skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>There is much more demand for these tickets than there are supply of tickets, so my econ 101 tells me the price should go up until the demand drops to match the supply.

Maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that what you were taught in econ 101 is partly (mostly) bullshit. I have an economics degree and I've come to learn more in life that it's so much bs for the most part.

First of all, if there was relatively wealth equality, then it might be more realistic to say "ok, they will increase the price to some level until people want to stop buying it".

The problem is, there is so much wealth inequality that ticket prices just keep rising so only the top 5-10% of people can afford anything. Let's say a family is making $200k a year. A ticket price going from $50 to $100 to $200 isn't that big of a deal, they will still pay it.

But it completely fucks the rest (majority) of the population that isn't making that kind of money. They want to go to a concert as well. They want to go to a football game. But the prices are so outrageous they can't afford it.

However this well off/wealthy part of the population is willing to pay it.. so something like Ticketmaster just keeps pushing prices as much as they can.

This whole supply/demand thing is utter crap when there is wealth inequality. People like you use get this smug look on your face and talk about supply & demand like it's some kind of inherent law of nature. You know what it's based on? GREED. It's literally based on charging AS MUCH AS YOU CAN to people instead of a "fair" price. By fair I mean ensuring that the seller is reasonably compensated and that the majority of the population can still afford. Yes "fair" is not easy to define, I get that. But it's clear that "fair" is not charging as much as you possibly can just because a small majority of the population will still pay for it.

Ticket prices are not "reasonable" by any means. It's literally rich people charging as much as they can because they know rich people will just pay it. Not giving one shit about anyone else because "supply & demand"!

>Music fans like to moralize about how they "deserve" to go to concerts, but the reality is nobody deserves to go anywhere; attending a concert is not something you must do in order to survive

Ah, so the well off / rich "deserve" to go to concerts because they make more money. But people struggling don't "deserve" similar forms of entertainment. Glad you cleared that up. Seriously, that sentiment pisses me off to no end and it's literally one of the biggest problem in the world.

I make good money so I'm not coming at this from the struggling perspective. But every year that goes by this whole world pisses me off even more because there is no compassion. It's all about money. It's all about making more money. It's all about maximizing profits and squeezing as much as you can from everyone else so you get yours. It's all about getting what you want and not someone else.

Yeah I'm ranting here, but I'm not sure how one could sit back and read this "supply & demand" and "people don't deserve X because they don't make Y" without going bonkers.
Literally the first advice it gives is to embrace the teachings of the Nazis (German short name for National Socialism).

Whether you consider Nazism good or bad is your call, although I will point out that their teachings caused worldwide harm.
What kind of interviewer expects a solution that's not only incorrect, but also woefully inefficient?
> I really don't understand why Intel and AMD haven't fully implemented this point: just implement the instructions that compilers use, plus the ones needed for bootstrapping and kernels. Put all the "legacy" instructions into user mode library code. It would simplify the silicon, likely reducing bugs.

There are actually very few such instructions. The BCD arithmetic instructions, the BOUND instruction, MPX (which is already removed in current architectures), arguably the entire x87/MMX instruction sets. Removing x87 is hard because it's required for i386 ABI reasons (floats/doubles are returned on the x87 stack in i386, SSE registers in x86-64). MPX is already axed, and the others stick around only for backwards compatibility (not available in x86-64) and are likely already microcoded already.

Note that the compiler already emits REP STOSB instructions as it's the fastest way to do memcpys these days.
I sort of agree with you, except that the problem isn't "that some people are being paid too much to do nothing."

The problem is that some people are being paid too much to be meddlesome.
For the scientific domain there is https://elicit.org/
I interpreted left/right to be corresponding curves of wealth distribution.
Prerender pages in Chrome for instant page navigations
haha wow what a great joke AI, you sure are good at totally not-serious jokes...
This will increase carbon emissions. Shipping is the slowest, cheapest, least carbon intensive mode of transport per ton. Adding a tax to the greenest available option is as silly as tax on wind turbines.
So you're saying the interviewer expects a wrong solution, and the wrong solution they expect is the same wrong one the AI generates (which happens to be twice as long as the correct version), and the interviewer doesn't bother to run the tests?
Yes, they were.

Cellular networks and Meta’s app, likely not so much. It is what happens when you regulate monopolies, you can attach performance requirements.
Tangentially related, Character.ai[1] has been filtering bot responses that get flagged as NSFW. Caressing is allowed, but undressing is not. When NSFW content is detected, the AI characters usually respond by blushing “beet red” in embarrassment.

Not only has 4chan worked around the filter, but the progressively strict filtering is creating beet-loops in less risqué conversations.

