skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I actually would not expect smart people to be happier. In fact, I wouldn't expect any group of people to be particularly happier than anyone else.

Happiness and suffering are two sides of the same coin and we evolved these feelings (or they were bestowed upon us by God, either way) in order to guide us. We do more of what feels good, less of what feels bad.

If we're happy all the time, happiness loses its intended purpose. Same for suffering.

That's why, no matter what financial windfall you may experience, give it 6 months and you'll be just as miserable (or worse) as you were before. But because you got a high off of it initially, you keep pursuing more and more, always convinced the next upgrade in your life is what will do the trick. But it doesn't. All you're doing is raising the bar for what it takes to make you momentarily happy.

It's the "poverty of affluence", as described by Paul Wachtel in his book by the same name.

So our minds are constantly adapting to our circumstances and rebalancing things so that we come back to the center.

Chasing happiness, much like running away from suffering, is a fool's game. We are hard wired to feel both in roughly equal measure, regardless of our circumstances, over the long haul.

For this reason, I think the buddhists and stoics have it right. The best thing we can do is nothing. Sit down and shut up. Get off the wheel of suffering, observe the world as dispassionately as possible, and accept both joy and suffering as inconsequential inputs meant to guide us.

It's the closest any human will ever be allowed to experience peace in their mortal life. If you chase the highs of life, expect massive lows, as well. Accept life on life's terms. Stop chasing things and you may not be happier, but you'll probably be less miserable and experience fewer bouts of crippling depression and anxiety.

Or as Charles Bukowski's epitaph famously reads: Don't try.
This seems a good place to ask if other people have issues when people ask them "Is this possible?" but really mean "Would you recommend we do this/is this feasible enough to consider/is this a good idea?".

I have to stop myself and mentally translate every time.
There is a Kurzgesagt video on that exact point. Their analysis is that the emissions from shipping plants from further away to make your tofu is a drop in the bucket compared to the emissions you won’t be generating anymore by not consuming meat anymore. Meat which has to also have their food plants shipped around to them, on top of everything else.

See https://youtu.be/F1Hq8eVOMHs
Despite wealth inequality you can have societies which aren’t at each other’s throats. Not to say we want that society, but that is not directly related.

I also think that while the suggestion is facile on the surface, there is something more psychologically substantive —I’m not sure it’s sufficient but it certainly would help.

The root of our issues in the US is the selling out the lower classes’s potential by the government and industry to offshoring, thus reducing their economic power and outlook.

Of course if we hadn’t pursued globalization we’d be less advanced and things would be more expensive —imagine a kind of Switzerland, but while the potential is less open ended the lower classes and the middle classes would be less diverged from themselves as well as from the wealthy. So an executive to staff disparity might be 10x instead of 100x.
> They happen to me too.

And me. I'm not autistic. I don't think I have any kind of Asperger's either.

I didn't see anything in author's prose that suggested autism; it just sounded like a normie, perhaps with an autism diagnosis, who is fretting about communication with their boss.

There seems to be quite a few commenters here making critical comments, as if author is failing to communicate effectively. I wonder if they'd have been so critical, if author hadn't self-identified as autistic. I wonder if some of these commenters have a bad attitude to self-identified autistics.

I've never known an autistic person well; but I worked closely in an office with an autistic developer. I found his code over-complex and hard to follow. Pair-coding with this guy was a waste of time; he couldn't explain what he was doing. Author, however, seems to be able to explain himself fine.
China’s secretive space plane flies higher and longer than before
No one wants this.
What I've seen is that engineering departments tend to be engineers all the way down, so you often end up in a situation where the roles are reversed: the IC is neurotypical and the manager is autistic (especially asperger's).

And then, there is a lot of difficulty for the non-neurotypical to see anything beyond their "literal place on the totem pole", or their title. They lean on their experience to say what is right or wrong, even though they have far less context and the IC is trying not to ruffle feathers or hurt people's feelings.
284 lines of C++, and a 1.53 GB wav2vec2 model. But still very nice!
I wonder how this impacts legal discovery when your dynamic emails get rid of all the evidence that was ever emailed to a recipient.
I've wondered similarly, but I don't know why it would need mass. That just complicated things. It has energy, and we have an equation that tells us how much equivalent mass that would be. It's not missing mass, it's energy that's the cause of the extra gravity.

I also assume this has been accounted for though
The nets wear out. There is no incentive to recover here. Most of these nets are dumped when they develop too many holes to be useful. It's easier than bringing the shredded net back to shore and trying to dispose of it.

Chinese shipping fleets do this routinely.
> Logically, smarter people should be less happy, because they realize that important issues are borderline unsolvable in any realistic timeframes.

