skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was referring to the product pairings, not the search result autocompletion (which does seem like a pretty glaring problem).

Cutting off a search early is easy. Deciding that “even though these are commonly purchased together, this pairing shouldn’t be shown” seems like a fundamentally different problem.
Exactly this. Anthropogenic climate change means more extreme oscillations in either direction, and more frequently.

Humans have evolved to be overfit to only what we can immediately perceive, hence "but it snowed, obviously climate change is a hoax."
https://archive.ph/PP5O1
> I wonder if this makes court cases a pretty high stakes game

Stay away from courts! If your case goes before a judge, you're in casino country. Unless you're on the hook for some criminal offence, tell your lawyer to negotiate a settlement. Once a civil case comes before a judge, that usually means that there's a legal issue to be decided that nobody agrees on, which means that you can't predict how the cookie might crumble.
And sometimes disobeying the system delegitimizes the movement and prevents critical-mass political coalitions from forming, which in turn prevents change from happening. Likewise many examples abound, of which copyright reform is one.

From what I know about pirates (and I've been a part of many communities in which pirates engage, and am friends with many pirates), piracy is more about satisfying desires without paying money than it is a matter of principle about copyright reform. Lots of pirates spend seemingly infinite time cataloging, collecting, sorting, tagging, and distributing pirated media, not to mention figuring out how to get around DRM. But you won't find so many pirates expending the same energy to affect political change. To me, that's telling about their true motives.

Until pirates can convince people like me (supporters of copyright reform but not piracy), that their lawless behavior would end after successful political reform, a coalition to enact such reform will be impossible. Based on the comments in this thread, it seems like the main concern pirates have are getting what they want, how they want, when they want, without paying, regardless of anyone else's wishes.

Back in the day when the options were DVD or Cable, piracy had more legitimacy IMO. Pirates wanted better resolution, lower prices, to play media on their devices, to have on demand access. Today with the advent of ad-free, on-demand content at a low subscription price, continued piracy looks more like selfishness than activism or civil disobedience.

The resolution of media is far beyond what it was in the 00's, but still isn't good enough. The prices are much lower but now low enough. They can stream to any device they want but it's still not enough for pirates. The dream of the 00s pirates is alive in the 20s, but the 20s pirates still act like their piracy is a form of freedom fighting. It's not. Instead it lays bare the true intention the entire time was that pirates just wanted media but didn't want to pay for it.
This datamining company is making products to justify its existence now.
Some stores have done that, they buy a "thicker" bag (like you see at Menards or Home Depot) and call it reusable (to be fair, it would be) and use them as normal.
You intend to exercise your responsibility by abdicating it, and instead insisting that Amazon and other retailers do it for you, and society at large bear the cost?

I think we disagree on the definition of “responsibility”.
Yeah new bombs are crazy. No loss of cool if you're not--you're a nuke physicist, that's cool enough--but are you The Nukemap guy? Wow! That site is great, but scary.
> if i understand you correctly part of the program was financial support. so once that support went away, the numbers went back.

Yes, that is what happened.

> sounds to me that, all other things being equal, the program was not able to change the culture

This reminds me of "we did not try hard enough, we need more intervention". I am not a proponent of it. The culture was not changed probably because there is more than just culture underlying human choice... at least that is my belief. Of course, not all is biology, but not all is culture. It seems that in this case things tend to indicate that there is more than culture behind these choices.

> it is possible that this program was the wrong approach

why not just convince people why they should choose X or Y? Why you have to reserve money or resources actively? That, you know, means that some people that are more valuable than others, will lose their chance... is not that discrimination? Is it not that what they are fighting? You do not fight discrimination by promoting it from another side...

> i may love programming, but i hate working in a bro-culture

Oh, and in teaching it does not happen the opposite? I might not like in a sis culture, right? I mean, the problem exists... no, the problem does not. Things are the way they are and we can encourage people to change them if they want, not by shifting the cost to others. If you work somewhere, you cannot pretend the world will change immediately around you just bc we think it should be something different. We need to deal with that, and trying to force everything into our ideal just leads to frustration. Instead we should analyze real causes for things and why they happen or will keep happening instead of fighting them by transferring costs to people that have nothing to do with the problem.
There are other reasons.

For example, when I started my current job about 10 years ago, the company had around 115 employees, and me and my three colleagues were THE software development team at the company. You need some kind of automation? You went to us. Oh, and we also built the internal CMDB and all the tooling

Now, there are 450+ employees, my team has ~8 developers, and there are more development teams, with different purposes and scopes.

Colleagues still come to us when they have development needs, and quite often we have to tell them "that's out of scope of what we do these days" (and hopefully point them somewhere else who can help them). Not because we don't want to be helpful, but because we're already overrun with work that's very clearly in scope for us, and that our department lead prioritized for us.

