skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets.

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed...

https://www.zeit.de/zustimmung?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de...

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-era-of-the-great-...

> Good luck forcing quality of life reduction as an explicit policy goal.

Either we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it.

One is chose frugality, the other is forced poverty, either way we'll eventually get there
That rule only exists for prescriptive wannabe grammarians anyway.
Note that this specific mission is not a landing, just an orbit
Overemployment where you hold multiple jobs simultaneously is the far better goal for those who are ambitious and want to make a lot of money these days. Not entrepreneurship.

As an overemployed worker, you will work less than an entrepreneur but probably start making far more money than them right away. Overemployment is also more friendly to failure. If you fuck up a job and lose it, it takes little effort to just find a new one. You might even have a severance as a bonus. The entrepreneur will probably just drink beer and spiral into depression as they wrestle with the choice of starting yet another business or finding some kind of job they can tolerate.

Overemployment will also force you to have incredible time management, and the high you get from running your day like a well oiled machine delivers far better satisfaction than the terrifying uncertainty that comes with entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, overemployment allows you to truly “turn off” in a way entrepreneurship doesn’t. At the end of the day, since you’re just working for another company, your responsibilities are limited. You can push away from your desk and live life stress free.

You could be grossing around $500k a year easily as an overemployed worker, meaning that with prudent saving and investment you will have amassed millions in the span of a decade, almost guaranteed. The entrepreneur probably has to work a decade just to maybe get the chance at a similar pay day someday, and for many that day never comes.

Entrepreneurship doesn’t carry the same prestige it used to. Nowadays there’s a lot of “entrepreneurs” out there and the term has become a bit derogatory, hence the need for quotes. Indeed, someone is more likely to be a charlatan or just a fucking loser if they call themselves an entrepreneur, rather than an actual successful business owner.

Overemployment on the other hand is gaining prestige. Most people are immediately impressed when you tell them you have two six figure jobs at the same time. Imagine how eyes would nearly pop out of people’s heads if you told them you worked at Facebook and Google, at the same time. You can’t bullshit overemployment the way you can bullshit entrepreneurship: two jobs is two jobs.

So all you young men take this advice: build the most valuable skill set and knowledge base you can, and get multiple six figure jobs with decent tech companies. The world doesn’t really need another shitty business idea, it needs people who want to work.
Don't apply eco-morals to someone else's business plan. It doesn't scale - if something is profitable, there will always be someone doing it behind closed doors.

Instead, work to change the regulatory environment so that a non-eco business plan isn't profitable.

That most likely means carbon taxes, carbon caps, or carbon trading.
Same here. The secret I’ve found: look for athletic cut. That’s the cut many hockey players wear, who typically have huge thighs and a rumble seat because of the muscles skating works. Those are the only pants I buy now.

I even got Michael Strahan suit pants recently, since they were the only ones in the store that fit me nicely.
I agree, a lot of things you do in life are based on how many times can you absorb the failure and recover from it. This ability is just not financial, it also has physical, mental health, relationships aspect to it.

You could get be the "lucky" person either tomorrow or 10 years from now, question is how long can you afford to continue.
That sounds risky
This reads a lot like one of those WW2 low-risk sabotage manuals.
Less Wrong is a community about logical reasoning, overcoming cognitive biases etc., IIRC started by Yudkowsky.

Longtermists and longtermism is about trying to take a holistic view of maximising good in the universe, and the length of timescales they're focussed on is approximately "all of it".

I think acc means acceleration (of AI?) but I've only been seeing the string for the last week.
I agree our current offset regime is a scam. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do right, or that doing it right shouldn’t be a precondition to scaling something like supersonic travel. (Would note that linking to Greenpeace seldom strengthens one’s argument.)

> we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it

These outcomes are distributed differently.
Same here, but 51% of it is covered with miscellaneous computer junk that I'm too disorganized to find a proper place for!
TL;DR: Most of the mass comes from the energy of the strong force interactions of the gluons, not from the quarks. The gluons are not charged; the quarks are. The quarks sometimes go beyond the region of most of the gluons, which gives the proton a larger charge radius than mass radius.
Apparently not:

>Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[38] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.
Yes, but the reason it's harder to get money for those sorts of businesses is because they're much less likely to generate large returns. The BBC couldn't / didn't want to find any tech entrepreneurs for this article (it's not like the UK doesn't have them), so they focus on people doing contracting or agency work. Of course it'll be tough to get investment in such a low margin and competitive business, VCs don't invest in tech outsourcing body shops either. There just isn't the possibility of large profits without product development.
That was roughly my takeaway, as well as personal experience. Even if there's an actual engineer operating at <= 0×, it's still mostly a management problem. There may be rare cases when someone is quietly subversive, where it would clearly be that ICs fault.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Jobs for 500 people vs cheaper electricity for 1 million people which allows them to spend more money elsewhere and thus also creates jobs. The second option might seem roughly equal, except those new jobs are creating value and thus society is better off with increased efficiency.

Of course those benefits aren’t spread equally, but being poor today is still better than being poor 500 years ago. Hopefully being poor in 500 years will be a similar improvement.
It's like we're back in 1960 for some reason: https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm

> The people designing the planes of tomorrow got so caught up in the technology that they forgot to ask the very important question, “what are we building this for?”
Profiling only two people in an article like this seems like a breach of journalistic standards. If they'd interviewed like 4+ people from very different backgrounds, maybe the article could have packed a punch. As it is, I don't feel like I've learned much of anything from this.

