packages.
A semicolon should link two independent clauses; using one to link a clause missing a verb to another clause is arguably incorrect.
That's one of those things that is technically true but sweeps a lot of the practicalities under the rug. The constitution was not designed to be changed, it was designed to be VERY DIFFICULT to change. That has important implications when the court suddenly changes or repeals numerous rulings about it all at once. It will take years or decades to adapt.
"We believe we are in a stable situation, but depending on how the market performs or our sales projections (insert whatever here) we may be forced to limit additional hiring or even let some employees go. If we get to that point, you'll be the first to know as security drags you screaming from your desk."

(Probably not the last point, but a decent joke might actually work, or, better yet have a "layoff emergency warchest" so that everyone knows if they DO get laid off they'll get X months severances, or whatever.)
Their predictions were far higher than anybody else. I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do. They can't just ignore data because it "feels" like it's more likely that Trump will win. Its not a number they arbitrarily decide on. Based on the numbers they had, they made the most accurate estimation they could.
There's two mechanisms to keep the constitution alive, amendments and rulings.

It's both normal and necessary for judges to consider the complexities and competing interests in cases to determine how the law should be applied. The constitution does not need to enumerate every single right for the court. See the 9th amendment, it specifically says that.

It's best to think of the constitution as a framework for how to think of our rights.
The whole idea of the court is to be above public opinion. This is not the first time in history that the court has made sweeping overturns of previous precedent that large swaths of voters disagreed with. It's also not the first time the legitimacy of those rulings has been challenged. Remember Eisenhower sending the 101st Airborne and federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce integration? Or Kennedy doing similar for Alabama? Those actions were enforcement of a controversial SCOTUS ruling against the local public opinion.

And you can say "yeah but racists were the bad guys", but that's not how any of this works, regardless of what narratives we decide to apply to history after the fact. Did the court's lack of perceived legitimacy in Birmingham or Little Rock (among many other places that required less extreme enforcement) cause it to fail as an institution?

The court only fails as an institution when it's decisions are no longer enforced. Last I checked we haven't reached that point yet. And even if we do, worth remembering SCOTUS survived the last civil war intact.
I think the dissenting opinion on this one makes a lot of sense. Even so, making legal sense doesn't mean they are not biased, seeing as the court decides which cases to rule on, and which ones to ignore.
Give a non-answer explaining that you need to keep all options on the table at all times.

Or

Don't have all-hands meetings with open, unknown questions where you are forced to decide between lying to your staff or terrifying your staff.
So are you suggesting forecasters should factor in Reddit posts/votes and rally turnouts?
Wiping Traces: Best Open Source Tools for Deleting Metadata
First, begs the question does not mean raises the question. You mean to use the latter.

Second, because laws and enforcement thereof in the USA are arbitrary and wielded as a weapon. Coinbase is a crypto company who would get absolutely obliterated by regulation and legal hassle if they don't play ball with the federal government - on the latter's terms, of course. The US federal government expects complete and total dragnet suspicionless surveillance of all electronic payments in the USA. Anyone doing payments in the USA is expected to cooperate fully or face destruction.

The idea that you're free to do anything in the US that isn't illegal is an illusion. Get big or important enough and what you are doing will be made illegal (or existing laws will be reinterpreted to apply to you) if you don't play ball with TPTB. See also: FISA section 702.

The same sort of pressure is applied to Apple, which is why they maintain a backdoor in the end to end crypto of iMessage for the FBI. No amount of money or commercial success allows you to bypass these power structures.
Thinking back to phpBB or Vbulletin, where it'll nest the quote inside your post usually in a text box. I think reddit can do something similar but I don't know how.

Compare that to the admittedly clumsy method of c/p and lead with a '>' here on HN.
Dishonesty you can work around, incompetence is like insanity; you can't plan for it.

And above is literally the plot of Office Space.
You can't inherit something you have stolen.
US Supreme Court says EPA can’t regulate carbon pollution under Clean Air Act
The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. It is the court which gets the final word on what they should be.

They do write opinions, but they might as well not since they answer to no one. No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves.

They can very theoretically be impeached, but that's a 100% political process - it's equally (im)possible whether they're "fulfilling their role" or not.

It's not a very smart system. I'm hoping Americans start questioning some of those patriotic pieties they're taught in their civics classes as a result of the mask-dropping that's happened lately.
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1971. That's not too soon after the great realignment from the election of 1964. Some of those Republican appointments like Brennan and Stewart happened well before the realignment. And even then, the author of the opinion was written by Blackmun who was appointed by Nixon. Nixon, the guy who brought us the EPA and many other things the modern Republican party likes to hate. Meanwhile one of the dissents to Roe was written by White who was appointed by JFK.

