skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had a similar experience with the California PUC. Sprint raised the texting rate so I tried to cancel my plan. Their service rep wanted to charge me for breaking my contract but I pointed out that any material change to my contract is grounds for breaking the contract -- basically Sprint broke the contact first. The rep tried to offer me another plan that gives me a similar rate but would entail me signing onto the new plan. I argued that wasn't acceptable. He refused to budge and kept saying because he offered me another plan it's not material change, which is total BS.

I finally called the California PUC. They routed my call to Sprint's Executive service line and 5 minutes later I was free from the contract and got to keep my phone. Without a body like the PUC the power is entirely in the hands of the big corporations. The cost (in time and/or money) for me to fight Sprint legally is going to be more than the contract was worth but it's still something. I'm sure that's all part of their calculus.
Who do you think kickstart a bullrun ? SBF was a huge part of the last one...
Facebook is hugely valuable. Making it easy to share photos, organise get-togethers, or message your friends, is directly making people's lives better. (And complaining that messaging systems allow people to send negative messages is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; do you blame the telegraph or the telephone for "literally helping instigate ethnic cleansings", which in a literal sense they undoubtably did?) Even Juicero, which is very much the exception rather than the rule, was a real product that helped make people happier and healthier (just, not by $400 worth - which is why it rapidly collapsed in the market, as it should).
"Certainly more study is needed on this issue. But the degree to which the Community Reinvestment Act (renewed and strengthened in 1995; see attached chart), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the many other planks of the raft of federal regulation which have built up over the past couple of decades has pushed the banking industry into making the loans for which they are now being criticized is far and away the most under covered aspect of this story. "

https://www.cnbc.com/id/25195425

It's amazing how the government somehow managed to successfully pin all the blame on corporations for problems it helped cause. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

"Lenders made loans that they knew borrowers could not afford and that could cause massive losses to investors in mortgage securities."

Of course, it was the government itself that pressured banks to make these loans in the first place. From https://www.appeal-democrat.com/thomas-sowell-government-cre...

"All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money."
> The main difference is that Playwright uses custom headless builds of "browser projects" (like chromium) rather than attempting to automate a normal consumer build of the browser via the webdriver api.

I think you're wrong there. See [1].

It doesn't use custom browser builds, but specific versions of official builds of mainstream unbranded browsers (you can also use branded ones if you wish). There are no "custom headless builds". All browsers support headless mode, and you can use it on your main browser by passing a CLI flag.

The reason it officially supports only specific versions is because there may be slight incompatibilities with the Chrome DevTools Protocol in each browser version, so they suggest running supported versions only. But like a sibling comment mentioned, you can also connect it to any existing browser instance, and, assuming there are no CDP incompatibilities, it will likely work.

[1]: https://playwright.dev/docs/browsers
Could try for a vFabric/RabbitMQ support roll at NetSuite, Red Hat, or Blackfriars Group.

Also, Elixir subsystems in Erlang are common, so projecting ones preferences onto an employer may earn less utility or more ire.

Best of luck =)
You could also say they were deliberate fraud.

The number of big-name banks whose actions are questionable [1] - if not actually criminal - is astonishing.

[1] As reported by insider papers like the Financial Times.
FTX Investors Warned of Likely Bankruptcy Without New Funds
I think his main point is that for now, in the immediate present, nothing has really changed in terms of moderation, so the advertisers shouldn't be pulling out.

But this probably ignores the fact that it is a crunch time in the economy and advertising needs hardly any reason to cause it to contract.
Yeah, but python? eww :)
Zelle is an alternative to ACH, and I’m glad it exists! However there are a lot of consumer protections in the ACH system, not so much with Zelle.
Yes, the v102 upgrade was a nightmare for many users. I actually had an exchange about that with the person behind Thunderbird's Twitter account after their announcement of Supernova:

> Neat. Please do test this thoroughly before release to avoid the v102 fiasco :). It made things difficult for both users and evangelists who take time to help others in using Thunderbird. [1]

> We hear you. Which is why we're doing this for Supernova: [2]

>> In the roadmap for Thunderbird Supernova (v. 115) you'll notice our goal is to complete most features by Q4 2022. That's because we're entering"feature-freeze" by end of 2022, then spending several months on polish. We want it to exceed your expectations!

[1] https://twitter.com/p4bl0/status/1590400298517864448

[2] https://twitter.com/mozthunderbird/status/159040241315584409...
Purpose is made, not found.

The meaning of life is to create meaning.

Now let's get to the real question; How do you live with mindful intention? How do you create the meaning you want?

