skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Equity means equality of outcome, basically meaning you believe every person is equal in their results.

> This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society.

> If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking.

Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe.

For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk.

> (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).

Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity":

"Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society."

This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity."

You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society.

I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity."

Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.
OK one more! Beyond out of hours..

A huge huge problem with slack versus email is out-of-office behaviors.
In outlook, I set myself OOO in calendar, create a scheduled OOO response with active dates and audience types to respond / not respond to (internal/external).
It's like 3 clicks, and defaults to the same message I always use, and I have to set myself OOO in calendar already anyway so people don't book meetings / my boss knows I am out.

In Slack, I mark myself away, set my status to OOO, put a stupid little palm try icon up, disable notifications and...

AND I still get people blasting me with DMs as if I am working. I come back to a mess of unreads I need a couple hours to unwind as I scroll up channels/DMs/etc.
Users can even force notifications through against my will (except that I disabled them at OS level :-) ).

Slack needs an OOO response tool, and even the ability to block senders to go a step further.
Why would you expect that just because someone can do your job, they should join you as your peer? That might be true for more junior folks - they have proven they are on at least the same level, emphasis on at least. What's wrong with more senior folks, who may also have skillets you don't, still retaining their tech chops?
It’s a good sign that something is dogma when emotions run very high over exact word choices.

For example there were huge controversies in the fourth century over homoousion (“same in essence”) vs homoiousios (“similar essence”).

Reminds me of equity vs equality.
It All Began with Belief
How to Build a Real Igloo
That handles IaaS, now do all databases (relational, NoSQL, NewSQL, KV, etc.), message brokers, object storage and a hundred other services. OpenStack handles some of those, with varying degrees of success, but with VMware and Hyper-V you have to DIY from scratch with IMHO the wrong level of abstraction.
You’re right, he was killed off early in Equilibrium too!
I'm not optimistic after they shat the bed on WoT. Turning epic fantasy into visual media content is hard work and they aren't spending the money in the right place. I'll check it out but my expectations are extremely low.
Is it possible, even it principle, that some of these exotic hadrons could be long-lived (let alone stable)?

They're probably interesting to study on their own, but the engineering instinct is to want to build something out of them, or use them as tools, which seems pretty hard if they disintegrate in a quintillionth of a second!
What made the ending bad in that series? To actually see the women wasn't terrible.. Seinfeld had a bad ending but it doesn't ruin the show.
> Church books were used to find Jews?

If you know who to rule out, you have a smaller pool of people to go after.
I see people land opportunities via LinkedIn all the time but they also already have a great LI network in place.
Why I Built My Smart Home with Home Assistant
Of course there is some correlation between the two skillsets (with respect to ability): people who can abstract well can also understand the underlying ideas that are useful for fast calculation, and for both one needs to have a reasonably good memory (to rely on in an exam and when developing a mathematical intuition, respectively). But to be the best in high school 'math' (calculation) requires a degree of extrinsically-driven, dull discipline. One can probably be best in class without taking this degree to the extreme, but among the best in class, many excel at exactly this (and not at abstract thinking), which I find a bit troubling.
> insinuating...

The mere fact that their entire business model was optimized on profiteering from CDS of subprime mortgages, which crashed and took out the entire Global Market and required a bail out is all that you need to know; hell, GS has been buying up risky Russian debt since the invasion in an attempt to make a profit which Russia has now defaulted on. These people never learn!

They've legitimized their crime under the pre-tense of 'too big to fail,' as for evidence have fun:

https://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/a-brief-history-...

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/goldman-sa...

And the one most recent 'biggest fine in Wall Street History' award goes to GS for 1MDB scam:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/23/gold-o23.html

Assuming you are not being facetious, you have to be living under a rock to think these things are not cleared by either CEOs.

> The DoJ said Goldman had played a “central role” in the looting of 1MDB and should have detected warning signs. The acting head of the DoJ’s criminal division, Brian Rabbitt, said: “Personnel at the bank allowed this scheme to proceed by overlooking or ignoring a number of clear red flags.”

>The attempts to claim that one of the largest corruption operations in history was a matter of oversight simply does not pass muster. In court yesterday, Karen Seymour, Goldman’s senior counsel, admitted its Malaysian subsidiary had paid bribes “in order to obtain and retain business for Goldman Sachs.”

