skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is oft repeated, but it does hold up to even minor scrutiny.

1. More Americans live in suburbs than in urban areas, so they actually represent a larger share of the popular vote.

2. The electoral does not actually bias small states that significantly. California’s share of the popular vote was 11.0% in 2020, while it cast 10.2% of EVs.

3. The electoral college primarily biases large, tipping point states. Biden won California by a 63-34 landslide, while trump won Florida 51-48. In both cases, each candidate gets 100% of the electoral votes rather than a proportional amount.

4. Finally, the electoral college biases low turnout states vs high turnout ones, as EC votes are based on population and senators not actual votes themselves. In 2016 for example, Texas cast fewer votes than Florida, even though it is the second biggest state by population, and it got to cast 7 move EC votes.

As an aside, it’s always telling that when this debate comes up, people will always say that “California and New York will decide the election”, referencing the largest and fourth largest states, while leaving out Texas and Florida, the second and third largest…
Almost all gun safes are at this level, and California DOJ just released the home addresses of thousands of legal gun owners. The threat model for those people has dramatically changed, but unfortunately the barriers to entry for a 'real' safe are quite high (cost, weight).

I expect a statistically significant bump in stolen guns hitting the streets directly attributable to CA DOJ's incompetence.
I would welcome this ID but also think that this needs to be optional.
This term alone the "conservative majority opinions" have been downright contradictory on "relevant legal issues". Women now have a right to defend their life with a gun but cannot defend their life with healthcare.

It's clear that they are simply using "originalism" to cherry pick what falls in line with their personal opinions.
I don't think that's true.

Typical staff sizes for congresscritters seem to be about 60 people. I managed to get some salary data on them, and $5M total per congresscritter seems to be reasonable [0]. So, I dunno, double that cost for ancillary expenses and the like, you get ~$10M per congresscritter. Multiply that all out and you have ~26,000 people and ~$4.4B total.

The total spending of the whole US federal government is ~$4T with ~4M people employed. So, ~1000x the budget and ~150x the staff of all of congress and their staffers.

Sure, yeah, you can double or 10x the staff of congress, even up the budgets by 100x. Maybe only 1/10th of the budget is actually needed. Maybe you can get by with giggling the staffer pay ratios. Whatever. You're still really short.

Oh, and you still have to have the staff that was doing the original jobs of the congresscritter.

Unless you completely rejigger how congress works to the tune of a ~100x increase in budget and staff[1], there's just no way congress can take over that job.

[0] There's not really a database on this that I found. I just took a random sample of 35 congresscritters and then googled for their staff sizes and salaries. It's not definitive and it varies a fair amount, but 60 seems to be a high yet good estimate.

[1] Imagine trying to grow any business or enterprise by 100x. It would take a very very long time for the dust to settle. Let alone working all the kinks out of the system that you're creating from whole cloth. And that's a new system. You'd also have the fight with the old system when trying to do this between congress and the exec. branch. The likelihood of it occurring in any kind of reasonable timeline and in any kind of reasonable effectiveness is precisely 0.
You ask this like there isn't some long-established, drawn out process for getting a case before the Supreme Court.
> Originalism is as bad in jurisprudence as orthodoxy is in religions. It is extremely dangerous to act like there haven't been hundreds of years of civilizatory development in all areas since the scriptures were written. Originalism/orthodoxy/fundamentalism, especially one that doesn't take contemporary issues of the text's origin into mind, always is bad.

No it isn't. Your analogy doesn't really work because religious scriptures can't usually be amended (within the context of a single religion), while there are well-defined mechanisms for amending and updating law (e.g. what legislatures do all day). Basically: update the text itself with the needed changes, not the interpretation.

There are serious problems with using interpretation to update law: it makes the text ambiguous, because who knows how some loosely-constrained judge(s) will decide to "update" it in the future, and it's anti-democratic because it bypasses the democratic political bodies who's actual job it is to actually make the updates.

The problem with US constitutional law right now is that a lot of people want certain things to be "constitutional" when there's no actual consensus for doing so (a consensus isn't 50% + 1, it's "pretty much everyone agrees").
Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.
Ok, one moving part.
Pre-iPhone was full of all the elements to make an iPhone, but was clearly lacking business people (even in the mobile industry who were raking in money) to push the investment.

PDAs with vibrant full color screens and "acceptable" OSes predated the iPhone. Mobile internet was around for quite a while with awful text interfaces and crap standards.

What was probably missing was a good OS. What happened is that anything beyond a text OS, the industry cowered before the might of Microsoft, and Microsoft can't design UI for a damn, they can only copy it, or put the minimum amount in to try to keep other people from succeeding.