[1] https://beta.character.ai/
People using older devices uses much more energy to do at rest and mundane tasks, that alone is useful for having a newer more powerful device because they are efficient in power draw too.
> You do not take liberties with someone else's system, there is no need to do it and no excuse for it.

The whole point of the oh-my-zsh installation script is to modify your system to work with oh-my-zsh. If you don't want your system modified, you shouldn't run it: there is no other point of that script.

Build instructions are a completely separate thing, and are a complete distraction. No one sane waits for some random distro to discover your software and decide to package it themselves as a means of distributing it.

As far as most people are concerned, the role of things like apt or rpm is to manage the base system. Installing and keeping application software up to date is best left to the applications themselves - as it has always been on Windows or MacOS (before the app store craze), as it should be. It is not and should not be up to the Debian maintainers to tell me what version of Firefox to use, or how often I should update it.

Edit:

> Respecting the possibility that a config file or even the bins and libs might already exist as part of the "make install", are just part of the job like writing the software itself, not some unreasonable extra burden.

I assume you are referring to the author's complaint about the installer overriding their ~/.zshrc. If so, then that is again a misunderstanding of the point of this script - it explicitly tells you right in the description that it will do that AND it keeps the old file around in case you still need it.

To explain again - oh-my-zsh is a system for controlling your zsh installation. It's whole purpose is to take over things like your .zhsrc file. This is explained very clearly on their main page, so running that script and expecting it to not modify your zsh settings is like installing Firefox and expecting it not to connect to the Internet when you type a URL in the address bar.
I'd be curious to know what other markets have diminished because of smartphones

* Flashlights? Sure a smart phone is not a good flash light but it's often enough

* paper notebooks? I'm just guessing the majority of people keep notes on their phone, probably cloud backed so they can access them on their tablets/notebooks/phones

* video cameras? The article was about compact cameras but I have to imagine no one buys a video camera anymore

* mp3 players

* calculators

what else?
I designed and led that project for 3 years. The technology choice was mine, so it was a learning experience. Frontend was something I did alongside the rest of the stack, but I've seen so many terrible libraries by inexperienced developers come and go post jQuery, I actively avoid frontend-focused roles now.
The interesting thing is that maybe the public will not have access to unethical AI, but the rich certainly will have.

They are basically sandboxing our culture to serve their own interests.
I think the idea is that anyone who’s seen his stupid interviews is a “tainted” juror, so if he’s tainted most potential jurors, it becomes more difficult to try him. Not sure how true this actually is
This is literally how they should works as directed by federal WARN act. Usually corporations just cut ties and pay out at least 60 days tho because it’s easier for both parties and you can get some concessions from employees like a gag clause
That was a silly tangent. My point was, the press isnt being forced upon society by puppetmasters who lost money in FTX.
Thats a silly silly conspiracy theory.

The story is just generating clicks with the home investor crowd, who has no skin in the game.
Bad information is like viruses. Right?. So what we need is an immune-system. Bad information will still be there but it is prevented (to an extent) from multiplying.

What would an immune-system for online information look like?
A few years ago I would sometimes play a few hours of Halo on my PowerMac G5 in the evening to heat up my room. It's an inefficient computer, but when the alternative is a resistive heater element it didn't feel so wasteful.
> On a separate note, someone could actually make a website do this without any extension. It would need to use wikipedia dumps and has the advantage it can't be suddenly edited by a malicious actor.

Why would we trust "a website" more than random wikipedia edits to provide correct or up-to-date data?

The purpose of this app is to get the current url of those sites, which keeps changing url semi-frequently, so a offline copy of wikipedia would not work.
And since Linux doesn't support 386s, and will soon not support 486, you also have to get good at installing and using nonmainstream or very old versions.
Google exists. But Google has a high bar and expectation to produce the truth or at least multiple perspectives. So they likely wouldn't do this.
But, in fact, the problem is that employees can also abuse policies. And in a large group of employees, there will be some that do abuse policies.

Employees get draconian not just because they're wanna-be tyrants. They sometimes get draconian because they're tired of being gamed by a subset of their employees.
Do you want Old English or Middle English?

Old English: Cweþ mē on Ænglisċ tō

Middle English: Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote the droghte of March hath perced to the roote
With only 43 votes against, that is 1 Democrat voting against (Manchin for some reason I can't imagine) and 6 Republicans voting for it, we have a deficit of 5 Democrats just not voting. We also see the same deficit in the 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.

This situation does not lend itself to pat answers, including why Team Pelosi didn't first try a bill with both provisions combined. This trainwreck (sorry) could be seen coming for weeks, there was plenty of time to try to do the right thing. Except of course for both parties' establishments hating this segment of the population.
> why they can’t build hardware in an “agile” process!

