skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Games as platforms in general, almost have an inbuilt kill-switch in the form of the expected constant progress in game technology. The zero-cost switch also ensures a smooth exodus when something better inevitably comes along, or the platform shoots itself in the foot somehow.

You also have the issue that user-generated content is not a business guarantee. Creators are a minority of your actual player base, and if your creators move on, the rest of your players have nothing to play.

Roblox has a network effect, but history shows gamers have no issue abandoning perfectly good games just because it's not cool anymore. The fact that most people are actually socializing on discord and not inside the games themselves really diminishes the social moat as well.
School Surveillance Will Never Protect Kids from Shootings
I'm not entirely sure what that is.
> 1. Moving is hard. Even harder for people that have little means. Living in the state you're comfortable isn't going to work for a lot of people.

Also, don't forget that a lot of blue states (if that's where someone wants to live) have been really bad at providing enough housing, so are pretty difficult for someone to move to if they don't have a lot of money.
Well it'd be an improvement for me since the other things are not such deal breakers.

Forget v1, I'm more excited for v5 though -- would love to see people push the boundaries on throat mics.
Why did you put 'figure' in quotes?
The court ruled in Dobbs that the decision reached in Roe v Wade was improper because there is no right to privacy "deeply rooted" in the Constitution or traditions of the United States, which basically means that if the court sticks with this definition they get to roll back any decisions that they don't like, disregarding two hundred years of precedent.

The fundamental problem is that large important social policy decisions have been made as court cases rather than legislation for the past 50 years. If Congress actually made laws that explicitly granted rights to the people then we wouldn't be in this situation, but by passing the buck to the court they can claim that problems have been solved without actually having to get their hands dirty or face their constituents.
Well an apple has value because it's food, but if today people are willing to pay 1 banana for it and tomorrow they're willing to pay 2 bananas for it, the apple still has the same value it did yesterday because the calories in it haven't changed, but you can actually obtain twice the calories you could've obtained yesterday by taking the banana (2 bananas today), so its value today has doubled.

Bitcoin is a 0 calorie apple, today you can exchange it for 1 banana, people who hold it think tomorrow they'll be able to get 2 bananas for it.

At the end of the day we are biological entities, value is what survival and reproduction benefits we think something can provide, and if enough people are paying that price then its value is that price in dollars.
You’re conflating constitutional amendments with amendments to congressional bills. They’re very different things.
You’re comparing apples to calculators. Solo founders go out of business literally all the time, every day. I’ve definitely heard of solo devs canceling. It’s also like the entire reputation of the KickStarter experience, pay a solo dev to do something, get nothing in return aside from a bunch of hopeful emails followed by silence or a sorry.

Software created by solo devs is used by many times fewer people, therefore it’s zero surprise that the total number of displaced customers is lower. You need to calculate the percentages, not hold up anecdotes of not having any rumors.

I don’t see how (C) can reasonably factor into any statistics. I’d love to hear how often you think this matters, but I’m extremely skeptical that shutting down a solo business and giving source to customers has happened enough times to even talk about relative to the number of times that hasn’t happened. I’d like to hear about when giving source to paying customers is even helpful. Depends highly on what kind of software we’re talking about, and depends highly on what kind of customers, but assuming that paying customers can generally do anything with source code seems like a really, really big assumption.
Tyranny of the majority. New York City doesn't make rules for Eerie, Indiana.

NYC can make rules for NYC.
Do you have any recommendations for escrow companies?
> Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress gave the EPA broad discretion that it could have revoked -- using your argument -- at any moment. This issue has been bouncing around for over a decade, and Congress has systematically declined to do so.
Facilitating access to various investment options, including direct speculation, is what stockbrokers do. Why is your grief falling specifically on the Coinbase?

For example, in my Fidelity account I can, if I am so inclined, day trade GBTC, buy low volume penny stocks of sketchy miners and do a lot of other things that are not recommended by the mainstream financial analysts.
Globally Distributed WebAssembly Applications with WasmCloud and NATS
Roe v Wade was the court case giving a federal right to an abortion, that was struck down so it became a state's rights issue bc the federal gov't itself never passed a law guaranteeing the the right to an abortion. one major piece of criticism you'll hear again Democrats is that they have taken too much comfort is court precedent then actually passing laws when they were in power
Yeah supreme court is doing its job just fine. Main issue seems to be Congress peeps voting party line with omnibus bills instead of discrete policy being legislated that they can vote freely on with just their constituents in mind. And then of course the money and corporate capture. I don't think elected members even write the bills anymore.
In Europe we typically use neobank (or challenger bank) for VC-funded fintech startups that offer mobile-first retail banking (sometimes without a proper banking license at first). They started appearing ~10 years ago.