And the cherry on top:

> Besides avoiding prosecution, Goldman will also escape the appointment of a government monitor to oversee its compliance department which had earlier been put forward by officials involved in pursuing the case.
ML workloads definitely cost a lot of money. Even for a preemptible VM, A100 GPUs cost $0.88/hr/GPU. That's $624 a month for a single GPU and only the 40GB model. Want a dedicated 8 GPU machine in the cloud to do training with? That'll run you around 16 grand a month. Do that for 2 years and you may as well have bought the device. Want to do 16/24/40 GPU training? Good luck getting dedicated cloud machines with networking fast enough between them so that MPI works correctly, and prepared to give up your wallet.

Also, that's just compute. What about data? Sure cloud accepts your data cheaply, but they also charge you for egress of that data. Yes you should have your data in more than one location, but if you depend on just cloud then you need it in different AZ which costs even more money to keep in sync and available for training runs.

I think for simple workloads and renting compute for a startup, cloud definitely makes sense. But the moment you try to do some serious compute for ML workloads, good luck and hope you have deep pockets.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they just don’t want the testing and support overhead of supporting Firefox, and so it’s easier to block it than let people use it but it might be broken (and they then file a support ticket regardless of if it says “unsupported” etc). A shame for sure but probably makes good business sense given Firefox’s declining user base.
I always find it funny when .eu websites for projects sponsored by the UE are all using registrar from the USA, and probably hosting all of their data in US datacenters, including code hosted on US platforms

And who knows what they do with the sensible data they manipulate as a result

How can this still happen nowadays, what a shame and what a waste of EU money

It clearly shows their lack of direction, ethics and care

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/786641

Total cost
€ 2 865 947,50

What a shame
My main complaint is it's leaking abstractions. You basically need a PhD in git's internal data structures to use git. Well not the 5% of git you typically need in your day-to-day, but the other 95%, which you need when the 5% you do need somehow goes wrong, through one of the many foot-guns git offers.

A concrete example: Accidentally pushing a merge you didn't want to push and now you're stuck staring git-revert(1) which has the sentence below, scratching your head like "uh, what's a parent number?"

-m parent-number, --mainline parent-number
Usually you cannot revert a merge because you do
not know which side of the merge should be
considered the mainline. This option specifies
the parent number (starting from 1) of the
mainline and allows revert to reverse the change
relative to the specified parent.

Maybe you google a bit, and find this: https://www.christianengvall.se/undo-pushed-merge-git/ ... which explains a bit, but is still confusing as all hell. The rabbit hole continues to this: https://opensource.apple.com/source/Git/Git-26/src/git-htmld... which is also... not really clear.

But you still can't find information about what a "parent number" is. It turns out, the parent number is the order they show up in within 'git show HASH'. Combining that clue with Linus Torvalds email above may let you undo the merge, if you can make sense of his Feynman diagrams. Maybe.
I think that would be an interesting story. And I think, with time, we’ll get more of these stories.
> "Change gives the illusion of progress".

That itself is based on the belief that (historical) progress is an improvement.

Mostly true over the last few centuries - aspirin is nice - except for those occasions where it was mass murder.
Oh, please... no one is complaining about having minorities. The point is retconning a different type of "diversity" into a story just for the purpose of marketing for the current consumer base and its cultural sensitivities.

Taking a cultural landmark and just repackaging it (new version with 20% more "minorities"!) where the race of the actors does not change anything for the story being told is just cheap tokenism.

By all means, I'd love to see new stories and new characters, and these stories could benefit greatly from a diverse cast. You can use the diversity then to show how different people value different things, how conflict can come up due to these differences, how conflict can be solved despite these differences, and so on... let's just not pretend that this crap that Hollywood wants to shove down our throats is any good just because it ticks the right woke checkboxes.
Last interesting sci-fi show I watched was The Expanse, it was on Prime. One may hope.
Both dwm and wmii existed in 2006.
The Linux configuration option CONFIG_ANDROID may be going away
That's true, though I suppose if they had stuck the landing the relative decline after the end of season four (which I agree with) would have been forgiven.
Seinfeld is the exception. Heres the top TV shows of 1993:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-rated_United_States_tele...

Seinfeld is the only one that people still watch.
Could be as simple as the decision maker being able to point finger at the vendor. Could be PR related, where media does not report your company’s equipment was compromised. Could be reduced exposure to getting locked out of your own system and having to pay a ransom.
I can think of possible reasons.

