skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Various opinions on the matter are documented, but that is not the same of documenting what is objectively true in base level reality.

There is an old and sophisticated discipline that studies this phenomenon that unfortunately (but also: conveniently, for some) does not get much attention these days for some reason:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

There is also things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...
And this is the amazing leap so many people seem to make: If it is technically possible, then it must be true.

That's what baffles me here: "We cannot conclusively say it's wrong" so it must be right. When did that become a popular mode of reasoning? I can only assume people are so desperate to believe they will swallow this rather than accept reality.
Another therapy is a ganglion nerve block.
Children as young as THREE who watch violent TV do worse at secondary school
The title alone is enough to tell that this article will be trash (and it is). Founders are regular people, and regular people are founders.

Some founders are irregular people and some irregular people are founders.

Being a founder is not somehow a class above, any more than being a politician, a soldier, a cop, or whatever else. We may afford such people greater status, but they are just regular people with a particular career.
> In not so many words, it meant that Russia would have to join the transnational gang as a foot soldier (Estonia) rather than a capo (UK) let alone a boss (US).

And what do you think makes US and UK above others? Here's a hint: US and UK are two highest NATO spenders.

What NATO expenses was Russia able to afford in the early 2000s?

Sounds like they wanted to be treated as a boss while chipping in as a foot soldier.
This is an unhelpful oversimplification.
I wouldn't be so sure. The monopolist had a $100,000,000 theft last month, [1] after a $1 billion dollar loss from LUNA in the summer. [2]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/business/binance-hack.htm...

[2] https://decrypt.co/100530/binance-ceo-says-exchange-never-so...
The only thing more amazing than loud low bass is bone dry loud low bass

Bone dry sounds awesome.

My frustration with rock venues is that there's usually lots of bass, but it's super sloppy. Everything below ~80hz sounds like a giant audio sludgeball.

I feel like even a little bit of tuning and room correction (the sort one can do at home with freeware and a $89 calibrated microphone) would help tremendously, but there's no appetite for that on the part of concertgoers or sound techs.

I'm glad there are dance venues getting this right.
This is hard for me too. If it's a big complicated thing, I try to recapitulate what they said which then leads to them feeling more listened to. That way, I stay busy and feel like I am engaged without trying to solution for them. If it's a simpler thing, this advice doesn't work and can feel condescending. Ymmv.
SmileySunCoin
Thank you! These are exactly like what I wanted.
It's fantastic! Just wish it could be used with open source editors like Inkscape or Krita, instead of AI.
HoN kicked ass back in the day. Thanks for the anecdote.
No, but companies internally re-org all the time. And one of the big motivating factors is to re-align incentives so that internal responsibilities are split into discrete, measurable areas. It seems like re-org success has mixed results - often due to Goodhart's law problems.
>Edit: 30k tweets since joining in 2020 hmm...

Yeah this is some sort of subconscious cry for help, I'm pretty sure.
The problem of unbounded free speech is rectified by setting precedent that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is obviously a criminal act. At least, it works this way in a common law nation like the US. This doesn't really cost anything, beyond criminal enforcement. The public good in this is obvious.

The rectification of free markets in the US somehow involves massive transfers of wealth to private companies from the public sphere. Essentially just to make sure those companies don't suffer an adverse effects from their bad decisions. I'm not sure what the utility to the public is in this. Do we really need companies that only exist because of government handouts. Why didn't we bail out Enron in that case? What about WorldCom? Or was their mistake just having a Canadian as a CEO?
Agree, never ask a user what they want

But you can't go wrong with talking to users to understand the problems they are dealing with
Recreating sci-fi terminals using VHS
> pretty uncommon for exchanges to do all their market making directly

Point is, in real finance, it's pretty uncommon for exchanges to do any of their market making. Largely to ensure they can project confidence in crises. Market makers blow up. Exchanges shouldn't.
My challenge is that to be able to usefully respond to people’s rants, I need to empathize with them and expend at least some mental effort to understand their problem.

If they go on a rant about something, that dumps emotional and mental load onto me.

If they don’t resolve, or attempt to resolve it, that means they’ll continue to dump it onto me - and even worse, it will be a boring, already heard it problem with no new information!

If they continue to do that, and I continue to listen, I’m essentially their emotional garbage dump and enabling their lack of dealing with their actual problem and frustrations.

Even worse, it is often hard for me to get my mind off an unresolved problem. So then it bugs me.