The parties of 1971 were both very different compared to today. You can't assume that someone active in the party in 1956 (Brennan) holds the same values as what's talked about on OAN today.
This is more the John Bircher's bag. So McConnell's your bizarre Litch-like man.
Unfortunately most pro-nuclear talk I see is in form of excuse 'my way or highway'. Like the one you did. As bonus you are trying to shift focus to other actors (which true, are also relevant but still...)
Here is a discussion on Chevron and a neighboring ruling (Auer), from a favorable perspective, which outlines some of the challenges:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-cont...

This is also a common theme of many recent cases. Examples include: American Hospital Association v. Becerra, SEC vs Cochran, SEC vs Jarkesky, Gundy vs United States.

It is not clear that Congress can actually "delegate" the power to write laws.
All I need to know is what their yields are like.
> This is where I start speculating, but couldn't we just create an arbitrary new currency and tie it to gold?

How is that different from using the gold? i.e. has the same limitations.

There are rational reasons for the gold standard having been dropped.
That rule has been there since the beginning even if you don't acknowledge it.

EDIT: It didn't need to be acknowledged because there wasn't a strong push to disarm the population until fairly recently.

EDIT2: It looks to me like they only really go back to just after the civil war, largely to keep African Americans from carrying firearms. The first attempt by the Federal Government to ban them was in the mid 20th century which was exactly what I expected.

EDIT3: James Madison tried and failed to pass the legislation (presumably because it was unpopular), at the state level (not federal level) and it didn't prevent people from owning guns just carrying them in public.
The (side?) benefit of a DVCS is that you commit locally. So I can do all my fun experiments on my team's codebase on my laptop - it doesn't pollute the number of branches on the server, etc.

Indeed, even when forced to use SVN, I would simply check out the SVN trunk, create a Mercurial repository in that "working" directory, and then clone from their whenever I did any development (one clone per feature). I would then push back to the main Mercurial repository, and push that to the SVN server.

Other than that - true. No real DVCS benefit compared to SVN. I would imagine most of the nicer Git features that people use have, or could have, analogs in SVN.
https://www.amazon.com/Toothpick-Technology-Culture-Henry-Pe...

Manufactured wood toothpicks were actually a new thing. Previously, after a meal people would take a stick and whittle it to a rough point and then after a little bit of use it would get mushy and they would effectively brush their teeth with it.
Who's wasting time? I've memorized a number of text passages using one user's app for cloze completion. I've kept track of names and faces of users I've met IRL using the pals app. I've had an uncountable number of awesome and fulfilling conversations with other users of the platform, and no, I don't feel like I am in a cult because I can leave for weeks at a time and return at my leisure.

It's called "calm computing" for a reason - the technology serves your peace of mind, not some corporation's ad revenue.
There is also the matter that between Clojure (a Lisp), Scala (an ML/FP/fraken-language), Kotlin (multi-paradigm/"modern syntax") there isn't a lot of space for new JVM languages to explore right now unless you were to build something like Pony or Erlang/Elixir that leveraged the new Loom runtime.

Most of the popular paradigms (with Java taking the "C++ alike" role) are already serviced effectively by existing langauges.
The deal is that Congress can delegate administrative authority to agencies like the EPA, but answers to "major questions" must be backed up by legislation. Where is the line? Wherever the Supreme Court decides it is.
It's telling that both you and I opted to choose a username that is somewhat anonymous on this system. We both saw this as preferable.
Why do you propose every single atom needs to be explicitly listed? 42 USC 7411 does grant EPA the power to determine what emissions need regulating, and how to best regulate them.
> Your top responsibility is to yourself, to make the best of the short time you have.

Ironically this is the mindset behind keeping the coal plants online.
Thanks. Was the MIPS R2000 one of the RISC designs that became really complicated then?
The default install is stable and secure; the ports tree is much less so. People experimenting with things on their personal workstations is a complete free-for-all.
But that's just what it is now, isn't it?
A political entity driven by political goals. With an outsized power to reinterpret laws and rules to suit a certain group's political goals.

It may have started with a certain role, but it is now a political entity. I treat it as such.
Whenever this comparison is drawn, it must also be pointed out that after the speculative bubble, the Netherlands has remained for centuries the center of a profitable and stable flower industry that was born in that time. The collapse was real and the speculation was real, but the emergence of a new industry was also real. This is also similar example to the dot com bubble.
The headline is "Coinbase Is Reportedly Selling Geolocation Data to ICE". What you say doesn't dispute this. How is it misleading?

You say that Coinbase is selling geolocation data to ICE, which is exactly what the headline says.
GNUnet is a pretty comprehensive solution that does address these things, albeit it is a work in progress. Their solution to the identity problem is a pretty ingenious petname system called GNS. Their solution to incentive issues is a cryptographic micropayment system called GNU Taler. I think you can pretty easily solve the problems "up the stack" if you make the systems transport-layer agnostic like GNUnet/IPFS has done, and like Tor/I2P are currently doing.