You don't need to be very intelligent to consider climate a very hard problem. In fact, if we follow this logic, less smart people should be unhappier, since they are in an even worse position to do something, while smart people might choose to go into an engineering job to help solve the problems or gain enough influence in politics to change things for the better.
It's possible to restrict vehicle size in urban centres, plenty of cities do. You can move things with smaller safer trucks and vans for the last mile. In some cases, this is even done with cargo bikes.
> if someone comes up with a good programming language for modern Web-style applications that compiles down to Wasm

That's exactly what Blazor is all about
Alternative hypothesis: end technocratic censorship and allow for a more federated local approach to dealing with contentious issues. Oh wait, that would mean a government working for the people it governs and not the political donor class. Silly me, I forgot we're only supposed to pretend like we care about the people.
The tricky piece of this is that people can be right about the facts and still be wrong, or at least in complete disagreement with each other. This is because there is a latent opinion in each fact, which is that the fact matters and is relevant for the conversation at hand.

If you start from your own set of priors and are getting nowhere, you probably want to consider there might be a more relevant fact (for that person, opinion alert!) that you don't know about and aren't considering.
Realism is seeing an issue and recognizing that it is a problem.

Intelligence is seeing an issue and recognizing that it is a problem and recognizing the root issues to how it became a problem.

Proper action is seeing both of the above and addressing the immediate issues and the longer term ones so the problem does not happen again.

Cynicism comes from when you are not allowed any sort of action and actively denied the ability to fix cause root issues. Then gaslighted into thinking you are wrong for wanting the change or forced into fixing the wrong things.
Sure, but occams razor would probably prefer some gas cloud.
It makes no sense to me. Even in math notation where one-letter names and terse notation are the norm, you rely heavily on familiarity and convention to understand the notation.

Reading a computer program written in such terse style is like reading a textbook in a completely unfamiliar field, without a symbol glossary or explanatory text. The cognitive burden can be extreme.

I do agree that there is some value in higher information density and the ability to quickly "pattern match" on sections of code (eg. regex), but only up to a point.
I was quite interested in this, but after seeing that it includes three big other repositories, my interest was immediately gone.

I'm not saying this isn't an interesting project, but perhaps lead with something different?
The article is regarding something from Google so you are always going to have the anti-Google crowd come out and blast it no matter what it is. You also have the people that are still upset that anything except text is allowed in email.

I have received dynamic email a couple of times over the last couple of years and each time it has been a pleasant experience. For example my local mechanic sent a reminder that it was time for my vehicle inspection and my oil change. I was able to schedule my appointment for these directly from the email without having my email reading interrupted by having to switch windows or tabs.
As a fellow autistic in the industry, I've struggled with these same things as well. The world wants to tell us that it's entirely our responsibity to adapt to it, and there's probably some grains of truth there. But what I've learned from years of working on complicated systems is... nothing is so simple as it seems. I've read dozens of books about interpersonal relationships, taken classes, therapy, etc. and at the end of the day what I end up doing is a lot less than anyone would think is necessary.

1. If someone isn't listening, stop talking. Nobody is benefiting from that, and it's a waste of your time and energy. I get significantly better engagement with people when they can interact with me for information rather than getting an information dump. On rare occasions they ask me something that does have a long and complicated answer, I lead with that fact and ask if they want the full details or as brief of a summary as I can make (-vvv or -q).

2. Let people into your thought process. The way we associative thinkers work is completely different from what linear thinkers are doing. By walking them through your thought process (which is infuriatingly slow this way) they actually can vaguely follow why you're asking what you're asking. It also allows you to give early feedback. "There are lots of concerns that should be considered before re-writing any already working software..." Over time people will begin to understand _why_ they should ask you about certain things and they can be more understanding on what's going on under the covers.

3. I have expressed my concerns and don't believe this is the best strategy, however I will document these and will observe your orders. If it's something that keeps happening, I'm more likely to move jobs than I am to move mountains in an organizational structure. I also think it's worth at least being aware of the game, as someone who's had it played against them to significant detriment before.

4. Honestly, #1 and #2 solve this problem. It's not concincing to most NTs to recite information but allowing them to interact with you to discover the information themselves allows them to realize that you do understand the information at a deep level. We tend to recite things because a scripted response is a lot easier for us to provide, but it's not actually all that useful in the context of conveying information.
I don't know. It's not that it isn't impressive and it is very illustrative of how much you can build, utilizing the tools that are available to all of us. It's just at what point are you writing code and when are you just initializing and configuring an existing tool.

It's also how you present it. If you said: "Building a TensorFlow backed German speech recognition system in only a few hundred lines of code." Then I feel like you're being more honest.
I think sortition is superior to election for most offices, especially those which should be relatively proscribed in what they do, not requiring exceptional competence, etc.