I like solving problems because then I have a lot fewer things bugging me. They almost always result in progress in other ways too, and accomplishing things, which is nice.

Even worse still if it’s the kind of problem they are making for themselves, or are intentionally not trying to solve. Of which there are many.

Eventually, I just don’t want to be around them, or get progressively more blunt with changing the subject because it makes it exhausting and unpleasant for me being around them.

Some people seem to be able to just ignore the emotional affect or load, and get whatever they want from the convo, and I can do so if I exert effort to do so.

But life is too short for this kind of BS on the regular.
Does this relate to the normal modes or eigenmodes of a system?

Actually, trying to understand how eigenmodes and eigenfrequencies — which I understand well — relate to eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
I was hired on as a full-stack developer to help a 2 person team (dev and designer) get a year-long project over the finish line. This was a November and the project was slated to go live on January 1. My first week was getting my PC configured, orientations, onboarding meetings with various external departments and perusing the project to get familiar.

Week 2 I was supposed to get assignments from the lead developer, but they were holding things close to their chest. I was given very, very menial things to do, or just told to continue to study the code. When we'd have project meetings and they'd ask how things were going overall, the lead developer would assure them we were on target - even in the face of ongoing bugs, missing features and incorrect functionality during QA testing. I'd offer the Lead my help, but they hadn't found the right task yet.

By the end of week 2, beginning of week 3, I was fairly confident the code I was researching was not lining up with the status reports in the project meetings. I started to speak up and ask questions to surface concerns in attempt to get something thrown my way. Again, the Lead Dev continued to assure management we were on target and that seemingly huge TODO items were trivial and would be handled in short order. I was kept on standby.

As things continued to progress in this direction, management finally bypassed the Lead and came directly to me to my feel for where were at. At this point I had only been with the company 3 to 4 weeks, but I had been a developer for 11 years. I told them in not so uncertain terms, "this project is doomed". The Lead dev is wildly overpromising deliverables, minimizing outstanding work and shielding the management team from truly understanding how behind he was. I honestly had no idea what his plan was to meet the deadline, but based on my estimates we were easily 4 to 6 months out. They were flabbergasted.

I continued to provide direct status reports at management's request. It felt like politics, but what else could I do? By the 2nd week in December, 6 weeks into my employment, the writing was on the wall. The project was canned, the Lead Dev was fired and I was wondering if I had still had a job myself as the only developer and no projects on the timeline.

By the end of the following year, I had been promoted to management overseeing a team of 3 and still developing myself. We rebuilt the project from scratch and implemented it exactly 1 year after its initial planned release.

I never wanted management and certainly never wanted to get anyone fired, but sometimes you have to put it all out there in black and white.
Roald Dahl's writing shed (1982) [video]
Builders and beer, it worked for the Pyramids and it worked for the skyscrapers. Might be the oldest professional tradition on Earth.
This is just not the case. At least on Binance there are number of market makers other than Binance itself and there is a lot of tech built around this. I guess every major crypto exchange after MtGox is as complex as normal markets.
> Is it not extraordinarily obvious that treating the symptoms instead of the cause is bad medicine.

What if there is no known way to treat the cause?
This WSJ interview with a juror gives a very good explanation in my opinion. Again, verdicts are about what can be proven:

> Though they initially were divided, jurors soon agreed to acquit Ms. Holmes on the one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three counts of wire fraud tied to patients, Ms. Stefanek said.
She said the jury concluded that prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to show that Ms. Holmes knowingly pitched a faulty product to induce patients to pay for tests.

> The jury was in agreement, Ms. Stefanek said, that the Theranos lab was run shoddily and not in the way to be expected from a company setting out to achieve the highest quality in medical care. But jurors thought the burden of proof on defrauding patients was higher.

> “If all we’d had to prove was that she knew there might be problems in the lab and that might end up harming patients, that would be one thing,” Ms. Stefanek said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jury-in-elizabeth-holmes-trial-...
What have you been "using" Bitcoin for, may I ask?
"The reward for a job well done is usually another job to do. Remember that if you're ever tempted to do a good job of something thankless and unpleasant."
You've not been paying close enough attention to Apple for the last 25 years and are undervaluing Apple's executive team. Planned execution and road mapping have led Apple to where they are. Methodical and steady.
A non-active one, i.e. without a significant accretion disk.
I actually cheated a bit — you are right that it's not clicking, it's pressing. I tried various things, and this felt the most fun. You obviously feel differently.