I don't even want to say Apple did some revolutionary job of making the iPhone OS. They just didn't do a terrible one like Microsoft, or hamstring themselves with bad hardware like Palm. Apple simply made a good OS atop a good hardware integration. And that was enough to vastly separate it from all the beancounter businesspeople and Microsoft incompetence.

Microsoft had at least 5 years to establish itself with windows CE and others, but they are just not a competent company when they don't have a monopoly to leverage.

I am not a Jobs fan or an Apple fan, especially since they are as or more anticompetitive than Microsoft, but the pre-iPhone scene really was fundamentally hamstrung by failure-almost-by-design on the part of the business people involved, and so Apple gets credit for that.

But yeah, kudos to those people that pushed the fundamental paradigms and programming, including Apple with the Newton and Palm that kept it moving forward.
> I trust the government to not wilfully abuse the data far, far more than I trust any for-profit entity.

The prime difference between American/British world view and continental European one and I'm loving it.

Sure, it's very nice to think that the government doesn't track you and doesn't know where you live. Then they build these giant systems to covertly track everyone and listen to everything.

Essentially, everything that the Americans believe that the government wants to do to them is already being done - just clandestinely.

On the European approach, we assume that the government is competent enough and is ours, therefore we give them the information needed to provide services and security. If the governments misbehave we will simply burn their palaces and drag them on the streets.

IMHO, both approaches have merits and I'm happy that they exist at the same time. It kind of keeps the institutions on track as scandals happen and fixes are implemented in attempt of self preservation.
I am not making a claim, I am laying out how the process could hypothetically occur, hence the use of "would" in my post.

I'm curious, however, why did you not make a similar post to the parent comment...in that the parent comment has presented no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Coinbase is only using publicly-available information, and therefore by your own reasoning the parent poster should not make the claim.
Peter Prodromou was one of those people working right under Newey during the 2010-2013 RBR run of success with Vettel, and he went to McLaren around 2014.

His success there has been, well.. less than many would have hoped.
> Does a typical enterprise need a distributed source control system?

Yes, unless you are working on a tiny number of source files. The value is that you can work on entire copies of a code base at a time instead of single files. Git does a much better job than making lots of local copies of source code, passing around big diff files and is a lot less hassle than older centralized source control systems.

> Doesn't the uptake in Github which centralizes this distributed system kind of invalidate its main tenant?

No. Not at all. Github is actually a peer with an a few integrated extras for managing tickets and requesting your code be merged into github's repo branches. Most of the centralization is around access control and automation (i.e. continuous delivery, unit tests, etc...).

> Adding complexity without value is a mistake imo.

The main value of GitHub is reducing some operational complexity. For a small 1-4 person team, it may be of little value, but for larger teams, access control, issues, and automation can have a lot of value. For really small teams, fossil is actually quite nice. That said, there are a lot of great alternatives to GitHub that give you similar features.

> Maybe it's my own fault I haven't seen the value...

Probably not. I did the first 20 years of my career without source control and was able to build some pretty big applications. I do think dvcs was a big improvement, and I'm glad it exists now.
>>...fighting child sex trafficking in other countries...

-

I know this isnt a topic HN likes, but F that statement.

--

I won't go into what I know of the USG and child sex trafficking (a victim) -- but its ridiculous to think that ICE does anything but protect and enable child sex trafficking.

As a child in the 1970s sex cults enabled by the CIA were a thing. (I am living proof of this, see the interview and statements about 'the purple people' (only clue Ill leave you.))

---

Look at Haiti.

I could write a book, but wont, about how just insanely pedo-ruled the USG is.

Have you ever looked at a badge of a sheriff?

This is what Swartz died trying to reveal, not JSTOR.
> do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water?

That’s not the level of granularity here. Using your hypothetical example about clean drinking water, Congress would need to delegate authority to EPA to regulate clean drinking water instead of EPA inferring or assuming it has that authority because of some other unrelated statute. Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic in drinking water is, EPA experts would.
When I go to Hawaii from southern California, I find myself ready to get back home to the nice weather after a few days.

There are only 3 or 4 small regions outside of the Mediterranean basin that have a warm (not hot) summer Mediterranean climate and southern California is one of them, and the only region with such a climate in the US.
"THALES - building a future we can all trust"

Well, that's ominous.
Did I claim it was science? The people that used 'science' to predict the results... look at how that turned out.
If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonable people it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them, (and likely did so because they knew such laws could not pass Congress).
Are you saying the FSF accepted github's terms of service when someone mirrored Emacs into github?
What do you do when an agency exceeds its authority?