What does that have to do with support? It creates incentives to say "not our job". Back in the days, if a customer had a tricky problem, support might involve us in the solution. Now, we have to decline unless it's likely a problem with our corner of the software. Which means support staff has to chase for other responsible engineers / experts.

So the small company from 10 years probably had much better support experience, at least in cases where support cases couldn't be resolved by first-level support.

There are more reasons: our whole software landscape was much smaller, so an average support person could be familiar with a larger part of it.

You don't need intentional design for stability to create a maze that support has to traverse.
Well then you basically do not care about suicidal people.

Because, if you had ever spoken to anyone who has felt suicidal, you will see that most of them admit that they have had couple second lapses in judgement and are extremely glad that they did not have a 5 second suicide button that they could press.

So, me, being someone who actually cares about these people, and who has spoken to them, know that most people who are suicidal do not want to be given this option.

You would know this if you had ever spoken to someone in your life, ever, who has had depressive or suicidal thoughts.
The media isn't making the case. Scientists who have been studying this for decades are. It's a failing of the media perhaps (not the science) that you perceive a shifting of the goal posts.

The "case" is settled, by the way. It's only special interest groups with a financial incentive in the status quo that try to muddy the water with disinfo and make it seem otherwise. Those, and people who don't want to believe it's happening because it's uncomfortable.
No, because suicide is also an extremely dangerous option to other groups of people - some mental illnesses cause suicidal ideation, and people who suffer from them are often terrified in their moments of clarity of the possibility that they may actually do it in their moments of "insanity".

The vast majority of people who attempt suicide actually regret it afterwards, and have no deep desire to die. Making it hard to actually kill yourself is an extremely important safety net for these people, who outnumber the terminally ill who actually wish to die by a large margin.

Not to mention, people can be compelled to attempt suicide by social pressure, either in bullying or by family members who view them as a burden. Having to go through a neutral third party who can help make sure you actually deeply desire this step is critical to protect you from others.
> It's an incredibly selfish decision

People should have a right to be as selfish as they want with their own bodies. You don't owe anyone else a responsibility to live.
Which is totally unrelated to fifty years of people declaring that absolutely nothing at all must be done, no matter how reasonable, as it got harder and harder to fix.
I'm generally on the side of believing that Amazon is not legally responsible for what people do after buying things that other retailers sell them on their marketplace. That's a bad road to go down, and I'm afraid it would lead to unintended consequences if applied broadly.

I also do not believe that Amazon is headed by a cabal of cackling villains who want kids to die, because they make $2.39 every time one of them buys poison on their marketplace. Instead, I think they're a big company that has a bunch of regular people focused on a bunch of different goals, and not really paying attention to this kind of thing until it becomes an issue. Hanlon's razor, etc.

BUT, given the bad press, why wouldn't Amazon put high-purity Sodium Nitrite behind some kind of age verification? They do have that process in place already for other items. Why not override the (algorithmically-generated) "suicide bundle" with something else? I'm sure they've done that in the past, too. Why do they just not do anything, and instead allow themselves to get caught up in a lawsuit and confirm people's beliefs that they're cackling villains? Seems like an unforced error.
Intelligence and mental health do not seem to correlate.

Even very intelligent people can be susceptible to all kinds of cognitive distortions or disturbed thought patterns, even ones which seem very striking or bizarre to an outside observer.

Climate change is just one of those topics, I guess because it's so dire and large in scope, that it brings peoples psychological defence mechanisms right to the fore.
I buy a plastic bag for meat from the grocery store and use it as my garbage bag.

If I can’t buy the plastic grocery then garbage bag, will I still be able to buy more expensive garbage bags?
I believe retailers should be banned from selling suicide kits to minors as a matter of law. I don't however think they should be civilly liable for their products being used for self-harm.

Having said that, it also strikes me as a particularly boneheaded business policy to effectively kill off your own customers. At the very least while Amazon is spending millions defending themselves from lawsuits they should be quietly discontinuing this practice.
I like the idea of reducing plastic waste, but I can’t help but think that this is another virtue signaling. In the last 3 years in the Bay Area the amount of trash along the freeways is astonishing. Same goes for any big metro area, except maybe San Diego, but I have not spent much time there. Then this garbage is gonna end in the ocean.

Bottle and can deposit is fairly hard to get. There aren’t any recycling facility in a convenience zone around, so the stores are required to do it. Not single one in the area does and the state does not enforce it and now is sitting on a lot of unclaimed money.

The state pushes hard for lithium batteries, you can buy shit load of it and other e-waste from amazon, but the state does not do anything to force amazon take it back and recycle when used, etc.