This is the hard part:

First, you have to know where you are starting from. You have to be honest with yourself. What do you value? Not 'what do you feel like you /should/ value?'. What do you /really/ value? This takes dispassionate introspection. Recall your physically manifested behavior over time. How would someone observing you describe how you spend your time? What conclusions would they come to about what you value based on your behavior? It's important not to have selective memory here. Your mind will rebel. You'll probably tell yourself nice stories about your motivations or circumstances that explain away behavior that isn't, at first blush, ideal. Just be honest. Assume that the person you have been was perfectly rational and has completely fulfilled what they truly value with their behavior. What are those values?

Now, the point of that introspection isn't to beat yourself up. Watch a ton of TV? Perhaps you value a well-told story or time to relax. Spend yourself into debt? Perhaps you value living in the moment and the experiences that spending brings. It's ok, and you probably should, put the best possible spin on the values that motivate the observed behaviors. This is your baseline. These are your current values that you actually hold. This is your current purpose and meaning. Don't like them? Change them. Like the values but not how they currently manifest in your behavior? Change the behaviors, but don't ignore the values and motivations that lead to those behaviors.

It doesn't get easier from here. While going through that exercise you may have had some negative emotions. Guilt. Denial. Shame. Confusion. Envy of an imagined self living a better life. You may have imagined 'better' ways you could have behaved. Now you have to decide, knowing what you now know about yourself and where you currently stand, which of those emotions are intrinsic and which are externally imposed. You want to keep as much of the intrinsic motivators and dump as much of the external motivators as possible. They are not always easy to tell apart. Decide what behaviors would satisfy your intrinsic motivators and work those behaviors into your life. Revisit this process often. External motivators may masquerade as intrinsic. You can tell them apart by whether these new behaviors are fulfilling over time or continue to be a painful struggle.

You'll learn to recognize Yourself over time and you won't need to look backward and pick yourself apart too much to figure out your Intent. Finding something motivating, formulating intent, and acting to realize that motivation will become just how you live. You'll be creating meaning and purpose from moment to moment.
To be precise, the value of money sinks. The value of bread to everyone involved stays the same.

Said differently: the price of everything rises, not the value.

And another nitpick: by definition the average/median price rises, not the price of everything (afair).

Since bitcoin itself is a currency though, I'm not sure how inflation really applies across currencies (since there are "prices" both ways).
Gold is a poor investment, and indeed has some Ponzi-like properties.
1. Can you point any company in recent history that went through bankruptcy/auction to pay is retail investor their money back... or for that matter, most tech companies with negative net income does not pay dividend either...

2. So called, "Money" does not pay dividend... does Gold pays dividend? now on the other hand, I can lend you BTC or Gold and ask you to pay me back the principle + interest on it in BTC/Gold etc so that is that... Fiat money can yield as it can be created of thin air, no actual work required (i.e. mining for Gold or BTC)

3. Any currency, company also can be replaced by something else out there but won't why? network effect, trust and liquidity matters...
Your response is the first that's really interesting. I know that the fair value is much, much higher than it is now, because there is virtually no real adoption.

> what’s the right coin and right amount to hold?

That's an amazing question. I have truly no idea. I'm investing based on my personal conviction.

But this opens up a really interesting discussion about game theory and prediction markets. In a zero-sum prediction market, refusing to play is pareto-optimal and an equilibrium strategy.

So you could call me an irrational actor. I'm making a first move based on personal belief, thereby giving you an opportunity to arbitrage me. I believe that the fair value is higher than it is now. If you believe differently, short me. (I'm just joking of course, but I do find your question intriguing, and is something I've been thinking about a lot)
They don't even check your government id. You can be verified as anyone for $8.
A fresh set of eyes in the sense of your observation that its usually new folks pointing out the many issues this framework is suffering from.

I use an array of frameworks. Anyway there is nothing intellectual in this debate as we are not conceptualising alternatives we are just considering existing tools, a bit like building workers considering different types of hammers. A common issue in the js world.
Yeah, agreed. I get the impression it's a small team.

But there is a long-tail of weird x86 features that are implemented, that give them amazing compatibility, that I regret not mentioning:

* 32-bit support for Wine

* full x87 emulation

* full SSE2 support (generally converting to efficient NEON equivalents) for performance on SIMD code

I consider all of these "compatibility", but that last one in particular should have been in the post, since that's very important to the performance of optimised SIMD routines (plenty of emulators also do SIMD->SIMD, but others just translate SIMD->scalar or SIMD->helper-runtime-call).
People on here get worked up about it because they all know someone who made a lot of money in it that they see as unearned -- it comes down to jealousy or schadenfreude, I suppose. The guise of caring about the externalities or the grandmas is always a front, if we're being totally honest with ourselves.