Direct or online banks come from big banking groups but aren't always direct subsidiaries. Most of them seized an opportunity to enter a market with no or little physical presence. ING did that in several European countries, and scaled back, since then. I believe it started around 1999/2000 for the earliest players.
Thanks, got to learn something new today.
"I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy."

So you feel the Cabinet posts should also be elected positions?
Do y'all not consider how the EPA came into being in the first place? It exists because a previous congress did do something and delegated their authority for a very specific reason. Like it was a joint effort between Republicans and Democrats even.

What this Supreme Court has decided to do is say that what they did doesn't matter, knowing that the current makeup in congress is in gridlock due to how modern day Republicans behave. Like the dissent was posted here. Congress explicitly empowered the EPA to work towards the best system of emission reduction.
Setting the record straight: a eulogy for Bitcoin maximalism
Not everyone. The phrase "unelected bureaucrats" is almost exclusively a Republican talking point in US politics, used when they want deregulation of exactly this sort.
The decision made by the Supreme Court was that abortion was not a constitutionally-protected right, I doubt they would hold that allowing abortion was somehow unconstitutional. If that's what they wanted they would have gone ahead and declared that in their recent ruling. Instead they explicitly stated this is a matter for the legislature to decide.
I would encourage you to see if you can find out! Someone there should do a talk/post about it
My previous company migrated from Slack to Teams. At first I hated the Idea but after a week or two getting used to Teams, I 100% ditched Slack for it. Really was surprised how much i enjoyed Team over Slack. Maybe it was the integration with the other MS apps my company used, but I really felt MS got it right with Teams and liked it much more than Slack.
Ditch arm, skip RPI, ignore STM-32, and scoff at TI, .. RISC-V is the future.

Can you point to any parts that are in full production and have a 5-7 year supply horizon?
> but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for.

I know what you are trying to say, but it is too narrow.

If you think broader, the above is a laughable claim. Overturning the current understanding of laws is jarring to democracy. (Sure, there are times when it is morally necessary.) Why? Previous legislatures operated under the assumption that the Clean Air Act worked in a certain manner.

The Supreme Court has effectively overturned previous democratic work knowing full well the practical implications.
Fair comment, but

>a self-generated problem (using Arch)

I would argue this is a good solution to the problem of using Windows or Mac. ;)
That is silly hyperbolic overreaction. The court literally upheld the EPA regulating greenhouse gasses at the point of creation. It upheld the specific regulations how coal was burned. All it said was the EPA wasn't empowered to move into grid management schemes. If congress wants to grant them that power, it can.
Yes. That is why they thinned things down with the compute module form factors.

https://www.raspberrypi.com/for-industry/

https://jfrog.com/connect/post/3-best-industrial-raspberry-p...
The exchange rate for gold (i.e. the interface of an economy with the material) can crash, not gold itself, thus the inherent value. That was my point, sorry if that wasn't coming across.

>If the world crashes so far that gold is a meaningful proportion, will there be much to transact at all?

This is where I start speculating, but couldn't we just create an arbitrary new currency and tie it to gold?
> Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.
The democrats have the senate majority. They just have to be willing to pass laws that the moderates will vote for. For dumb political reasons, they refuse to do this, and this is a forcing function to make them act like adults.

They could even get ~2 Republican votes for broad abortion rights, and likely more if they passed a targeted bill about the health of the mother, incest, etc.

As recently as a decade ago the democrats had a supermajority and passed sweeping healthcare reform bills. It's really not an insurmountable barrier.
I've implemented a pools allocator for embedded devices a couple of times. Allocating memory for callers out of a block of static memory. I thought it was portable C. Which detail of the standard did I not realise I was running into?
-- I'd think that if you wanted to progress your country and change it toward your perspective - it would take folks moving to the areas they're uncomfortable to do the work in those communities - from an outside perspective it seems the conservatives are going to swallow the liberals in the states simply because they're more comfortable literally going to other areas of the country to change/bolster views? (I don't live in the USA)- however - I suppose that's a lot to ask - that said- it's fairly common in some countries --
The central tenet is the underlying intrinsic value. There are many fungible concepts that operate on a valuation that seems like it is being bought and sold solely on the basis that others think it is valuable too. However, usually there's a seed of intrinsics, something fundamental whose value will always be there.