The "cheat text" that says how it works is just meant to give a general idea. Most people would say they "clicked" the button, whether they were talking about mousedown, mouseup, long press etc.

The actual commands are slightly more complex — but this page is not the place to get into the details of what's a mousedown, mouseup, click, press etc.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I have been lucky to have had some managers in the past who were great mentors, very transparent, and have several times during my career actively coached me on what are "Career limiting moves". It is a phrase I have heard without it being sent or received as a threat. I have over-extrapolated and under-empathized though, and realize that in majority of situations for majority of involved folks, that would not be the case. (relatedly, I've also tried to internalize and implement the notion that I can no longer joke with any variation of "don't you know that's a fireable offence? :D" etc. )
I have to agree. When the risk is greater than the reward, you have to ask if the project is worth sacrificing for. I find the answer is generally no. Even noble projects are set into situations where it isn't worth the sacrifice. From a purely pragmatic view, you can do better for the world by skipping the sacrifice and finding a similar noble project to keep working at.

It is a sort of prisoner's dilemma. Society is worse off because people tend to operate this way, not just in IT but all over. But we aren't going to fix society, so build a small kingdom in your life you can control and try to make things nice within it.
> all the inheritance was clearly an implementation convenience rather than any sort of philosophical inspiration.

I don't believe that's true. Eich said: "I’m not proud, but I’m happy that I chose Scheme-ish first-class functions and Self-ish (albeit singular) prototypes as the main ingredients." [1]

It doesn't look like philosophical inspiration because Eich was told to make the language's syntax resemble Java. But as I understand it, it was a very deliberate choice on Eich's part.

[1]: https://medium.com/@_benaston/lesson-1a-the-history-of-javas...
Clinical means nothing. I can open a chiropractic clinic and create “clinical” evidence all day long. It’s still pseudo-science if the results aren’t replicable.

Studies surrounding CBT (and the field of psychology as a whole) are not replicable. They are, almost always, based on converting qualitative metrics (how you feel) and filtering them through a designed survey in order to convert these qualitative, subjective abstractions into something that resembles something quantitative and scientific. The result is a field has with a ~40% replicability rate in it’s most “prestigious” journals. So, yes, the “professionals” have PhDs and use the doctor salutation. They’re not scientists. They’re just pretending.

Want to know what you almost never see in the studies investigating the effectiveness of these “therapies”? Life outcome investigations. “Do patients doing CBT actually recover from their depression, as measured by educational attainment/employment/regaining employment?” Good luck finding a study indicating that any significant subset of “depressed” people got over their issues as a result of the CBT itself with a HARD LIFE OUTCOME as the point of investigation. It’s all subjective feelings filtered through qualitative 1 thru 10 surveys. Patients never improve. They stay on the $200/session revenue stream forever and get a lifetime prescription to go with it, often for a nebulous “condition” that is basically synonymous with descriptions of the normal human condition. “I feel anxious” gets you a script. Outside of panic attacks, it’s a normal feeling. “I have trouble focusing” gets you an amphetamine script. It’s a normal feeling. “I lack motivation and purpose” gets you an SSRI, with nary a blood test or a scan of the brain. Again, a perfectly normal part of being a human. Psychotropic intervention in this field is barbaric and pseudoscientific. If there is any justice in this world, it will be held in the same esteem as lobotomy in the future.
Agreed that software development outsourcing rarely works!
Him saying he's accountable and not actually being held accountable is not really being "accountable".
The managers tries to be nice and make the numbers look a bit better to make the next level of management happy. That is the main problem here, putting engineers who just give you the facts straight up without considering what their managers would feel about it in every part of the chain would solve the problem.
Because Bankman-Fried is a mouthful/typeful to say every time, and Changpeng is a big, non-western name, and Zhao too common by itself.

Source: me referring to one of them in conversation a lot with no incentive to kowtow to his preferred branding.
> it's the only one that never fights me on what I want to do

This is the #1 thing I've learned not to like about it.

The problem is simple. How can I trust that code written by other programmers is up to my standards? If the language obediently does anything they want, how am I supposed to judge its quality? Do I have to review every line of code in every piece of software running on every piece of hardware I interact with? Do I have to go around building a complete and accurate mental model of literally any program I plan to use?