Because to your point, it's completely voluntary to get involved, and if someone is pretending to care about all the (relatively few) grandmas who put money in, well, they're losing money so this person shouldn't be so happy about it.

And as for the energy externality, the vast majority of crypto hashpower has hook ups to power plants where during certain times of the day/year, there is excess power and nowhere to put it, so they sell it dirt cheap to miners. I know someone who worked for a US solar power provider that had such an arrangement. Sure, some people are mining from their college campus and stealing power to do so, but the cumulative real effect of this relatively low profit activity is dwarfed by the out of context numbers you see in articles.

So at the end of the day, the crypto hating is just people playing zero sum status games, hoping they somehow benefit relative to the decline of others (just as the crypto people are playing zero sum wealth games). It would be nice if everyone could just be honest about it.
Neither does USD. Can we please hate on bitcoin with arguments that aren't 100% identical to issues of trust in USD?
Simply because you need to get the basing things right like the correct infrastructure and it is a safer bet, specially when you are bootstrapped. The article lays out the vision for the future of the search that Kagi wants to build.
It can't? Strange how the government ended up controlling the Silk Road's stash
Appreciate your comment lmarcos!

Yes, the above instruction runs on macos too as long as you have docker-desktop installed.
Wire fraud is a huge problem already.
> I never got the fascination for Orion.

Explosions are cool. Orion is space-orc technology, extremely cool.
Yeah. If the only bank they had prosecuted wasn't tiny Abacus, with its excellent low delinquency rate, they could "learn em."

When governments' motto became "too big to fail," they lost every right. And they signaled even banks not doing it, that it is a good idea to do so.
Would like to say this is it for Bitcoin, but it seems to always find a way to recover after a few years. And every time it falls this hard someone says, this is it, like really it.
The fact that ACH takes 3 days is actually because the original protocol was file and FTP based, where one bank would upload the transfer as a file to another's, and the other would return a file with exceptions or something within 3 days. If the first bank didn't see a file with exceptions in 3 days the first would actually wire the money. Money can move way faster and fraud can be detected, obviously some time for human intervention is good too but that wasn't baked into the solution on purpose as much as it was just a terrible protocol to begin with.
I hadn’t seen this emails before. I’m surprised by how outward looking and myopic at the same time Zuck’s emails are, this one particularly so (the one about chat bots also comes to mind).

Ask yourself where you were in 2015 and see if you can get their take on VR or AR. For me it felt like magic. Like using an iPhone for the first time. Yes, VR and AR is absolutely the future. But social communication and media communication is just a myopic view on what the possibilities are! Interactive consumption is / was where it is at. A hybrid of games + educational experience was for me the quintessential experience a la Assassin’s Creed meets walking simulator.

I would love to just learn about places where I go passively with AR. I’d love to meet people and have fun stories shared via AR (as I proof read this, I’m not so sure about this but there’s potential).

Facebook absolutely should have built the platform first and if they did that developers would have come to build the apps. I’m surprised with 40k to 80k on staff they weren’t able make much headway into this until the past year.

Somewhat relatedly, did Zuck really write these emails in 2015? The color of the text for the date is highlighted weird. I’m surprised that the chat bot effort happened after this email. Perhaps, he figured chat bots would be a gateway to AR?

I think Zuck was focused too much on the control Apple and Google have on the average person’s eyeballs / pocket and on Facebook itself. The Facebook phone was an obvious attempt at trying to pry loose but they should have just kept at it. They could have built a Google Daydream like experience around their own Facebook phone.

All for the best I guess. I’m glad Facebook is failing. They have harmed more relationships with their algorithms imo than helped keep them together. The world might have been a better place if Facebook’s feed wasn’t trying to be so “engaging”.
It's popular to hate cryptocurrency in some circles.

I think that mainly that is what drives the hate, just network effects. It's popular to hate because everyone's doing it.

But also, unfortunately cryptocurrency's reputation has largely been ruined by scammers. Because it's like any high technology, it multiplies the power of those who use it. Including the multitudes of low-lifes out there.

The biggest issue though is that people fundamentally do not understand what cryptocurrency is or that it has core advances in digital signatures and blockchains that make legacy trust-based financial systems obsolescent.

It also represents in some ways how technology has made all sorts of institutions and paradigms obsolete. Those who are profiting from these previous paradigms and/or are less cognitively adaptive subconsciously are threatened by these types of changes.
Chase also says similar things. And shows a warning on the entirety of the Zelle flow that alerts about scams.
My best explanation is an psycho-economic-reactance model. It hypothesizes that the largest crypto-pessimistic voices are engaging in the hyperstitious[2] manufacturing of a desired crypto collapse. The desire to foment crypto-collapse stems the reactance one imagines oneself experiencing in a thoroughly crypt-infused world. Allow me to draw a parallel.