For one there might be a power structure, where employees feel they will harm their colleagues by revealing criticism. For example if performance is used to determine further compensation and job security. If instead there is a healthy error culture, while improvement and ownership is incentivized, then people might want to share more.

Secondly it is bad form to criticize others indirectly, good form to own up your own mistakes or to personally and directly ask for criticism. If there is a middleman, then providing criticism can come off as weak and finger pointing. It might be easier and more healthy to give people an opportunity to ask others about their opinion.

Third, they might be many other social reasons like being timid or not thinking all too much about other people's performance. They might just like each other, be indifferent or afraid or what have you. Some might not even know very well how to give constructive, useful criticism. To get people to care and share their opinions freely you need regular practice. Face to face. And again, it should typically start with self-criticism, because that invites ownership and openness instead of a you vs me kind of deal.
There's only one piece of advice I'd give - Don't be an askhole.

And no, that's not a typo.
I've seen it. It was essentially four steps:

- Build middleware (REST API endpoint) in front of the mainframe that was 1:1 mainframe functions. It initially does nothing except auth and routing.

- Re-write/migrate all other software from using the mainframe directly to using the new middleware.

- Work to further restrict anything directly connecting to the mainframe aside from the middleware, including staff's terminal access by building management solutions (e.g. new UIs, new management middleware).

- Once the mainframe is completely isolated, start building drop-in replacements for business segments and then switch the middleware(s) to point at the new solution from the mainframe. This should be invisible to all external consumers. You can "hot test" it by having the API execute on the mainframe + new solution, and checking for 1:1 responses.

The hardest part about the above isn't the tech, it is the internal norms that you're fighting against (e.g. staff have had terminal access for tens of years, and know the commands to get their work done by memory). So you have to create very compelling alternatives using the new API middleware/web/apps, "export to Microsoft Excel," graphing, mobile support, and similar that a terminal cannot directly offer is clutch here.
I hear this quite a lot. Italy received free money, but that was a secret plan of the Germans to take over the country, because they know that Italians are stupid and would destroy their industry and buy lots of Audis. But this eventually destroyed Italy and now nobody is buying Audis.

This implies that Italians are dumb and that Germans are still in the business of making evil plans that fail at the end, because good always triumphs.
Crypto collapse reverberates widely among black American investors
Everything you're saying about the Soviet health system is true of capitalism's health system now. The difference is that, in the US, we go into debt for our mediocre care.

The main reason for the discrepancy in care quality during the midcentury is... drumroll please... that the Soviet Union was poor, due to initial conditions. It encompassed countries that had long been impoverished. The US had a middle class to build on; the USSR did not. It built a middle class where none had ever existed. Not to mention, the US was in the historically rare situation of winning a war (since, in economic and humanitarian terms, wars are negative-sum and most often only have losers). The USSR, on the other hand, consisted of nations that had taken a beating in World War II.

If you compare Kyrgyzstan to Alabama, the Soviet Union looks bad, but that's not really a fair comparison. Capitalism, as a sea empire, could dominate people from afar and keep them in nominally separate nations while exacting tribute; the Soviet system, as a land empire, could not. It had to integrate them. That's a harder problem. If you make a fairer comparison--say, if you compare Kyrgyzstan to Honduras or Haiti, the picture lines up a lot better. I imagine the quality of healthcare in the poorest countries under capitalism's thumb is even worse than it was in the poorest SSRs as of 1989.

This isn't to say the USSR was great. It was an authoritarian regime, and it launched some really ugly wars (such as the one in Afghanistan). It remained poor (relative to the West) throughout its lifespan because, ultimately, there is no magical economic system that guarantees 12% annual GDP growth--doesn't exist, never has. Socialism solves one set of problems--and a big set of very ugly problems--that capitalism lets fester, but does it automatically bring about utopia? No, not even close. On the other hand, socialism iterates toward a better standard of living for the common people; capitalism, unless heavily checked (as it was in the Cold War) iterates toward a worsening standard of living. So, on that dimension alone, capitalism loses. Everything said above about shortages and nosocomial infections and substandard care applies to capitalism's medical system today.
I left FedEx (Trade Networks) after 15 and a half years earlier this year. The entirety of that 15 1/2 years was spent using IBM AS/400 terminal to interact with various systems and was also used to submit paperwork to Customs and any other applicable government agencies to clear international freight.

It... was an experience.

