skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You used the word "GOAT", I gave you an example of another GOAT, showing that your argument that Carlsen is "not one of the goats" does not hold water because "he did not beat people convincingly" (itself quite a bizarre statement, the objective is to win, and Michael Jordan is one of GOATs because he won so many championships, and Karpov's argument can be made against him to, if you know the games played). This is not a straw-man, I don't think we have the same definition of that. Besides that one quote from Karpov, you cannot find anyone else making that point, so you used one quote for a a pretty substantial statement. If it was an opinion held by many, I might entertain it a bit, but it's just very wrong.
I wonder if this is done because people have a tendency or something to always create resources in 'A' (or some other AZ) and this helps spread things around.

And if I would have read the page the link points to better, that's exactly the reason
If we assume something like Einstein's popular idea of a "frame of reference"... well, then I think this entire article can be valid. Emphasis on the word can.

If I assume my frame of reference to be one where attitudes toward meat-eating is desired, then I am going to assume people who are vegan are stupid. Vegans will detract from my meat-eating ways, and the meat-eating ways of my friends and tribe.

If we can apply a frame of reference, then these laws of stupidity can be (comically) useful in the sense that "stupid" people will detract from your quality of life. "Stupid" people, per this article, seem to misalign with the views and desires of the "superior" (per your comment) person and thus cause friction in the life of the "superior".

In a weird way, I see this article as a funny way to remind us to be cautious with our time & energy. To be conscious about who we spend our time with, who to expose our ideas to, and who to ask for help. It might be an extremely satirical reference guide to make sure you catch yourself before you go too deep into relying on the wrong person for your job or favor, for example.

I wouldn't take it too seriously, because, well, that might be stupid.
> Having more money in your bank than the police believe you should have?

Yes, an "Unexplained Wealth Order" in the UK. If you appear to have too much wealth you can be obliged to explain how you lawfully acquired it on pain of seizure.
Yeah, it doesn't seem good for that at all. It bogs you down in things that are very easy (or even encourages you by gamifying flawless performances.) Even if you test out of units, the farther you move along, the more you realize that Duolingo sets up a very specialized arbitrary mapping of translations from English to the target language as you learn. If you've skipped ahead, you'll be missing questions because you translated "waste" as "malgastar" instead of "desperdiciar." Couldn't be more frustrating.
I agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is so great that it amazes me that we have so few pro-society incentives for competent and well intentioned individuals to serve on the highest governing bodies.

If I could wave a magic wand and change things, here's what I would do:

1. Increase pay for senators by 10x, and for congresspeople by 5x.

2. Institute term limits, maximum of 4 consecutive terms.

3. After leaving office, total ban on direct employment of any kind for a period of time equal to the time spent in office. During this 'freeze' period, give them a pension equal to their pay while in office.

4. Strict limits on the nature of employment allowed for spouses/children/close relatives.

5. Strict limits on volunteer/nonprofit work, board positions, and anything else that isn't direct employment.

6. Lifetime ban on political lobbying.

7. Ban on any investing outside of a blind trust for the duration of their time in office plus the duration of the 'freeze'.

Overall, my thesis is that we should take away as much as possible of the opportunity and the incentive for corruption for the purpose of financial gain. We do that by paying officials gobs of money and preventing them from participating in the system outside of their defined role as a government official.
>You only want people as politicians because they feel it's their civic duty to serve their countrymen, not because it's a lucrative career.

That sounds great. I agree in principle.

However, I believe the parent is asserting that in practice, the kinds of people who are competent and able to effectively manage a large organization are the kinds of people that can make a lot of money in the private sector, and thus only go into public office if it is lucrative anyway.

Should it be lucrative because they can get bought by special interests, or should it be more lucrative simply because they get compensated above board more?

Perhaps someone who makes a million dollars a year would be someone less likely to be corrupted by a few more campaign dollars and kickbacks than someone making $170k.
In this article, we will highlight how CSS works under the hood, what are the rules CSS uses to evaluate blocks of code, and some tips and tricks that can help you reach the next level in your journey to CSS Mastery.
I disagree.
I've been cranking out CRUD APIs with libraries in very little time. If something gets too complex you toss it away and maybe keep just the data model

What retool offers is a nice UI on top of CRUD apps

Cool, but I lived without it for my entire career (and I thought of building something like retool for about as long)
A bit tangential, but in some cases you can use S3 Gateway endpoints, which can dramatically reduce your egress costs if you're just accessing it within a VPC.