In the office we have three bins, and the janitor at the end just comes and puts trash and recycling in one bag(except compostable), turns out the waste management company treats recycling and trash the same. This indicates that economics of recycling is not, yet they focus on plastic bags for groceries.
Archived: https://archive.ph/STQPc
I'm surprised when it says "the exact same buzz can be heard at the exact same moment nationwide from Land's End to John o' Groats", I didn't realise it would be the same across the UK.

I played a little with a transformer to take 230VAC -> 12VAC, and then using a potentiometer to feed the waveform into a soundcard. But I'm not sure the sample rate of the soundcard was high enough to accurately measure the times between 0 crossings.

Photo of the very messy setup - https://www.anfractuosity.com/files/hum.jpg
The 1st vs. 3rd party distinction is not legally relevant; what matters is what any personal data is used for, regardless of its technical implementation. A first-party tracking cookie is not allowed without consent; a third-party OAuth cookie may be (if most common OAuth providers weren't also massive trackers...).
I agree. The point that this article doesn't should be on addressing the underlying issue. We can ban this one method and another will take it's place. Ways of getting people help and possibly avoiding whatever scenarios are leading to this should be looked at.
They don't want to establish the precedent that recommending a harmful item makes them liable for that harm at any cost even at the cost of a few dead children. Before this in a previous scandal they were promoting "literature" that suggested parents of autistic children cure them with bleach and recommended the bleach they could inadvertently murder their children with.
If you're looking to start a multi-billion dollar business
This kind of snide, egotistical drivel is not why I come to this site.

I highly suggest you reflect on how you relate to other people; it would likely do you some good in your personal and professional lives.
Yes. Society can bear the cost of having to jump through a few extra steps to buy pure concentrated chemicals that have been demonstrated to repeatedly kill teenagers.

So the people who have legitimate use for those chemicals can jump through a few hoops to get them.

And Amazon, a trillion dollar company, can do a better job with its algorithms and stop recommending them and selling them to teenagers.

I am super comfortable inflicting those costs on the world.
Most of the economically depressed people in my area are already using reusable bags and pull carts for some things as they don't usually have cars and don't want to carry stuff a long ways. This pattern extends all the way up into the lower middle classes and was long before any bag-ban here.

Note: I live in an unusually walkable area in the U.S.
My philosophy is just stay home on public holidays. Luckily my employer lets me swap out public holidays for days of my choosing. So I end up working every public holiday.

Ofcourse this doesn't work if you have family that gets public holidays. Works great for me.
"Incompetent" is a charitable framing. Less charitibly they deliberately and blatantly lied in order to generate hype.
Could it be the Thames-freezing-over event was part of the "little ice age"? i.e. a blip in an otherwise (at the time) more stable climate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
10 grams of Tylenol (so 20 extra strength, or just 15 arthritis strength pills) can cause enough liver toxicity to kill.

Tylenol overdoses both intentional and unintentional dwarf this sodium nitrite nonsense scare bullshit by 1000s.
My memory is that in Europe, these bans came into force as a way to reduce litter as much as anything else. There definitely used to be bags in bushes and trees everywhere when I was a child, but no more.
Show HN: Related Website Finder Experiment Thingy
Been messing with cosine similarity and decided to try calculating nearest neighbors over the entire link graph for the marginalia search engine.

Turns out that you can just bruteforce that in a day or two. And the results are pretty good.

One drawback is that depending on if you're looking at an older website, a lot of the links are dead. The deduplication isn't great either.
> a book with instructions on how to use the chemical to attempt suicide

I'm not an Amazon apologist. But if someone is adding a book on how to commit suicide to their cart then my first worry is not going to be what an online vendor suggests to bundle with that.

> “knowingly assisting in the deaths of healthy children by selling them suicide kits.”

I think it shows a wild conception of health if we think someone buying a book on how to commit suicide and tools to go with it is healthy
We shop at a grocery store in a pretty poor area. At least half the people do bring their own reusable bags. The price is pretty cheap for them and they last a long time. The energy difference between one plastic bag and one paper bag is minimal. Yes, in volume it ads up but the choice is between one of this or one of that. To me the issue with the old plastic bags was that they were too light and escaped into the environment where they clogged waterways, choked animals and broke down into plastic particles. The heavier plastic bags and the paper bags are less likely to escape and pollute.
Yeah, people assume that Microsoft just somehow "won" by default, but they were young and VERY hungry back then, and it showed.
Not all mental illness that leads to suicidal thoughts is so cut and dry. Children can suffer from schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and have hallucinations or other psychotic states that make them suicidal without any associated trauma.
Billions in profits and apparently no way to prevent this because "Amazon is big".
This is great news. Looks like SSBs are just a few years from market. Within a decade the reign of ICE and fossil fuels will finally fade — reserved for niche applications.
That would just make it a race between fingerprinting and fingerprinting resistance tech. The point is to prevent tracking without purpose / permission regardless of the technology used.
I dislike defecating, but I become very concerned when it stops for the fourth time in a week. What's your point?
The hard part is not the tracing, but to fill black areas with thin lines.

vpyped hatched works:

https://github.com/plottertools/hatched

But is very basic.