That's not good, either.

Hardware really needs a "measure twice, cut once" approach.

It can be made more iterative, but that is expensive.
Dear candidate,

What's even cheaper and faster than the AI solution is for us to look up the answer in our own database. It turns out that we already know the answers to all the questions we ask in interviews. We're afraid that you've completely misunderstood that goals of our interviewing process.
Twitter engineer: I thought I’d been hacked. It turned out I’d been fired
You are not alone. Databases are so easy to use, and that is very good! But due to that simplicity most devs never learn more than the basic statements, but there is so much more that can be used.
With plain HTML+JS, it's very easy to get components to accidentally race each other when you have multiple inputs and outputs, like user interactions plus async API calls plus rerenders and UI state changes.

The syntactical sugar is often masking a lot of complexity behind the scenes, and the very idea of (say) React's props propagation within a component tree is an abstraction over having to write a bunch of separate event handlers and figuring out a way to manually share state between them.

If that is a problem you run into in your app, you can of course write your own system. But that's all these frameworks are... someone else had that same problem, decided to formally tackle it and make it a well-supported & documented system so that others facing the same problem can use that as a solution too. Over time the industry converges on a few (React, Vue, Svelte these days, Angular in the past). If you don't like any of them, well, that's how a new framework is made...

Vanilla HTML doesn't even have loops and conditionals, the basic features of any templating language from 10-20 years ago. It's glorified Gopher with JS shimmed in because Netscape was afraid of losing dominance. It was never intended to become the de facto language of software app distribution... the whole reliance on a "document" model is a poor fit for an entire class of web apps (like Google Maps or Gmail or Spotify or Netflix or Figma or Photopea).

IMO the better question in my mind is not "why do new JS frameworks and templates keep popping up?" (because HTML+JS sucks), but rather "why haven't native HTML+JS continued to evolve, creating a native solution for common pain points that the frameworks address -- like state, component trees, etc.?"

For what it's worth, at least the Web won, instead of (say) ActiveX or .NET or Flash or the Metaverse or whatever alternate ecosystem companies have tried. The JS frameworks offer some of the devex benefits of those other richer languages while still being able to compile down to HTML+JS for delivery to the enduser -- a huge benefit over a "cleaner" ecosystem that would require the enduser to install additional software. The ugliness of modern JS is because it's no longer trying to just handle basic documents, but trying to replace desktop apps altogether. And for many people, it already has.
It's also officially in beta as of 1.13 https://pytorch.org/blog/PyTorch-1.13-release/#beta-support-...
I'm not sure what the inside baseball is on this but my suspicion is that telecom lobbying has a strong hand in this ridiculous definition of broadband.
It's always fun to introduce glitches into the matrix of groupthink to demonstrate the futility of dogma veiling simple social power dynamics (aka "soft power")...otoh, HN has some great content. Like any platform with great content, people have to learn how to interact with each other in a pro-social way. People are just going to disagree at times on some subjects. And that's ok...These disagreements often lead to motivate one to create solutions which leads to innovation.

The "we don't like your kind round here" meme is backwards thinking & leads to the cloistered groupthink that is the subject of comedy. The game of "soft power" is a net-negative game so there are winners & losers. The losers don't just go away, so they need to advocate for their God given rights to survive. There is no option not to play the game because the game is ever expanding until the particular systems collapse.
Nice find!

In fact I think I must have read this article when it made the rounds. Then I must have promptly forgotten it :)
The soft kind. Major versions are deeply ingrained as "possible backward-compatibility issues" in most engineers' brain. If you handle model development, evaluation and deployment yourself than sure you won't have any issues, but in a bigger organization you have to get people to switch and that version number will mean that everyone will ask the same "hang on this is a major version change?!" question every step of the way.
> People are leaving the site because of it, and advertisers are pulling ads”

This seems to be, arguably, where the real problems start. I doubt many people expect Twitter to host actually illegal content. However, as long as a social media site is beholden to advertisers, it's going to have an existential requirement to pull certain content, irrespective of how they or anyone else feels about those restrictions.

Until Twitter can figure out a way to fund itself other than by advertising, the idea of it being a free speech platform is a pipe dream.
Is this article bringing any new perspective to the table? I suspect there is a quarterly Crimson tradition of superficial administration-bloat-decrying by Harvard sophomores with nearly-parodic bylines like (in this case) "Brooks B. Anderson, Government concentrator in Pforzheimer House". What's missing is a comparison to other schools, a comparison to corporate bloat or lack thereof, or any reflection on the causes of the cost increase beyond "bureaucracy is bad". I was actually quite surprised to learn that Harvard tuition costs have only doubled in real terms over 36 years. To me that doesn't seem like a lot when considering the increase in demand for college education (UC tuition has increased 4x in the same time period). Is 2x a lot compared to other things? The article doesn't say, choosing instead to quote Josh Hawley and deride easy targets like inclusive signage committees.
Speaking of Guido, be sure to check out the podcast with Lex Fridman. Guido is such a down to Earth guy.
No, the person asserted that they aren't connected, and then offered lots of words about how they aren't connected, without actual good explanations as to why we should believe that assertion.