[0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/privatelink/vpc-endpo...
I know nothing about finding advertising money… but your subject matter is good one no?

( your audience is open to workspace improvements)
That's not really a fair comparison. CNN sometimes plays up controversy for eyeballs, but Fox is an outright manipulator. Tucker Carlson is touting fascism and Sean Hannity was literally taking phone calls from the Oval Office asking what they wanted him to say on air. They are also being sued for libel for promoting baseless election fraud conspiracy theories. Saying they're equivalent is like saying a pigeon is like a squid because they both have a beak.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/04/fox-oan-newsma...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/29/politics/hannity-text-message...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/tucker-carlson-has-s...
We agree with you 150%. Because of the algorithms driving social media, so much of food content is meant to be entertainment, not education, and far from accessible. Because of the focus on attention, cooking appears way harder than it has to be. Here are some of the principles driving what we're doing:

Cooking fundamentals rather than recipes

Education rather than entertainment ("food porn")

Don't have the right tool? No problem! Here are 3 ways to improvise

Missing that ingredient? No problem! Here are 3 substitutes

Scaling primarily using software/data/ML instead of hardware (capital-intensive) or physical delivery (operations heavy)

Exponentially less content to create with knowledge blocks ("legos") rather than recipes ("what you build with the legos")

"Learn to make this with Parsnip" rather than "buy these groceries" or "order this food" or "watch this video"

Encouraging you to be the creative process vs. outsourcing work to someone else

I believe we have a few aces up our sleeve for avoiding the status trap. You can get a sense of how we're thinking about it here: https://parsnip.substack.com/p/why-now
I want to take that money and vacation for 4 months lol.
I live in the UK and have driven on various European countries and all down the US West coast. LA had easily the worst and most aggressive drivers of all. It was terrifying; one moment you're trying to squeeze onto the highway between two cars that absolutely won't budge an inch, the next moment you're being overtaken on both sides simultaneously by cars going over the speed limit. I also passed two fresh car-totalling crashes in two days, which I've never experienced elsewhere.
Do you have anything other than unearned moral condescension? It is not my experience that clicking your tongue at people and badgering them to prioritize the collective over their own individual health outcomes in a healthcare policy is compelling.

So why would I engage? Because you seem to be advocating policies that would directly (and potentially negatively) affect my health outcomes, and your justification is "but you're just a statistic".
>Are you referring to the judicial branch? Isn't that the system laid out in the founding docs

No, I'm talking about the executive branch agencies. An example would be, Congress passes a protected species act; they empower the EPA to regulate how this protected species act is enforced; the EPA makes policy of how the protected species act is enforced.

This isn't completely insane, as it's a complicated process. But in actuality, what happens is the EPA becomes a revolving door for special interests ("I worked at the EPA for 5 years, and now I'm head of Environmental Quality at BP!"), corporations "encourage" lawmakers to carve out exceptions in the law that help or protect the corporations, and the agency in general can be used as a weapon to selectively reward or punish people or companies while the ones who could be held accountable--the Congressional lawmakers--can wash their hands of all responsibility. ("It's the EPA, I didn't take away your farm because they found a mushroom species that's protected.")

You're right that edge cases are hard. But the current paradigm of "enact sweeping reforms through vague legislation, and leave the details up to underpaid, overworked, and possibly ideological civil servants who can never be fired in any practical way" isn't sustainable. We know what happens, because it has happened.

Legislators participate in the revolving door policy, too. They do favors for corporate sponsors, and later they get a job there, or with a lobbying group that is funded by corporate sponsors, or with some other back-scratching deal. While doing something about insider trading is a good thing, that's not the real problem, and it feels to me that something like this is more like a bone thrown to keep the yapping dog quiet.
Adolescent birth rate per 1000 women aged 15-19, per year

2019 2001
USA 16.7 45.0
NL 2.5 7.8

https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-detai...
My Experience with EdgeDB
The subject/audience are perfect for a wide range of sponsors.
A multi-az deployment is a checkbox in most AWS services, e.g. ASGs, RDS, load balancers, etc. Someone didn't check that box because they didn't know about it, there isn't much complexity in it.
It can far more often than not. However certain parties have a vested interest in pushing the narrative that all news is equally fake and that any attempt to distinguish truth from lies is simply propaganda.
I completely agree.

Sending or receiving is explicit images is dangerous for children.

"Think of the children" is often just a cover for ulterior motives, but it is sometimes an adequate or even excellent reason to do something.

This feature from Apple is great. It seems to respect privacy, is fully controlled by the user or their parent, and will increase safety for those who choose to use it.