If that is the best that's out there, I am tempted to write my own.
I'm gonna second this. "Company Culture" is mostly an attempt to get people more invested in the workplace than they should be, trying to replace their workers' social lives and family lives with work instead by making work seem more appealing.

Remote first companies are great precisely because it cuts away all of this bullshit. Work stays work, and "company culture" stays out of your personal time and personal life.
Exactly, you have to run the code before you realize it’s defective and even then only the defects that execute will get any attention. With TypeScript the defects yell at you before executing the code.
And then you get people creating bots to trash their competitors. Then you end up banning people from using Trash or being included in the metrics dashboard(the "trashboard"). Then you have some false positives, but you haven't created a support process to resolve those, because it's just a fun project, but the trashboard is making some money, so you get someone doing it on demand. That person is overwhelmed by the spammers trying to get their accounts back. Then people start saying Trash is #trash.
National Gallery confirms one of its Vermeers is not a Vermeer
> I would prefer they send me a bill directly for fire services monthly

The problem is that then some people opt out. If enough people do that, it's no longer financially viable to have a fire service.

> I absolutely reject the idea of a "social contract"

Which is fine, but then don't live in the society. As a society, we have decided what is important for the benefit of the society; fire departments, law enforcement, schools, roads, etc. We then attempt to gather money from everyone in that society to pay for those things, because that's the only way it's realistic. Not everyone in the society agrees to all the details, but (in theory) the majority of people agree to them.

It's not all that different than living in an apartment with a few other people. If most of the people agree that everyone has to split the electricity bill, but one person says they don't want to... then it's reasonable to have that person leave, and replace them with someone that is ok with the rules set by the group.
So essentially a Shmoo.
This is a hilarious characterization given his companies actually manufacture physical goods and capabilities, revolutionary ones at that, while most of the people here work at funny money companies moving bits around to achieve unicorn valuation via hype and "exit".

And even more hilarious that this comment is a garden variety take from armies of anti-Elon posters that are astroturfers. The word "Elon" is an internet lobbying battleground (and there are likely armies of pro-Elon roboposters). Armies driven by, at least initially, by funny money hedge fund bets. Bets that would have come true about 5 years ago if Tesla/SpaceX were pure hype/bullshit.

SpaceX/Tesla are tremendously high valued because they still have an order of magnitude or two of readily apparent growth. And a CEO's job of growth companies is to hype that growth, to drive investment/stock price, which drives the scaling and R&D.

Uber: well. they do provide a physical service. It's just a taxi company at an app with google maps, but, I guess it is a physical service.

Meta: once a monopoly, only exists due to ad fraud, and turnkey Big Brother infrastructure

Google: still a monopoly, but also only exists due to ad fraud, and also provides turkey Big Brother infrastructre
Why should I need to give a reason for purchasing most chemicals?

If I did, and was intent on buying this to commit suicide, how long would it take for me to read the extra sentence on the site that told me about sodium nitrite in the first place that would now additionally advise me to say that I was buying it for (acceptable to others) reason X?
Recommending a book that instructs you how to use these products in combination for the purpose of suicide is wrong. I’d argue selling and profiting from that kind of information is wrong, too. No one’s saying Amazon can’t sell these chemicals. But it’s dubious at best to defend selling the info, and it’s downright evil to recommend it.

Yes, it’s their algorithm. But they tweak it all the time to catch issues like this.

If they recommended Mein Kampf and white robes when you ordered rope, surely we’d all agree that would be wrong, even though those individual items are defendable. Recommending them in combination would be evil.

Likewise, recommending guns and bullets alongside a book about mass shootings would be evil.

I don’t see how this is a controversial position.
Since this is HN I will characteristically take my precious private moments sitting on the toilet to correct this wrong understanding on the internet. Small claims court is an additional option if the defendant lives in the same state and the amount is small. Civil court is always also an option even if small claims court also applies. So this reply makes no sense. You’re wrong. I know it hurts so bad but it’s okay because we are all wrong sometimes. So we will let it go this once there is no need to delete your account and make a new one. Small claims court is great for some things: I sued my ex land lord who wouldn’t return my deposit. Lawyers aren’t allowed and it’s usually open and shut. Anyway hope you have a great Thursday!
Running Today’s Software Decades, Centuries, Or Even Millennia Into The Future