Say FDA decides that houses can make people better or sicker. So they start passing housing regulations. This would be a drastic overreach outside of their law. It's experts making decision. They may even be correct. But according to todays ruling congress would need to authorize such a broad power grab.

This is what has been happening for decades, the court is finally telling Congress to get off its rear and do its job.
If there's one thing that people should correctly point out as scams in the world of crypto, it should be L2 chains. Every single one of them is a ploy to enrich their creator, full-stop. I don't even know what kind of pipe dream they sell to their investors to get capital.

It's particularly funny, because I remember Justin Sun trying to scam people like this years before cryptocurrency had really taken off. Back then, though, everyone who had skin in the game actually cared about the health of the community, and the guy lost millions of dollars trying some really insane hostile takeover tactics. Nowadays though, nobody cares. The hucksters of this world make their money hand over fist now.
A nun built a hydroelectric plant providing free power to a town in Africa
You can argue that their client is not as good as it could be, that you have greater skills to deliver a better product, etc. But it has value, otherwise we'd all be using curl to access the Slack API with no downsides. That's clearly not the case by far.
The author assumes this is related to economic policy, although he mentions the "depression economics" problem. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's related to antitrust policy.

If you're a monopoly or oligopoly, a situation where there's not quite enough supply lets you crank up prices and run your factories at their most profitable point. You don't have to worry about losing market share to a competitor. If you're a monopolist in a range of products, you can deal with someone trying to move into part of your space by lowering prices for the competed items only, until the new entrant cracks. Known examples are generic drug companies, cable TV companies, cellular phone companies, and bulk agricultural product wholesalers.

It seems to take at least four real competitors before price competition happens. That's from an EU study. Once you're down to three players, the magic happens, the margins go way up, and supply shortages become profitable.
I would argue in 2020 Biden had more of the passion votes. It was passion AGAINST Trump of course, not FOR Biden.

The entire media apparatus with only a few notable exceptions worked tirelessly to undermine Trump at every opportunity and suppress negative stories about Biden. There was almost no media coverage of Biden’s obvious mental decline, lack of energy to campaign, low rally turnout, his son’s incriminating laptop, blatantly racist comments made by Biden both during his decades serving as a Senator and even during the campaign (such as the infamous “you ain’t black” comment on Charlamagne tha God’s show.
Einstein was right. Flying clocks in opposite directions proved it
But it's up to the people to decide. That's what freedom is.
It's simple, you stack rank your options.

Since you can only have one employer at a time, everyone from number 2 down is cut.
All my CLI: https://kevin.deldycke.com/2006/12/all-my-command-lines/

The one I'm probably the most proud of is that one-liner to produce GIFs:

$ ffmpeg -i ./source.mp4 -ss 00:24:52.4 -to 00:24:57.0 -filter_complex "[0:v] fps=12,scale=width=480:height=-1:flags=lanczos,subtitles=source.mp4:si=0:force_style='FontName=Arial Black,Bold=-1,FontSize=26',split [a][b];[a] palettegen=64 [p];[b][p] paletteuse" ./meme.gif

Source: https://kevin.deldycke.com/2006/11/video-commands/
If I rephrase it like this, does it make it clear?

"You may not create derivative works based upon any of our services"
You are right about the benefits GitHub provides to the FOSS community but I don't think that was ever the stated goal of this company. Their goal is to make profit, not foster FOSS, so we shouldn't be surprised when they make decisions that benefit their bottom line.
Well the headline i believe is technically accurate. Given that lifter type devices are aircraft but not aeroplanes.

It's certainly an iteration rather than a complete revolution but seems like an important step. Certainly something like this would have more practical application, a basically silent drone that could fly over a battlefield would be a huge win.
Ah yes, this is all perfectly above board. It just so happens that after a huge amount of horse shit by the republican party to appoint certain specific justices, there are immediately perfect test cases to put everything exactly the way they want it.

No. This was planned, planned very in advance, planned in the open. The republican party has openly wanted to do this for decades, put a plan in motion and executed very well. It is obvious that these justices are completely beholden to the republican party, and should be seen as such. We can play all the dumb semantics games we want, but none of that changes that the Supreme court is part of the US government, that their decisions have broad consequences, and that those consequences are obvious.

If you do "the right thing" and it leads to millions of people oppressed when "the wrong thing, or nothing at all" would have led to zero suffering, did you really do the right thing?
Minerva: Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models
Easily replaceable
Yeah, except you are taking a political or moral stance right there, so it’s not fair to the rest of the population. Many people believe you are saving many lives in those 10-20 years.
What do Starlink’s latest Ookla results mean for its RDOF winnings?
You have the all hands on the day after the layoff rather than the day before the layoff so that the question, if it is asked, is asked in private rather than in public.
And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain
You can doubt all you want, I read the rules, concurrences, and dissents on most SC decisions. The media doesn't really report the facts on them so I prefer to get them right from the source.
The digital ID is optional

Requirement of carrying ID varies country by country
Throwaway account for reasons that will become obvious.

