skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Still, would be at least nice to get info in the top bar about whether someone answered to your comment, it's tiring going there manually
Facebook had several privacy scandals. E2E encryption is a way to signal that they take privacy seriously.
Those are the assigned letters for airports, not the same.
TCI was taking advantage of the layoffs as a way to try to fool people into thinking they have sway with Google leadership.

They don't.

They own 0.5% which is nothing compared to other investors. The lion share are still owned by Brin and Page. I'm sure Google leadership humored their call with TCI but it means nothing to them. He didn't even meet with Sundar as far as I heard, but he makes it seems like he did.
Funny, i was there in Sept and I was surprised at how much the smell was still there. Actually, what really surprised me was the gradation between casinos. I had imagined them as being all much the same, plus/minus minor differences due to age. I could not have been more wrong. The wynn was extremely smoke free and evidently spiffed up to strongly appeal to east asian clients (lots of red lacquer and super high end stores). The mgm was more like a bro night out and reeked of smoke. You could smell it even in the (very expensive) restaurants around the edge of the casino floor. So I suppose they havent quite solved the ventilation issues yet.
Here's a list of states and relevant statutes from 2017[1].

[1] https://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resour...
I think they have two major problems:

1) Their most unique and interesting content is only salient during major elections.

2) They don't want to be pundits. They want to be statisticians.

For many of us, #2 sounds like a benefit. But the reality is that people want opinionated commentary. The core message of FiveThirtyEight is that everyone else is biased and over-confident.

I think they're right, but it's not really entertainment.
At least it truly is an individual choice now, others can’t get sick from someone else eating junk food.
Seriously. It's like if you had an insecure partner who incessantly asks you 10x a day "How do I look?" and if you say ANYTHING other than "FANTASTIC!" you know they're going to react really bad.

Except it's worse since if you ever give an honest answer it's not you they'll berate, the bosses will just flagellate their underlings who might not even be truly responsible for the "low" rating.
The particular link does not have significant bias and is a good conversation despite where it is published. Wikipedia is plagued by manipulation

Perhaps try reading it, make meaningful statements or comparisons to further the debate, and not end your rebuttals with a childish "lol"

You're still engaging in shallow thinking otherwise
> The Hitler issue would never be as easy as killing baby Hitler.

I agree that killing baby Hitler wouldn’t help, but that’s not what’s being discussed.

A stroke-free Stalin would have been an issue.

Extreme environments lead to extreme leaders. I’m not sure that giving unlimited time is a good idea, as that would seem likely to cement a situation permanently.
The fund he manages, TCI, pays a dividend, not Google.
I would love to see how it plays out. It will be more difficult to lower my pay than it will be to raise others.
One issue with "gradually increasing over time" is that, without a master password change, the old hashes are still "out there" and potentially available for inspection.
Thanks for a recommendation
I worry about any technology that has a bus factor of one.[1]

And I'm sure there are several orders of magnitude more of them than _that_ xkcd cartoon imply...

[1] Except when that "one" is me. You're all welcome to solve any problems in code I leave behind, I no longer will care. Whether that's a "bus factor" or a "won the lottery factor".)
The author main point is the affirmation that rejecting some human things is bad:

> " Adhering to our current ideal of beauty — specifically in Western culture, specifically at this time in history — means being as divorced from your humanity as possible. See: the physical impossibility of “anti-aging,” the literal objectification of glass skin and jello skin,
> (...)
> otherworldly creature, complete with all the trappings of modern “beauty”: taut, textureless skin; a small, sloping nose; wide eyes, plump lips, and cheekbones carved from computerized stone.

The texture of the skin changes with aging. It seems that most people prefer a skin more like a baby than like a 90 year old.

Also, the "physical impossibility of “anti-aging,”" isn't a given: our current technology doesn't allows that yet, but since we've just started manipulating the clock of mices to make them look younger or older, I think it may be too early to conclude it's impossible (or in the other direction, possible on humans)

If people want that, why not? What's so bad about "small, sloping nose; wide eyes, plump lips, and cheekbones carved from computerized stone"?

What would be so nice about having say a large beaked nose, dryed out lips and small cheekbones?

I can't pretend to know either way, but at least I can respect people wants. Maybe the author should start questioning his assumption, and what looks to me like a strong status-quo bias?

If I were the author, I would start reading "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" to question the sources of these biases.

And why this weird focus how being human is so great? Isn't that an endowment bias? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

The whole thing reeks of various biases, and little actual information. He gets 1 point for "Basically, unattainable standard of beauty + cultural obsession with beauty = lower quality of life!" - at least that's a testable hypothesis, so it passes the epistemological filter. But it's very devoid of content otherwise.