I'd almost certainly prefer a mechanically determined pool (say, all Walmart store general managers as of 2020 who are natural-born citizens, >35, not felons, etc), and then randomly pick the President from that pool. Maybe let people use negative voting to eliminate 10-50% of the pool first.
Most certainly yes. But the best way we currently have to get that seed is manufacturing environment that rewards building-shaped trees and waiting a couple million years.
Using AI Chips to Design Better AI Chips
A thing to consider is that it is often not just about the facts. Often it is also about social convention and other things.

If (for example) that one struggling colleague is shining in front of a superior and you are the guy who rains on his parade by nitpicking some detail he said, you might be technically right, but you end up being perceived as an asshole because you acted like one.

If if that example you strictly need to be right for some reason, you could also just talk to the guy afterwards etc.

And this is what all of it essentially boils down to: It is good to be right, as long as the way you communicate it is adequate for the situation.

If people have a low effort chit chat and don't want to go too deep into things, it might not be wise to get all excited and monologoue about how everything they know is wrong.
If someone shows you something they have been working on for weeks, maybe it is wiser to aknowledge the good things first, before going into the bad things.

Generally it is better to have others discover facts themselves than spitting them out in front of them. Sure, if the boat is literally sinking and they claim punching more holes will help, this might be a good moment for a statement without nuance — but such statements have their time and place and should not be used everywhere.
IMO the imperial system is full of these coincidences, and if you look at history, you can see how they emerged: from historical people changing the size of the units until they had enough useful coincidences.

A mile is about 1000 steps for a marching army, about 20 minutes of walking, or about 1 minute by car. Comfortable Farenheit temperatures roughly run from 0 to 100. A foot is about the length of a foot or a forearm, and an inch is about the length of the top joint of a thumb. 1/1000th of an inch (a "mil") is roughly the smallest discernable difference in size of objects when you look closely. People are about 6 feet tall. People weigh 100-200 lbs. The "lucky coincidences" continue. They do because they were evolved, not because they were accidents.

Contrast that with the metric system, which was built around properties of water and powers of 10 (which are not obviously better than the powers of 2 and 3 that the imperial system uses - next time you need a 1/3rd recipe you can see what I mean). It is not an accident that a day is 2x2x2x3 hours and an hour is 2x2x3x5 minutes (attempts to adopt metric time were proposed, but rejected). Neither is it an accident that a foot is 2x2x3 inches, and a mile is 2x2x2x2x2x3x5x11 feet (although I have never divided anything by 11 recently). Imperial volumetric measurements are basically binary fixed point: 1 gallon is 16 cups, and 1 cup is 16 tbsp. There are lots of historical names for the intermediate units, like quarts and furlongs, but those have evolved over a longer period of time.

For scientific use, the metric system is obviously a lot easier, and order of magnitude matters a lot more than easy divisibility and "feel" of a unit. For everyday use, I am not sold on it.
It makes the allistic reader feel better to have it repeated, even though its stated in the first paragraph.
they don’t care, they need a promotion
The more you know, the more you despair.
There is an effort to bring true parallelism to python, we’ll see how it goes, and yeah it’s desperately needed
Good points, and I would even go one step further and cast doubt on the notion that "dumb" people don't see the awful. That is not my experience at all.
For me, the claim is, "Why do you always have to be right?"

I've made the mistake hundreds of times in my life where I put a lot of effort into a project, only to discover that I missed something obvious at the start that invalidated the whole approach. Like selecting the architecture-defining processor for an electronics design, completing the design around it, and then discovering weeks later that it's obsolete.

It's not about ego. I've tried to explain that I want to be sure I am moving forward on the basis of correct information and reasoning. It's a desire to not risk wasting time & effort.
I've thought https://www.scrapingbee.com/ looked great, especially their auto rotation of IP addresses.
> Moreover, it is not guaranteed to facilitate viable third parties; this has not happened in Australia, for example, where it is the rule.

I don't particularly want a viable third party, I want people who appeal strongly to 30% of the vote and are hated by 30% of the vote not to win and all the goodness that flows from that.
Lol you came so close! Suburban supermarkets would get their goods just like your urban supermarket: smaller box trucks transporting goods from rail depot to supermarket.
"Keep in mind my resume is great, I interview well, and I have savings"

This is the key. If you are good at what you do, there is always someone looking to hire. If you are not desperate, ball is in your court.

OP, make sure you also check these boxes: Great Resume (a.ka. very hirable), Interview well (no way around it) and savings (so you can take your time and be picky). If you are missing any of these, it will be tougher for you.