I know someone who was able to work with JR at EA at a very high level, and who was familiar with internal goings-on at Unity a few years ago. His assessment of JR's leadership style was that he thought competition between executives was a good thing, and the result was a lot of mistrust and chaos.

I'm not sure the specifics of how this played out at EA, but what I do know is that during his tenure, there were a number of poorly-executed moves towards expanding franchises (Dead Space 3, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel), adding live service components to games that didn't benefit (SimCity), pivots to free-to-play that failed (Plants Vs Zombies 2, Bejeweled Skies, Dungeon Keeper), rushed releases meant to fill schedules (Dragon Age 2), and several massive acquisitions at hugely inflated prices that were almost total wastes of money (Playfish, PopCap).

There were many internal groups battling for control: Multiple product management teams who wanted to influence monetization strategy across mobile games, several small studios who were able to release games with little to no oversight (an HTML5/JS web game team that made a Command and Conquer game, and another team that made several Dragon Age Flash games), and the ill-fated initiative to turn BioWare into a huge umbrella label that lasted about a year before SWTOR came out and then Ray and Greg were basically forced into retirement.

Lots of really messy stuff.

From the folks I've talked to who work at Unity, it's pretty chaotic there too. And why wouldn't it be? They doubled headcount in a short period of time, are tackling a ton of different markets, they've pushed and then deprecated or removed support for a multiplayer solution, analytics service, a UI rewrite, and probably more I'm forgetting. Then there are the "this is the new hotness" features that STILL AREN'T FINISHED even two, three, four, or more years after they were announced, like the two competing and incompatible rendering pipelines, ECS, and more. And I've been told that the reason that longstanding bugs in major features like 2D sprites and physics take so long to be fixed is that each of those major features only has one, maybe two people working on it.

No wonder things are rocky at Unity.
?? Updating a smart contract does not rollback the history of transactions, a wallet drained due to a buggy contract is drained for good, that’s what “irrevocable outcome” refers to.
Another way of saying this is we have tyranny of the minority. A handful of small states hold the majority of the political power and get to make decisions that affect the majority of people. I don’t know why you think this is better than a majority of people holding the majority of power.
> The FDA has done a great job in regulating the industry for their namesake: food and drugs.

The Sackler Family/Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin has entered the chat

It's hard to see what the FDA (didn't) do in that case as anything but complete corruption. Allowing a new label for this new untested drug and then the head left to go work for Purdue shortly after? Revolving door.
Am quite tired of the crying about copilot while everyone is fine with copying code snippets from stackexchange.
The problem is not necessarily the (bad) intent. The problem is amassing data without a clear and well defined purpose. And "just in case we'll use it in the future" or "we might need it" is not one. And collecting more than what you need does meet the definition of without a well defined purpose in this sense. I think this is also in line with the ideas behind GDPR.

From the point where your data is stored it's there for good. I think that's what they have proven, also, anecdotally, a googler friend told me well over a decade ago that they don't ever delete data. Which is not that surprising, since I, as a nimble private person, don't do either. So your data is there and it's there basically forever, you don't know what that data is and how that will be used in the future. Either by criminals who steal it or by the company changing policies or even the law being changed.

So I would say that even without bad intents, which I'm ready to believe not being there at the moment, collecting as much as you can and trying to filter out whatever someone thought of as being too sensitive is the exact wrong strategy. They should actively filter out everything except what they want to store specifically and they should claim what that is.

Other than that, I think completely blocking FB (and other big 3rd party) tracking is the way to go. It should be there by default in all browsers. There reason it's not likely to happen, is of course, that the most used browsers are all subsidized by the very companies that live off of data collection.
> That is not true, in 2020 Azerbaijan successfully liberated a region that was under Armenian occupation since 1994.

What I’ve been hearing from my well-educated colleagues from February was “No matter the reason, I’m against war, war is always bad, mmmkay?” But they turned a blind eye when it came to Artsakh.

Anyway, no matter the reason, people were dying where they haven’t been for a long time(at least not in high numbers). Would you say national pride justifies the means?
How is 3 seconds slow? Gmail web client takes more than three seconds these days.

Thunderbird performance has never been an issue for me, except for one issue where it occasionally starts chewing CPU when syncing my monster inbox. This issue to be fair has become very rare in the last two years.
Yes, killing sleeping people is immoral.