> "The human longing to be beautiful, to feel beautiful, to be surrounded by beauty, and to be part of that beauty really overrides a lot of our other urges"

But I thought the point was rejecting humanity was bad. So just to be clear, it is bad for some things the author like (like aging or a bad skin) but good for other things the author dislike (the "longing to be beautiful")?

That's a 0 for self consistence.

> So much of “beauty” today is a class performance, a display of wealth, and that's an aspect community, too. Signaling that you have power.

Close, but no cigar. If that was with a citation of "Society of the Spectacle" or even just dropping Debord name that'd be worthy of another point.

> And so I really see a huge parallel there with people having no qualms about stealing art from real artists to participate in this AI trend

And I know how to spot a luddite when I read things like that.

> Let’s go back to the beginning and talk about makeup’s original purpose

No sorry I'm done, I don't need more pretense of knowledge.
AI will give office workers more time to ‘create, dream and innovate’
Is that median salary actually the salary, or the total comp?

If it is total comp, is it adjusted for the fact that googlers are provided with RSUs and not dollars?(ie, a googler given "$70k" worth of stock in 2019 for 2 years out would receive $150k in stock in 2021.
> But it does not mean the set is well defined. The description is not necessarily clear an unambigious. It might not be consistent under the generalizations we come up with.

Well, obviously such a set must be defined relative to whatever system you're using to describe the numbers. But once you have it, you can simply declare that a number is in your set if and only if there does not exist a finite description in your system of choice. (In other words, you enumerate the countable many finite descriptions in your system, put them in the set, then define the new set as the complement.) How is that ambiguous?

> Interesting example, because the set is trivially empty under the assumption that we can describe any finite natural number by writing down its decimal expansion. (Based on that you can either argue that the primes are a subset of the natural numbers or that the primes are countable.)

Whoops, you're right, all integers are describable. Perhaps I should amend that to "the set of all undescribable real numbers with a prime integer part", or something along those lines.
100% true but doesn’t invalidate their situation. If we follow that logic to its end, there’s always someone in worse shape who is also further removed from those who have the ability to make a difference.
https://archive.is/o24jh
Gotta justify your fee for not beating index funds.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4567705-chris-hohn-tci-fund...

> This quarter, TCI Fund Management's 13F portfolio value decreased ~10% from $31.60B to $28.58B. The number of positions decreased from 12 to 9. The top three holdings are at ~53% while the top five are close to ~79% of the 13F assets: Alphabet, Microsoft, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, and Visa.

This is down from ~$44B 1H2022.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4522800-chris-hohns-tci-fun...
Each doubling of iterations is equivalent to adding one bit of password length.
This is such a great example of how iterative design works.

Built it an afternoon—the fit and finish looks fantastic and 100% complete. It perfectly solves the problem that you described so simply and well.
Yes! I love that movie, too.

Mutant: "If I were you, I would run!"

Buddy: "If you were me you'd be good-looking."
I don’t disagree, but are you suggesting that we shouldn’t act to solve a problem just because it isn’t the worst possible problem? Feels like a convenient out.
(1) probably don't verify? Do customer research to see if this is worth spending time and money on. I suspect it is not. Start with the idea it is not and try to prove it is worth investing the effort in. You should seek to prove your hypothesis rather than seeking evidence to disprove it. In other words, assume you are wrong, then find evidence to support, generally speaking about hypotheses.
Not exactly true, more were made in 1976, in 2000, and in 2008.

What is true is they still have a fair few left over ready to issue from WWII .. they misplaced 125,000 from that time and rediscovered them in that enormous Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse.

See:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/176762
Somewhat. I'm definitely grateful that I found work in a mission-driven field (energy), where I'm a research manager for a non-profit. The day to day is a lot of grant administration, a little bit of research, a decent amount of helping the next generation of researchers implement their ideas. I stay because I believe in the mission and I can be effective in furthering it (and they pay is decent). This is probably all anyone can expect from a job, right?
Other than the price point (and being Apple and the Pro moniker not playing games) this product seems close to what I want. Be a display for my computer, run some apps. The worst part is being locked into Apple's ecosystem.

The good news is, now that Apple has announced this similar products can be made by others for less, on more open platforms. 4k per eye with pancake lenses is about right for specs. I hope Apple wasn't able to get patents on simple things like cameras on the outside to capture representation of legs.
The author of the letter details how salary contraction would work: "Alphabet should limit stock-based compensation given the depressed share price."

So, cut back on RSU grants.
Not just Japan.

Basically most of the world except Noth America pay their waiters wages that don't depend on tips. Sure some places allow additional tipping, but it's not a mandatory fee and the workers don't have to get it to make a living.
lol imagine criticizing Nate Silver saying there was a high chance of a red wave when nearly 95% of all other sources said there would be one. He never said 100% at all from anything I read over there.
> No one would use a search engine composed of 100% ads.