I don't have time for that. Nobody does. It doesn't scale.

When other people write software, I want a vigilant, tireless critic to watch them write code and stop them from doing things that are unambiguously stupid. That's the only way to deal with the vast number of programmers with skill levels beneath mine, writing code that threatens to affect my life. If they can't do that with C, I want them to do it with something else.
I sympathize with finding it hard to send anyone to prison.

It's interesting to me that "physical harm" is your line, though. Why? Any physical harm, or only some level of severe physical harm?
The GP gave great advice that, in light of your response, I'll augment.

1 - Sometimes the worst helpers are the enthusiastic fans, not just with bands but with software. Most emacs advice starts by talking about customization. The GP was smart not to: just get comfortable with the model of emacs: a modeless editor. c-f goes forward a character, m-f a word. In code: c-f forward a character, m-f a symbol, c-m-f a structure (depends on the language).

You can always type c-H (^H) at any time for help. It's context-sensitive so if you're typing a long command (m-x find file) it will show you the completions. If you can't remember a command c-H a (apropos) will show you matches. etc. All explained when you start with c-H t

All of the stuff above has been true for more than 40 years. A lot of rough edges have been knocked off over that time! Even back then people who claimed that they "couldn't do anything with a computer" were writing documents with Emacs, even writing macros and such.

For more modern times: you'll find in most programming languages, markdown, etc syntax highlighting is automatic.

Once you are comfortable editing text or code, you can see how to add, say, LSP support, or investigating how to compile your code and why that's easier in Emacs, and just incrementally make your environment more comfortable and powerful. I've been using Emacs since 1978 (when it was written in TECO, not a form of Lisp) and still I learn something new every week or so.

Remember that "EMACS" stands for "Emacs Makes All Computing Simple"
> Almost two-thirds – or 163 gigawatts (GW) – of newly installed renewable
power in 2021 had lower costs than the world’s cheapest coal-fired options
in the G20, confirming the critical role of cost-competitive renewables in
addressing today’s energy and climate crises.

> If ever there was a year to dramatically increase the deployment of renewable
power generation, it is 2022. Renewables will reduce fossil import bills and
average electricity system costs, and lessen the damaging impacts of high
electricity prices on consumers and industry. This year’s fossil fuel price
crisis demands a response; renewables and energy efficiency provide the
answer, bringing unprecedented benefits for consumers, the environment
and the global economy.

Renewables continue their very predictable slide down the learning curve to even lower costs. Imagine if we'd rolled these out a little faster.
You're missing the point.

What a novice usually does not realize is:

It is easy to be right. What is hard is being actually helpful, coming up with a viable solution (vs. an idea).

In the posted article there simply was no such solution. It was not viable. Unacceptable.

Yes, an outsider with fresh eyes might see things differently and without bias, but most certainly the experienced team knows damn right that you're right (to some degree), but also knows that it's just not that easy.

Throwing "We are doing this all wrong" around is often just short of saying: "I just came here and I immediately saw that you all are idiots, you should listen to me!".

I'm not saying that fresh input can't be helpful, outsiders might bring in new tricks and ways, but being humble is way more helpful than being loud.
> Check-and-set just works on the correct isolation level.

Which is not the default one.

> There is no isolation, your transaction will fail and be rolled back.

How so? Isn't it more likely you'll silently corrupt your data?

Even if it does fail noisily, this is a condition you're unlikely to hit in testing, so you'll probably be dealing with it in production.
This is very neat. One question, would you consider making a version of your service that works like discourse.org? I don’t mean changing the discussion software to match theirs, I mean allowing clients to embed your software in their page. Also, for what it’s worth, if you had plug-in authentication of users you might find some clients in in web3.
For covid it makes sense due to the haste (whether you agree with said haste or not, you know it makes sense given said haste exists).

I can't speak to other, more deliberate, vaccines, but I suspect it exists there as simply protection the companies negotiated for.
“Naively, I’d be thinking about trying…”
Because it’s in Qatar? It makes sense, the westerners are in Qatar. They’re asking you to abide by their mores in their country. It’s not even all that hard, just don’t do public displays of affection.
It is the fact that in almost all areas - from electronics to mechanics, main after sales issues are led by a people that are only marketing managers or similar. So forget about any possibility of self maintenance, or it will be very limited. Their job is to make this unavailable, or hardly available with fee. If anbody can contradict these, please, light me up, that it isn't so...