A common tactic used by child predators is to catfish a child, get the child to send explicit images of themselves, and then blackmail them with those images into doing much worse things. I think this feature will make it less likely for this to happen, and has practically zero downside.
Can you share more about why you'd want to avoid chopping your own vegetables?
So how can you possibly say "The transaction would also cost less energy than it did through Stripe" if you have no idea how much energy a traditional transaction takes?
But at least you do get to explain it.
this looks cool but the data collected label in google play claims that it collects emails (under the messages heading). i believe it's probably meant to indicate that email addresses are collected, but the way it's presented it sounds like it collects actual email content. (these new labels are self-reported, right?)
Unless Citizens United is overturned, this would take a constitutional amendment, "money is speech" per that Supreme Court verdict and so...

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So this puts us as requiring a constitutional amendment since only that can carve out an exception to something earlier in the constitution (see the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition) and unfortunately constitutional amendments have an extremely high bar to clear to make them happen. Not just a "half of the bastards finally agree" like a regular law ...

Per article 5 of the constitution:

> Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states

75 percent of the state congresses have to agree to it on top of 2/3 of the federal congress.

It will never happen short of some apocalyptic social shift.
First you need to make the corruption illegal.
The scam contract in this video reminds me of playing Eve Online.
Tell HN: If your IP is shadowbanned, even new accounts can not participate
So, I got shadowbanned on HN. No big deal, everyone tells me: happens all the time, just get over yourself, and create a new account to be more constructive this time around.

Eh, Okay...? So, I signed up as https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=syracuse850330

So far so good. Then I submitted https://www.computerenhance.com/p/why-isnt-there-a-createprocess-that

Which went through, except that I couldn't comment on my new submission, as before.

And, guess what? This EXACT link was already submitted 3 days prior, by user-who-apparently-doesnt-violate-guide-guidelines 'indy'

Was I told? No! Was I left to believe my duplicate link was submitted? Yes!

Good job, HN modernazis! I have about 20 pills of benazipril left, which should do the job of getting rid of me for good. Bye!
"Study limitations" is standard language in epidemiological papers, so that's not a surprise, nor a condemnation.

Further, to my knowledge it is known that "case zero" (i.e. the zoonotic event) did not occur at the Wuhan market, specifically because there was already sequence divergence in early cases.

However, that doesn't prevent the market from being the main source of the outbreak. There's no evidence for any other source.
> In most other sub fields you don’t get to not publish if exactly one endpoint never comes to pass. I know I didn’t have something like that, and most of my non crystallographer friends didn’t.

How is this a problem unique to structural biology? In every subfield we're hoping to publish interesting results, and that endpoint is defined by the nature of the field. As a geneticist, in the early 90s, sequencing & characterizing a single bacterial gene would have been the focus of an ambitious PhD thesis and would yield multiple papers. Sequencing at that time period had a dozen points of failure and high risk to set as the goal for a thesis. Today, sequencing a whole genome is unlikely to yield a single publication. If you're setting the ability to crystallize as the single point of failure endpoint, that logic applies to every subfield. We all have something that could potentially derail our plans, and I fail to see how structural biology is unique in that respect.

> There’s a lot of structural biology apologists here in this thread. Happy to crap on DeepMind but not ready to take criticism of their own field.

I'm not a structural biologist - I'm a Geneticist who disagrees with your characterization of SB. The issues you've mentioned are not unique to SB, but apply to pretty much all subfields. I see grad students in general lament their life choices when their cell culture fails, their mice die, protocols just don't work, or their results just don't make sense.
March 4th, 2022: “Disney to Still Fund ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill Backers, Will Support Gay Rights with ‘Inspiring Content’”[1]

March 9th, 2022: “Human Rights Campaign Refuses Money from Disney Until Meaningful Action is Taken to Combat Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” Bill”[2]

March 11th, 2022: “Disney pauses political donations in Florida, CEO Chapek apologizes for silence over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill”[3]

I don’t think it’s the first time, either. Not for them nor other big names[4]. I wouldn’t find it unreasonable to believe they’re being opportunistic.

[1]: https://www.indiewire.com/2022/03/disney-fund-dont-say-gay-s...

[2]: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/human-rights-campaign-ref...

[3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/11/disney-pauses-political-dona...

[4]: https://www.dataforprogress.org/accountable-allies
If your plotting something illegal like a coup, that's already illegal. However, if you want to question the results of an election you should have every right to do so. Look at 2000 and 2016. Both those results were questioned and people weren't censored. What changed?