And why I'm using Google less and less. I've literally had the entire first page be all ads.
They tend to behave exactly the same though. If you rank only good performers, it's a small step before you use that against bad performers: "you've been with us 5 years and never managed to get on the top performers list. I am afraid you are not a good fit for our culture here"
It's somewhat infuriating. You use to tip waiters/waitresses. They took your order and brought it to you. Now they ask for tips when they do none of that. Every non-chain fast food joint / coffee stand where all they do is stand at the cash register, take your order, and hand it to you, they now ask for a tip. The bakery asks for a tip. The taco stand asks for a tip.

On top of that, in SF, prices are off the chart. Went to a bread store. One loaf of bread + 1 canele + 1 coffee + 1 sandwich, $47. Got chinese dumplings. 3 people 3 plates of dumplings and 3 side dishes, $135 (with tip). That same thing would have been < $30 in Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei. Even Japan
A brutal example of commoditise your complements: you can see an economy as capital, land and labour. Labour employs capital to extract value from land.

The fear here is that capital replaces labour, leading to the value of labour dropping to zero and the value of capital and land increasing alone.

But is labour being replaced, or augmented as it always is by capital? Industrialisation augmented labour more efficiently, but the value of labour has still increased in real terms and has not dropped to zero.

That said, I would invest in capital and land now and not in labour.
You can still have security features if you also have the ability to grant root privileges.
But why do you think that its permissionless and zero-trust properties allow blockchain technology in particular to "bring humanity closer and make it more efficient in many ways", better than other technologies can? In other words, why are these properties so important that a blockchain is to an append-only DB as an append-only DB is to pen and paper, by your own analogy?
Simply not true. I witness enough threads with heated debates. I don’t even mean the occasional political stuff, but technical things as well.

For example, native vs Electron apps. The content might be always kinda similar, but there are clearly several camps and a lot of nuance in these discussions. Neither camp is downvoted.
Whether conflict is constructive or toxic depends on personality traits, not the topic of the conflict. The person described in the parent post doesn’t seem to have a personality capable of constructive conflict, otherwise they wouldn’t have “pissed off” the large number of people the poster alluded to.
Battery technology has utterly stagnated. There has been basically no changes in energy density in over a decade. All "progress" has been in the form of reduced cost, but even that has ended.

PS: Please don't post some Bloomberg article about this. They are wrong and did not correctly reference the state of battery technology back in 2010.
Beyond smoking rates plummeting in recent years, indoor smoking rates were plummeting for years before that, and that's when you normally saw ash trays. I was a smoker for a couple of decades and never once had a dwelling I smoked in, and that was true for many other smokers I knew. That became socially frowned-upon long before smoking lost its momentum. I have noticed that even the dubiously effective large smokeless self-extinguishing public ash trays that were ubiquitous outside of bars/clubs/etc in the 2010s are becoming less common.
Just to give concrete recommendation re: bayesianism (one kind of what he calls probabilistic rationalism), it specifically might be worth dipping into his metarationality writings here: https://metarationality.com/probabilism-applicability
Do you have any good articles on how to cheaply and easily stop using apple product, if one is photographer, filmmaker, musician (edit: or iOS developer), and has thousands of hours and dollars invested in MacOS software?
All companies with stack ranking do some sort of merge sort to achieve this, typically called “calibration”. You have to rate employees at the team level because as you go up the chain, managers stop knowing how individuals more than one level of management below them perform.

The only viable exception to this I’ve seen is in organizations like sales where there’s some reasonable, objective criteria to evaluate an entire workforce on. Nothing good exists like this for software engineers though.
Corporate activism isn’t about having the biggest stake, its about rallying other shareholders around your cause.

All else equal a bigger stake gives you more leverage, but its still possible to influence company decision making with a smaller stake by getting other shareholders on your side
You can avoid something like a much worse thing, that's not a problem. Avoid being insensitive with your bad thing reference, but "the plague" is not insensitive.

Also the plague responds well to antibiotics.
> You can use a nix docker image, a 5 line nix file and 2 commands to do a very basic CI pipeline almost anywhere.

Yes, if you don't cache the build results or manage that cache very crudely. Sorry, I wasn't precise enough.
108 appears to be a paragraph number.
Holy shit, I just got here (El Segundo) from DC. I may forgo The Boy and the Bear tomorrow morning for Awakening Coffee.
I wish it were possible to upvote this statement by double-underlining every word. (It's as though human nature abhors a dogma vacuum.)

"When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." - Feynman
I'm more interested in "what" than "who". The average level on HN is high enough that it's not necessary to have a system where you just follow a few "thought leaders". Unlike, say, Twitter or Reddit, where the most of the content is well below ChatGPT level.
Furthermore, matters defined in s. 847.001 include "Nudity," "Sexual battery," and "Sexual conduct" defined pretty much as you'd expect but without any reference to would-be exonerating literary context.