For 'fiat currency', it's the fact that the state has a monopoly on violence and has decreed both [A] that they will accept the fiat currency for fulfillment of tax obligations, and [B] that they will not enforce a claim of debt if you have offered to pay it in fiat currency and the debtee didn't accept your offer.

For gold it's the fact that gold is considered intrinsically pretty by some, and has industrial uses.

The same can be said for iron, wood, or even air - but those are far less rare. Wood has value just as gold does - it's just that folks tend not to trade trailers full of wood as a fungible because it is unwieldy.

Stocks have intrinsic value too: It's a tiny voting share, and gives the right to enjoy a share of dividends.

Bitcoin has __nothing__. Whatsoever. It's real easy to look at the ridiculous price of stocks in companies that make it incredibly difficult to use your vote and which never pay out any dividends, or the sheer unfathomable levels of business done in terms of USD or EUR and how it seems to dwarf the intrinsic, and conclude that the intrinsic is just not important...

But is that a jump you can make?

As you said:

> I accept 100 euro bills for my labour because I believe I'll continue to be able to trade them for food and shelter.

You sure? Maybe it's 1% 'because I have absolute guarantees I can pay my taxes with this, and I have a guarantee that I can trade them for food and shelter because if I pay my bills with dollars and the recipient no longer wants them, they have no legal recourse to force me to make good in any other way'. Presumably you have certain outstanding debts that work like this (if not just simply your tax bill, which is inevitable, then your power bill, your rent or mortgage, etc), so that euro bill __already has value__ the moment you receive it. You can take your mental bookkeeping of 'oh yeah the month is halfway through so I absolutely do, unambiguously, owe my bank half a month's mortgage at the very least', and immediately reduce that amount by €100,-, given that you are holding a €100,- bill in your hands and the state has decreed that they will tell the bank to get fucked if they decide they no longer want to accept your euro for paying off that mortgage.
CEO of my current company pitched partnering with a consultancy to fill our resource needs (can’t hire anyone). During an org wide meeting, he promised that this wasn’t going to result in layoffs. That we needed to work with them so that they could help. Thus ensued 6 weeks of helping them learn our systems and business processes in a process, that in hindsight, felt like knowledge transferring. After that, a bunch of people were laid off without warning and the CEO has still yet to address the org directly.

I have yet to figure out my takeaway from this experience, but it makes me wonder if I prefer incompetence or dishonesty.
speedy response (vs instantaneous) is not necessarily evidence of automation - there will be a team monitoring the reports, performance managed on timeliness. The message, of course, is canned, which may have reinforced the impression the entire chain was automated
Well at least they share it with the IRS who will happily share it back to users should they not figure it out when taxes are due
Even mics with passive rejection (basically an omnidirectional mic facing outwards that passively cancels the input from the cardioid mic facing your mouth) do pretty well at these tasks.

Antlion and Sennheiser make good passive rejection mics.
> things that the majority doesn’t actually want

Majority of square feet of land or majority of people?
All your coinbase are belong to us
One difference is that Coinbase itself chooses the coins that are available for trading, whereas a stock broker just gives you access to shares traded on an exchange.

I.e. Coinbase is both Schwab and NASDAQ for crypto. And they've certainly (ab)used this power by listing shitcoins that conveniently were owned by the same VCs that had invested in Coinbase itself.

Speaking of the SPAC loophole, that's being plugged by new SEC regulations. Crypto companies wouldn't be happy to have their tokens be under the same regulatory framework, but probably they should be.
Mojo Vision’s AR contact lenses
Interesting to see the development over the past few years and how theory is comparing to practice. One of the theorized benefits from the MIT video was quieter drones. This article says the ionic propulsion demoed is about 85db which sounds like it’s just as loud as current drones.
3 days? If only it were 3 days, i. many jurisdictions it’s 10 days
Let me know when they have a Zero 2 on sale in that store of yours, I'l take several.
Or people in the EU tend to submit stories about the EU when the EU is awake... I love how US centric the internet is sometimes that an American staying up late to suubmit an article about the EU is somehow more top of mind than, you know, an actual EU person.
Given Git is distributed (or most source control as a matter of fact today is) - even if you stopped pushing your code to Github, does it stop Copilot from pulling code from sources like gitlab.gnome.org, kernel.org, gitlab.kde.org etc?