Our election system is far from perfect. The only way for it to get better is to talk about.
Goolsbee is a world renowned economist with tenure at one of if not the most hawkish monetary institutions in the world. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
> The philosophical exercise of saying everything is bad is not very interesting to me.

That is why I, explicitly, pointed out alcohol, which is something that's currently legal and is known bad for people in, basically, any quantity.
Large fixed costs, economies of scale, whole product (need compute AND storage). It's possible that a company like Cloudflare can disrupt certain verticals in storage that are mispriced by AWS yet have a larger than expected TAM.
Reposting my commentary:

The TL;DR is that this appears to beat both OpenAI Codex (12 billion params) and DeepMind's AlphaCode (1 billion params), despite having only 770M parameters.
There is also a paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.01780

And the code is available: https://github.com/salesforce/CodeRL

So this seems to buck the trend of needing enormous models, by being smarter about taking into account the output from running the AI-generated program on test cases.
Why wouldn't you take the money AND the bribes?

If you have a system in place that can find and punish bribes - why not pay them a reasonable amount of money - and just eliminate bribes without spending $0.1T per year...
That would presumably require a Constitutional amendment to carve out an exception in the 1st Amendment. So not easy.

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...
Law suit would just be one part of a Law suite.
> This isn't sex.

True, but we tried "abstinence only" with The Prohibition, too, and that didn't work, either.
That example seems clear cut from both ethical and constitutional perspectives. If juveniles use your property to commit crimes, that property is rightly in jeopardy.
Actually, a $1,000 bill is likely to be destroyed.

But that's the government's problem. Either they will have to pay the collectable value to the collector (if the property is to be returned to them) or not pay anything to the collector.

Well, it's also a "destruction of historical artifacts" problem.
How many years and millions of dollars does it take for an enforcement action like this? I think a per-call fee that can be cheaply assessed by carriers on callers that renders such spamming unprofitable in the first place is likely to be a far more efficient approach.
> The U.S. government thinks they have very valid reasons they should be able to see the details of the accounts of all U.S. citizens regardless of where those accounts may be. For the most part I agree with the concept, because as an entity responsible for collecting and running off of taxes, [...]

Most of the world doesn't agree with that concept. AFAIK, the only countries which tax citizens instead of just residents are the USA and Eritrea.
Replicating a huge database between AZs, let alone regions, can be an enormously expensive ongoing operational cost. Not everyone can afford it.
A bot that detects logical fallacies would be amazing for journaling. Would be really interesting to stream of consciousness into a text document and have the computer put red underlines under questionable premises or conclusions.
This has absolutely nothing to do with social engineering.
It’s even worse than a direct democracy because we know there is a portion the social media “crowd” who aren’t actually constituents. So it’s like a direct democracy where the democracy’s enemies are also allowed a vote.
Honestly, and this is pure theory -- "Sketchy private storage company" sounds like a very good solution, if sketchy means "you can pay in cash and therefore not reveal your identity?"

E.g. maybe just do some crappy furniture or something and throw the valuables in a cushion? Something like that.
DigitalOcean, Linode, Hetzner, Vultr...
Aren't multi-az deployments more expensive? That would be a valid reason not to check this checkbox, if your business can survive a bit of downtime here and there.
I am planning to get a custom made study table and workspace for my son.. Any suggestions?
Could this make the lawsuit more difficult since you've signaled consent? (Yes, they made the first move prior to your consent, but I wonder if that would be a murkier narrative in the courtroom.)
State of Cloud Cost Intelligence: 2022 Report
CloudZero surveyed 1000 engineering and finance professionals about cloud cost. Here's what we found.
Prompt:

The following exchange is from HackerNews. The first long-winded comment is from an AI evangelist, extolling the virtues of artificial intelligence with a starry eyed perspective that considers only the value and not the cost. The second comment is in reply to the first, and is a very short and blunt takedown of the previous comment and the perspective of its author:

AIRocksMaaan:

Response:

AI is definitely the future. Just think about all of the possibilities that it can bring! For instance, it can help us create more efficient algorithms, it can help us automate repetitive tasks, and it can even help us make better decisions by providing us with more accurate data.

Not to mention, it can also help us create new and innovative products and services that can improve our quality of life.

AI definitely has a lot of potential and I think we should definitely explore it further.

threethirty:

This is all bullshit.
Why isn’t this the basis for a tv show?
Cities in the Netherlands are very good and safe places to raise kids in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw

It is just a matter for human instead of car-centric city planning. This will also help with poverty and crime.