I think Linux's identity solution (if you consider it a solution) is GPG and PKI.
Right - as a commenter on a technical forum - how much overlap do you think there is between yourself and the age/infosec knowledge/technical savvy of the type of person who pays for PHub in 2022?
> All Congress needs to do…

And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?
JS being required for the interactive features would be fine. My personal problem is that I end up on some random gitlab instance to just take a look at the source or issues for some library, and get a blank white page. For the read-only public view there should be no need for any JS.
Presidents are disposable; congress critters are for life. They'd much rather have a figurehead take the credit and blame, since no matter what they're gone in a max of 8 years.
Why is it ludicrous?
Yes, that is one of the things i have noticed. I think the reason is that they have a really good documentation in chinese
We can't because our system of government is broken. If the courts are going to stick to stricter interpretations of the constitution, the US is more likely to rapidly decline or fall apart completely than to fix its problems via legislation. We have only limped along this far because the courts have been lenient on that since our ~3rd major reformulation of our government (FDR). Our system of government cannot support a modern developed-world (go easy on me, citizens of other OECD states—we're kinda developed, anyway) state, without that leniency. The only hope is that monied interests will step in and force a fix because their money's threatened—we've got issues with 70+% support from the public that can't get any traction in the legislature, so clearly "lots of people want it" isn't enough (see again: our system of government is broken) so we have to hope rich people's interests align with ours, or nothing will be fixed. Given modern stateless capital and that so many rich Americans seem to have been working on a comfortable escape route from the US in the last few years, I'm not optimistic.
I would say "friction" is the right word and "dumb" is not the right word here. Centuries ago (in Internet time) there was a culture among server devs that anyone who could not or would not, learn and correctly execute 100 things in the shell that today are obscure and obsolete, was "too dumb" and "not professional" . Evolution and intelligence have moved along since then, and others crusted over and embedded the minimal practices needed.
Thomas Sowell seems very considerate of the opinions he forms, I'll check it out. I do already agree in general that centralized power is typically a bad idea. We cannot avoid it, however. For example, the Police force exists as a phenomenon. Without them, a group of people will naturally form privately and specialize in protection services under self-serving chaotic interests (a "mafia" for short). And since they are responsible for protection, they will be able to enforce their chaotic will upon anyone. This is because human-to-human interaction can be extremely volatile and we are capable of killing each other quickly. So it might not be ideal for economics, but we still exist as part of nature and need to account for that.

We must rely on social contracts to stabilize human interaction enough for an economic system to even be possible. Buying and Selling is meaningless when Looting and Destruction are nonpunishable. A social contract is meaningless if we do not punish people for breaking them. A government is a collection of such contracts. The US government differentiates these contracts by various types and instills a separation of powers as a public framework for dealing with dangers of centralized power. Mafias have no such considerations

Power still continues to consolidate among "mafia"s. They are less effective directly as a result of public centralized powers. I believe the next evolution in this war is the differentiation between what people need and what people want. They should not operate under the same economic model. If I WANT the food you NEED to eat, I should let you have it and pursue purchasing it from you instead. that should be a social contract.

This should be common sense, but in the world we live in there is no visibility to what is needed vs what is wanted. People would be incentivized to claiming a NEED on as much as possible. "Bad" Public centralized power used to enforce reasonable claims to NEEDs is the only way forward given the nature of our reality. "Only way" sounds limiting, but of course there are a million+ different ways we can go about it.
"The American Dream, that anyone can work hard and ultimately come out on top, is like an anti-happiness plan: A good life is not measured by social support or freedom or empathy, but by material gain."

Last I checked, admittedly a while ago, The American Dream was not about coming out on top, it was about achieving a level of comfort and security.
The commission is appointed by democratically elected heads of government, the same way the US president is appointed by democratically elected electors or the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by democratically elected MPs.

Are all of those undemocratic, too?

> Her press conference with Stoltenberg (and Belgian nonentity Michel) at the outset of the Ukraine war deprived the EU of any room for manoeuvre in relations with Russia.

Russia's war of aggression on our neighbor deprived us of any room for manouvre. We've seen what appeasement brings in the 30s, no need to play that game again.
Changing Job on a Visa
You know, it occurs to me that pessimism is pretty inherently toxic, but not always wrong, but optimism can have the same quality.
To be fair, most people who find it complex do so because Git has a very crappy UI. You don't need to understand the internals to use Mercurial, and I would imagine that's true for most other DVCS's. In that sense, I sympathize with them.

I'm pretty sure half of the teams that find Git too complex wouldn't find Mercurial to be complex. But they haven't heard of Mercurial.
I'm not sure how that quote is supposed to show it was a prank?

I think you are missing the nuance that radio was a young medium and the radio program was unrealistic and introduced as fiction, so it wouldn't have occurred to anyone what effect it would have on the audience.

The people who were panicking for the most part heard the part about it being a radio production of war of the world' but their brain didn't process those words. Nobody could have expected that.

The audience would have also been less media savvy than they would be today, so would react more naively than the producers might have expected to an early experimental example of a "found footage" program.