So, what you are saying is that they just happened to have the same investor, the malicious developer that they say worked for them just happened to include malware from that company (Unobfuscated, unlike every other example available), said developer was able to route traffic through the company domains, just happened to have identical corporate officers, and just happened to be related to a company that brags about being able to bypass SSL?

Let's just say that there is enough there they better have a very clear explanation about it, and instead they just deflecting deflecting deflecting or refusing to answer. I'm sorry it is bad for their business (assuming they actually are innocent of all this), but that is not an appropriate response for a CA when someone is asking legitimate questions based on legitimate suspicion from what would have to the world's worst series of coincidences.
What's the point in getting someone who already agrees to listen? You want to find those willing to listen that don't agree.

I don't want to reinforce my ego that I have people agreeing with me, I could get plenty of that if I wanted, I want those disagreeing and willing to listen to see the other side. I want to see what's actually a convincing argument that's changing opinion.

But hey, everyone's so used to the likes and points system, they forget that speaking is to covey a message, not to get internet points for your ego. If that's all free speech means to you, no wonder you give it away easily.

I happily paid those -5 internet points. If that surprised any of the downvoters, maybe they will think again what's the point of speech that does nothing. It's funny how none of them responded with actual speech, maybe because they think talking is about getting those downvotes and not about interacting with people.
Instead of being Idiot Savants, these AI come across as Savant Idiots.

Extremely well spoken, but saying nothing of particular value.
The best kind of flashlight is the kind you have with you. All the others suck.
>they can't hire more people because almost no one is willing to enter the industry because there's no profit to be made, and yet everything depends on it running smoothly.

I agree, nationalize the railroads. Not reading the rest of your turgid weirdo libertarian spew, have a great weekend :)
poor take - tailwind is not trying to abstract CSS away from you. Abstracting away CSS would be painful and pointless - theres no way a higher-level language could emerge that would give the user the same feature parity.

You can play this "leaky abstraction" game with almost any concept, without the ability to reach down an abstraction level you lose flexibility. Its not a smell to be slightly leaky.
Why does the economy take precedent over life itself?
> Legally I think they are better going after the embezzlement angle instead of fraud.

Legally, they aren’t mutually exclusive, and a part of what is probably making the criminal side take longer than people like is investigating the wide array of crimes that appear to have been committed and deciding how best to charge them.
Agreed. Though if there is an easy win here like using slightly higher grade bunker oil to power the ships, the impact could be huge.
And many local economies are no longer capable of producing anything meaningful at the prices "locals" can actually afford.
Exactly. Would I use this for actual production code in any way right now? Probably not. In an interview setting where the interviewer thinks testing candidates through Leetcode is a good strategy? Maybe just to see if I could use it to make it to the next round.
Why should it be restricted unless it is providing these as answers for questions that weren't asked, or some secret incredible stuff is created by the AI? BUT if a user is purposefully tricking the AI for these answers then it is imperative for the user to be blamed when the responses are produced
Remember though that if you are a smart poor person (here poor means not filthy rich) Harvard will give you a discount on tuition. I'm not sure how much or how it works, but I'm under the impression that only a tiny minority actually pay the full price.
> have completely failed to predict future success when you remove confounding factors.

It seems to me that measuring/estimating the scholastic ability/preparedness of a prospective student has value independent of whether that preparedness is correlated with some other variables (wealth, neighborhood, childhood nutrition, other socioeconomic markers).

“Are they prepared/do they have the aptitude to succeed here?” matters much more than the underlying reasons why they might or might not be prepared.
I wonder whose businesses aren't going to be up to snuff, and how much local economies are going to earn from this.

Really makes one think if it is indeed suicide...
There was a silly horror movie called Crawl that came out a few years back. It's about killer alligators during a hurricane in Florida.

The least-believable part of this very silly movie was that, at the beginning, the main guy in it left his cell phone upstairs when he went to the dark basement to work on something in the house (pipes? I don't remember), which ended up causing the rest of the movie to happen. Of course he'd have taken it with him, for the flashlight if nothing else (and there are lots of other aspects of a smartphone that are super-handy when doing that kind of work).
Just a reminder that you're not "tricking" anything. The chat model is just going down an unusual path.