There exists a contingent of folks who experience psychological reactance at the thought of having to make decisions with respect to government oversight. They "[experience] motivation to regain a freedom after it has been lost or threatened – leads people to resist the social influence of others" when faced with the prospect of having to deal with the government. We all know people like this.

The same reaction exists when people feel they will be forced to make decisions with respect to crypto - a system they didn't and don't wish to participate in. No amount of reasoning is going to make someone amenable to government interference in the same way no one is going to be reasoned out of being currency-interfered with by those wish to establish a crypto-hegemony.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/

2. http://www.xenopraxis.net/readings/carstens_hyperstition.pdf
Every bank gets to implement it differently. The Zelle app on my phone just tells me to open my bank's app and do it there. You can send money to someone who doesn't have Zelle and they'll get an phishing-esque invite email or text.

The worst aspect is that scammers can send you money that does bounce back (because it was an unauthorized transfer from another victim, the one scenario in which they'll reverse transactions), but your money doesn't bounce back because it was authorized.
I have degree from film animation, one year in indie game development and for now I'm an visual artist freelancer over 7 years.

To be honest, I cannot say that make living by what is your hobby is good decision. It could easily became just work that needs to be done. Which is fine if you'll do it with passion. But especially in art it is huge difference between creativity for contract and creativity for expressing yourself. Those in second category are extremely lucky if able to make living.

Also you would probably not spend your free time by doing art.
The linked paper refers to shells in "deposits" dated to between 28,000 and 36,000 years ago rather than fossils, so the species was known to have lived comparatively recently in geologic terms.
Well I agree with you on one thing, I certainly asked myself whether it even makes sense to even attempt to reason with someone who has lived his entire life with no purpose and no God and apparently no morality that would compell him to care about something other than himself. That's a dangerous individual to me, to me, it's crazy. It's like attempting to tell a politician to please stop only stealing for yourself and actually do something useful and fix something. It's expecting a total change in character and morality from someone. Then add to that the danger that they pick an absolutely terrible, misguided shallow purpose prepared by politicans and their propaganda. My advice is to look into the bible and attempt to find God. Only that can revert your character in a way necessary that would help avoid the problems.
crypto and investment should never be togheter, at best crypto believer
The Moon is very far away. Can we really build strong enough fusion bombs that they would irradiate people down to earth even if they were at half of the distance between earth and moon?
The results of his actions will hurt him too, by causing severe damage to the market his business participates in.
Oh, it's an ad.

Since Google turned to the dark side on August 9, 2006[1], ranking by links weight has been hopeless. But the alternatives are not much better.

[1] https://www.google.com/press/podium/ses2006.html
I think of it as a bigger company buying a validated POC with a ready customer base.
Well yes, but a good fraction the good they've done would have been done by other companies if they weren't around.

What's frustrating is that they currently have a near-monopoly on friend-to-friend publishing, yet unlike about 5 years ago, they now gatekeep a lot of those communications -- many times I post something on my Facebook or Instagram that I want friends to see, and Meta doesn't show that content to my friends, just because it isn't a "Reel". Friends in my age range (+/-10) who grew up in North America tend to use only Meta's products, so I basically feel like I'm talking to a wall most of the time.
So... money laundering and drug deals (again) are the only valid use cases?
So people expect credit card/debit card level protection without paying the credit card/debit card fees or going through the process of merchant vetting by a payment processor?
> Aren't advertisements at their core unconsented psychological manipulation?

Yes. 100% yes.

> What about retail store design?

Also yes.

Advertising exists to try and make you purchase product “x”, regardless of whether you need it, or it meets your requirements. Even “harmless” display advertising exists to gently push to mind into forming the desired emotional association with a product.

Store layouts are well documented for being deliberately anti-efficient: they make you walk past everything else to find the things you need, with the goal of exposing you to more advertising and product placement. Combine that with strategies like putting sweets and other “low friction” products at the checkout, where you’re more likely to make a spur of the moment emotional decision under pressure, or be hassled by your children for sweets, and you have something that is inherently exploitative and morally questionable at a minimum.

Evil is probably too high-modality, but unethical and exploitative are definitely suitable.
To start the discussion off on a thorny point: I recently got “called out” on addressing a group of people as “guys” on account of the interpretation that I’m assuming a single gender. This really frustrated me, and seemed extremely uncalled for. I can remember teachers in school say “cmon guys settle down now” to refer to their co-ed classrooms.

Is there any response I could give to this out-of-the-blue criticism besides quietly judging the requester and moving on? I make very little apology for using language in this way, and I was surprised it was interpreted in the most inflammatory way possible.