I imagine that is going to take quite a bit of work to migrate over to someone else's servers, as I doubt they're going to be like "sure, we can accommodate your decade and a half old, mission-critical, systems"
And to add insult to injury, the IBM office in Munich (birthplace of national socialism), is located on 1 Hollerithstrasse (Hollerith street).

The IBM subsidiary in Nazi Germany selling and maintaining the tabulating machines was DeHoMag, Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen AG.

...
I was a bit disappointed when I found out Chick Corea was a Scientogist. He and Edgar Winter played on some terrible albums.
A quick scour of Google seems to come up with about 0.2 gallons per hour (about 900ml) for an idling engine, so assuming you keep your engine running (and discounting extra fuel used moving forward in the line), let's say you have a 16 gallon tank, you'll be able to run the engine for about 80 hours before stalling. Plus or minus 20% bearing in mind size of engine, tank size, ratio of time spent idle vs. moving, how much fuel you start with (you wouldn't be at a fuel station with a full tank, I'd imagine?)

80 hours is a lot less than I thought it would be.
Network effects, and that once many people get the hang of using git "well enough" they'd rather put up with it's annoyances than take the time to learn something that's marginally better..
> It sounds like you're just working around the limitations of the tools.

It can be hard to recognize, esp. since it has so much cultural inertia and approval, but doing things like splitting things into packages, recording the links in package.json (whether by hand or by tool-assist), and then introducing something like `npm install` into the workflow as a way to lazily fetch parts of a application's codebase is nothing but one massive (and massively fragile) scheme to circumvent the version control system as an consequence of unacknowledged limitations of the relevant tool.
I've discovered that being a pretty big white dude is a large part of why I feel safe in a lot of places that my friends don't.

Being a big dude means people are less likely to start something.

Being a white dude means people don't really even notice you unless you're starting something.

Call it privilege I suppose.
> Consider that many fans watch things they routinely disparage online.

they might not bother to subscribe to Prime for that and instead just get a copy off the high seas
My Firefox has a height limit of 4734em. That's where it breaks and collapses to null.
You are going to have a hard time selling if your code is incorporating open source libraries.

Standard M&A D&D is to see how defensible the codebase would be and determine IP.

The buyer can be buying several things:
1) Ip
2) people/knowhow
3) customers
4) cash flow

It sounds like you dont have 2. You may not have 3 if you are not doing sticky b2b enterprise sales with low churn. If you are selling your baby, that means the juice is not worth the squeeze and thus 4 is low.

That leaves 1. Do you have IP?

If you are using open source, you are going to have a hard time shopping it. You need a technical buyer to know what they are getting into.
> Bring back the old bulletin boards, or forums. Specialized communities driven by a common interest

That's what Reddit is, just at a central platform, which is easier for most involved with regards to UX (i don't want to have a separate account and notification system for each of my interests), discoverability, etc.
Doesn't the client still need to know a long-lived secret (or a long-lived refresh token) in order to generate the ephemeral credentials?
Considering you can do a lot of automated testing with many browsers at the same time, this excuse doesn't fly.
The service doesn’t matter as much as the law and the enforcement. This does not require me to hope a company plays ball.
No one is sharing the data about users, here. We are talking about disclosing things like recurring revenue, projected growth, size of market, etc.
Don’t want to “diagnose at a distance”, but it’s difficult to read this and not see a lot of the guy’s quirks as being quite typical of someone incredibly smart who also has ADHD.

Also don’t want to diminish his quite remarkable achievements in any way, either!
This isn't always easy to determine, especially if you are part of the movement. Often, we move by dead reckoning and only after some amount of time can we determine if what we did was "movement" or "progress".
There's no need to be apologist to a megacorp that does stupid things. They're going to continue even if you don't make excuses for them.
Back around 2015, it was that, switching out characters as black. Fine.

2022 it's something much more sinister. It's the entire postmodern philosophy mixed with equity forced into stories. LOTR is about good and evil and the triumph of good. It doesn't dismantle what good or evil is, it doesn't question everything, it's just a great story.

Unfortunately modern writers cannot bring themselves to write stories like this anymore, everything has to be questioned, everything has to be changed, everything sacred has to be unsacred, everything beatiful has to become ugly.

It's hard to put it into words. But it is happening. People in the media industry really have lost all sense of good storytelling.
"Deus Ex" (Ion Storm, 2000) ?