I think underlying discussion should be about licensing, not about website to which you are pushing open source code to. Because that can be easily worked around.
Third party PR firms in particular to bring in more cash and expand their business at the expense of everyone's sanity and the shareholders' financial health.
Because they are pandering for votes. They know that the average citizen doesn't know that the law would be deemed unconstitutional based on the most recent ruling.
Can this tech be used to make a (quieter) room fan?
The EPA was created to empower experts to make informed decisions with the goal of benefiting the public good. The science of regulating pollutants is hard, and neither our representatives nor the voters who elect them and ultimately hold them accountable should be expected to develop that expertise.

The vested interests who benefit from the fossil fuel industry control the flow of information to our representatives through lobbyists, and to the public through advertising. Panels of experts in their field are harder to influence.
Urbit is a weird libertarian/neofeudalist cult.
It is valuable for gov’t agencies to be able to act broadly on their mandates without needing congress to dictate everything. As the dissent puts it, “A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems.”

We can hope that Congress will step up and legislate, but that seems pretty unrealistic to me. I fear that this is just the latest wave of successes by the party that wants our government to be as toothless and inept as possible and already has a stranglehold on Congress for the foreseeable future.
> it now needs to spend a lot of money on marketing to achieve that growth.

I think focusing on improving their products would be more prudent. There's only so much marketing can do when users hate your product.
I understand your point, but at the same time, I don't want the same "it is like a series of tubes" guys mandating some airplane technology pushed by the highest campaign contribution either.
To me this is fundamentally contradictory:

> the people en masse, should they choose to actually understand and use the decentralized blockchain

I used to work for financial traders. Our company was essentially the same as the companies of professional gamblers. We knew we were playing zero-sum games. Our goal was to create asymmetries in information and skill such that we got the money that other people were putting in. In the markets we played in, the opposition was mostly other well-funded players. But you can bet that there are well-funded groups with snowdrifts of math PhDs who are happy to take money from "the people en masse" that decide to trade in the markets.

Those people already exist in the non-blockchain financial economy. From predatory lenders to fake health care plans [1] to ponzi schemers, frauds, and grifters. What mainly keeps them in check is regulation, not regular people "choosing to actually understand". Because what distinguishes "the people en masse" from the people who prey on them is that the predators can devote all their time and attention to one particular hustle, while "the people en masse" have to defend against every hustle, while trying to be good at their jobs, take care of their families, and live their lives.

So the hustlers are always going to be one step ahead from regular folk. Doubly so in an unregulated, rapidly evolving space with metastasizing complexity like you see in the cryptocurrency/ico/nft/defi/web3/wft space.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/health/christian-health-c...
it's not like you can infer other rights at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process
A human society with the same level of hierarchy as most animals would be the most egalitarian society to exist basically since the invention of agriculture.

A wolf pack is a nuclear family with the parents in charge. If that were the primary organizing principle for a human society, we would consider that pure anarchism.
I agree, but the current political climate has made consensus appear as weakness.
I completely agree. Another thing I've been thinking about is this:

What if, instead of creating inflation by adding new coins, you create "inflation" by directly decreasing the value of transaction outputs, and you just keep the coinbase reward constant?

Depending on the model, you could make it so that outputs eventually go to zero, so they won't need to be recorded on the ledger forever. The old outputs just get garbage-collected.
> What kind of BS world do we live in where bosses give a shit what you think of the grocery store or corner store down the block?

they don't care about that. they do care if you go on social media and make an ass of yourself by mocking people who are less fortunate, damaging the hard work of everyone else in the company by sullying its brand.
Things like cancer, Alzheimer's and so on that are higher in modern times are primarily diseases of the elderly. They were less common prior to recent generations because of the smaller number of people who managed to get to the age where those would be problems. Yes, you can argue that (in some countries but not at all globally) there has been a small decrease in life expectancy over the last couple of decades but that is insignificant compared to the advances made over the last century.
> If yes, we've established that governments and by extension their people have some right (even responsibility) to get angry about what people do behind closed bedrooms.

In these examples other people are actually negatively impacted. In the case of a couple being gay that's not the case. Perhaps if they are extremely loud about it, but this goes for all denominations.

> One of the critical functions of any society, human, insect, literally all animal societies, is to maintain replacement reproduction, or risk societal collapse. Furthermore, societies compete with other societies. It's a defensible argument that society should care about its reproductive issues, here represented by the closed bedroom.

That's a very medieval take. Our main challenges now are environmental and directly linked to overpopulation. Also, killing people that are gay (like many backward countries do) is not going to make them straight and reproduce.
Why should the legal system have to step in to coerce people to behave like decent human beings?

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

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?