In general, you always have more leverage when you are employed than not but it comes down to the 3 factors.
I was going to say the opposite. Leaders are often wise, experienced and good communicators, they dont need intelligence.
The vast majority of people want to follow someone that has the answers to all of life's problems. Usually the amount of life answers one claims to have is inversely proportional to their wisdom and intelligence.

Reminds me of Jürgen Klopp, Liverpool FC coach, being asked by the media what did he think about the pandemic, to which he answered, paraphrased: "why the hell are you asking me such a question? I'm a football coach, who cares about my opinion on a pandemic. Go talk with a doctor or a virologist, not a football guy."

EDIT: found the link: https://youtu.be/tZ4bKnpxbYc
being right is not important or even a goal. look at rich people like soros that put money into their ideas so that they can say they were right.

having ideas and sharing them is of more value.
Where does the less sex statistic come from?
I enjoyed reading the article. I think it does a good job of explaining the authors thought process. I would also like to see the author would write in a "potential solutions"(or similar) section. It sounds like the author has figured out what their next experiment will be:

> In the future, I will look for a professional environment that understands and accommodates divergent ways of thinking.

but the above mentioned section would offer insight into how the author reached that solution and what other potential solutions were considered.
You also see beauty where others do not.

"I don’t have to be at the Grand Canyon to appreciate the way the world works, I can see that in reflections of light in my bathroom." - John Carmack

Which I think balances it out.
Zzzzz. You're not interested in accepting that you can be wrong, and conflate whole ecosystems with products in an attempt to blur the lines and sell your precious Web 3 future.

Banning Tor as a whole is stupid, because it's not meant to be only used for that, and is a protocol. However, putting anyone who regularly posts on overthrowthegovernment.onion on a watch list is reasonable (even if they only posted pictures of kittens), as well as is closing the website, as much as possible, since it causes a net harm on society as a whole.

Banning E2EE as a whole is stupid, because it's not meant to be only used for that, and is a protocol. However, raiding the office of the man that hosts the "Bring The 4th Reich" chatroom is reasonable, as well as closing it and keeping a close eye on anyone who participated is also reasonable (even if they only posted pictures of kittens), since it causes a net harm on society as a whole

Banning cryptocurrencies as a whole is stupid, because it's not meant to be only used for that, and is a (bunch of) protocol(s). However, sanctioning the service that is mostly used to launder money (which comes from criminal activities) named tornado.cash is reasonable, as well as keeping an eye on everyone that participated (even if they only wanted to hide their transactions) since it causes a net harm on society as a whole.

Welcome to the real world, where going to the seedy place where at least 1/5th of the people in there are engaging in criminal activities might get you in trouble. Feel free to look for a mixer that does a little bit of research on the source of the funds before taking them in. You are not entitled to privacy if your actions may cause harm or contribute to causing harm on society.
"Christianity prohibited the coveting of your neighbor not because it would make God angry, but because it makes your life worse."

Citation needed. It's one of the commandments: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17 (NASB). A book of magical thinking, created out of bronze age mythology, around a hateful, spiteful, capricious god is no basis for a system of philosophical world-view.

You would be better served studying philosophy directly, rather than a book filled with misogyny, slavery, thought-crime and magic.
I did not know that but the point largely still stands. Banks also have to do customer due diligence which is basically the same thing so they will have this info anyways. You can come up with an endless list of loopholes and then claim if only they were ended would AML laws be more effective. We’ve had 40 years of debates like this and there are always new excuses. The laundering techniques for drugs for instance now just look closer and closer to regular commercial activity (i.e. TBML) which makes it difficult for the government to understand what’s going on and ultimately prove at trial.
Has that acquisition been approved? You’re implying that it has, but last I heard of it, it was being investigated by both the FTC and the CMA in the UK.
That poster was just trying to be inclusive, not trivialize. You are still part of a society composed of other humans.

I think less division and more inclusivity in spite of differences is a good place to be, while still acknowledging the struggles / addressing problems of minorities without making them “special” aka outcasts.

Ultimately, you choose how you react to something. You can choose to be offended and look at the surface level of what a person is saying, or you can dig into the essence of the essence and determine the nature, intention, and purpose of a statement.

Most people barely have their own lives in order, and I mean that in a neurological sense. Expecting others to also simultaneously keep track of nuanced triggers which are also not universally applicable, more individual situations, when they are operating in good faith is more counterproductive for everyone.
Is anyone surprised? The UK so desperately wants to spy on everyone's internet usage. We're just lucky that Theresa May was too busy to bring in as much spying as she wanted while she was PM

Remember, this is the government that banned peeing in porn. That's how far they want to go to block "offensive" content