If you inject part of the definition of "knowingly" in 847.012 1a into 3b you end up with something like:

"A person may not knowingly provide to a minor a printed item containing any matter defined in s. 847.001 if the person has knowledge of the character and content of any material described in this section which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant/provider and which warrants further inquiry."

I'm not proficient in legalese but there exists a reading of this where I can't hand 1984 or To Kill a Mockingbird to my (hypothetical) 17 year old child without committing a felony because I have knowledge of the character and content of the books. Both reference rape and at least 1984 has sexual acts as part of the narrative (maybe TKaM too, it has been a minute since reading it). A series like ASOIAF would be similarly impacted and maybe even some young adult books I read while in high school.

Maybe the written works have to have no literary value for their distribution to be made illegal? That certainly isn't obvious though, is incredibly subjective, and the statutes are incredibly vague. Very puritanical and regressive imo.
If it helps, a blacksmith who made their daily living producing nails could not conceive of ways to earn money post-industrialisation other than owning a mine or a factory either.

But it turns out there are many unimaginable but better ways humans can contribute to our collective success than by banging hot metal into the same shape again and again in a post industrial economy.
I used to think that. Then I lived in Japan where not only do they not tip, they refuse tips. Haven't seen any issues with the service.

So no, tips do not promote a better customer experience.
Fixing society doesn't increase revenue. The opposite, actually.

For example: The more people are depressive, the more pills can be sold. If people kill themselves due to depression, that's too bad, but they didn't buy any pills to begin with.

Diabetes is great, because people depend on insulin. A never-ending money maker! Fat people are great! They eat more, thus spend more! Some of them get their fat surgically sucked out of their bodies, which also pays! When they get more and more sick, they need more and more medicine, which pays even more!

The transhumanism movement is awesome, because transitioned people require pills! Every day!

Sadness? There's a pill for that!

Drug addicts? Lets invent a vaccine for that!

Fantastic!

Society isn't getting fixed, because nobody actually has any interest in that. Those in power/money certainly don't give a fuck and rather want more money, while the actual people are mostly too stupid to figure out that the whole system needs changing.

Instead they whine, complain and protest and go voting, without realizing that it does basically nothing. Yes, voting actually does nothing. We didn't get to this point because voting helps anything. We got here, because voting doesn't matter.

Decades of evidence lay in front of everyone out there to see, yet for some reason every couple years people actually believe their button-pressing/their X-making actually gives them power over what's going to happen!

There's no vote allowing you to change who pays all the money to the politicians, law makers and judges. There's no vote that allows you to change the underlying corruption that's going on. There's no vote that enables you to decide what actually happens with your money.

You're fucking hilarious. You're not wrong per se, but also hilarious.

"Society needs fixing!!!111" well then get together with enough people and fucking fix it.

Politicians won't do it for you.

Better get your guns ready, btw, because it's definitely not going to happen peacefully.
Is what really true?
Let me take a stab at this with a viewpoint that's not "stingy rich f$*k wants to take away worker's money".

The letter is macro level, doesn't really bring up the reasoning, but the data points tell a story.

> Over the last 5 years the headcount has doubled

That's coincidentally been as long as I have used their business and cloud services. I can hardly tell a difference between Google's offering of 2018 versus today. At least not as much as it would explain 2x the employees. Same for their search and other services.

And their customer service still sucks.

> Median salary is $300,000. Average is higher.

This is truly a win for tech workers. But an investor might see this and feel people come to Google for money, not passion.

I think from an investor perspective, these data points are interesting, in context. This person is recommending what they understand; that the headcount and salaries must go down. Is that a solution to the dysfunctionality implied here? What do you folks think?
Show HN: Click and point functions for text mining
"It's not normal to have cities with population densites of 6,158 persons per square kilometer"

It's pretty normal for those who live in such places, and not really significantly more "unnatural" compared to sorts of social arrangements we evolved with over 100s of 1000s of years than, say, suburban style living where each nuclear family is significantly isolated from the next and there's no practical way of getting around other than by motorised vehicles.

I wonder what total % of the human population these days do live at densities over 5k/sq. km. - would be a non-negligible amount at least (China has a number of cities with significant metro areas that qualify), and if you lower the bar to 3k/sq. km, it'd quite possibly be a significant fraction, maybe even more than 10% of all humans? The only actual stat I could find is that "apartments accounted for 36.3% of all households globally in 2013".

Oh and Japan's population density overall is a bit over 300 per sq. km., so there's plenty of opportunities for those choosing to live in much denser parts of major cities to avoid it if they wanted to.