I mean, surely it's unsurprising to anyone with some life experience that, as with any career choice, some people regret entrepreneurship, and here are two examples of that, and -- so what... ?
> This is solvable with synthetic fuels and offsets.

Well, until it is solved (and it clearly isn’t- carbon offsets are basically bullshit), maybe we should work on that rather than making the amount of stuff to offset even bigger?

Forcing quality of life reduction is going to be hard enough without the world’s 1% (i.e. us) finding new ways to spew out carbon by jetting around at Mach9
I really love ECS. I’ve shipped games with my own spaghetti mess of classes and poorly thought out inheritance (at least it feels that way) but ECS and composition just is much nicer for incrementally adding functionality without thinking about the big picture too much. I love that I can think about just one small feature I want to add instead of the overall grand design.

This might be bad design (no idea) but I’m working on an item system for a game right now. I have Item and ItemHolder components. If it’s a player, they’ll have an InputController component, which lets them use the Item in the ItemHolder, otherwise there is an AIController component that let’s an NPC use the item.

I have a system for handling every piece of functionality that can be defined in its smallest form, which makes it incredibly easy to add or remove functionality to any entity.

Also, performance is great. I have the mindset to not prematurely worry about performance until profiling now.
You can upload a pdf of the report to www.chatpdf.com and query it.
Not OP, but you have to keep in mind that your body is always trying to repair any damages that happen. Be it through actual accidents or molecular mishaps. Stress and other factors can cause the body to go into survival mode, where all resources are allocated to solving only the challenge directly ahead at the expense of repairs. And your body always needs repairs, because there is so much stuff going on at the molecular level that wears down the cells. Our bodies are pretty good at repairs but not perfect.
Not on the Thinkpad Trackpoint Keyboard II.
Location: Treviso, IT
Remote: Preferred
Willing to relocate: Negotiable
Technologies: Linux, Golang, Elixir, C, VueJS
Résumé/CV: https://pb.fmac.xyz/p/resume.pdf
Email: work@fmac.xyz

From my website:

List of things I like includes: cybersecurity, programming computers, *NIX, Golang, C, PostgreSQL, networking, guitars, radioactive things, the Moon, pizza, people who don't talk a lot.

List of things I dislike includes: Java, JS (this thing is crazy), M$ stuff, stuff that is useless unless you hack it (jailed garbage like Android and iOS).
I really dislike answers like this (which very predictably appear in every language vs language discussion).

The "just use good algorithms" avoids the core argument about language's overhead, and changes the topic to a smug "I know algorithms, and everyone using the other language is just an uneducated noob".

General-purpose languages should all have ability to use proper algorithms and data structures, so when someone mentions slowness of a language, it's not a complaint about programmers being uneducated.

However, if some algorithms or data structures actually are pathologically hard in some language, that is a language design or implementation problem, not a "bad programmers are bad" problem either.

Even when programs are properly optimized in the big-O sense using data structures that your professor would approve of, languages can still add overheads. Linear overheads still count, e.g. one language can sort 2x faster than the other, and that doesn't mean the other must be using bubble sort.
Can confirm this as middle class kid.

Co-foudned a startup a few years ago, was good fun, didn't end up going anywhere. Got a decent bit of parental help with childcare. Now childcare has gone up a ton and I'm in a market-rate dev job with no intention to change.

Co-founder came from money, and is definitely under no such constraints in starting another business.
Yes, and Data Engineering is just Software Engineering "in disguise"
> they forgot to ask the very important question, “what are we building this for?”

To get from point A to point B more quickly.
You forgot the most crucial part to making a career in big corps:
After you fucked everything up "rescue" the project with witnesses.
Here's an example of what you might see on lesswrong.com:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aZd9s5mXkdrGJNJi6/shutting-d...
Was that written by an AI?
This accelerationist view is the one I’m rooting for. I’m recalling the final scenes in Akira when the tech-ravaged Tetsuo can’t stop expanding his body of computers and flesh and consuming everything.
Airport Transfer
If you are travelling somewhere and need to get somewhere or just to get somewhere as comfortably and cheaply as possible (especially for longer distances), you can use https://atobtransfer.com/
Thanks. I do use Ubuntu as a secondary OS so just curious.
Does it come with a math co-professor?
I believe he passed. Absolutism in the defense of Nazis is a vice, as I see it. Cloudfare is not a government entity, concepts of governmental speech suppression do not apply to it.
Are you sure there's not a different injected prompt that would work?
> the rest of the business is completely illiterate about anything even slightly technical

It is that moment of realization that you're entirely responsible for the fate of the company, and you either think "I better tread carefully" or "This should be rewritten in Rust."
That doesn’t take into account emergent properties, though.

I don’t see how “general purpose computers” have always been here before us — many things can compute (one proper, but not too useful definition of a computer is something that represents a computable function by upon giving it an input in a specific format, it will give an output that can be interpreted as a result. E.g. a sundial is a computer), and none of the primitives are unique (logical gates can be made from many things), but their unique composition into a programmable computer is a novel invention.
The war on drugs is unwinnable because, in general, human beings want to take drugs. Or want to have the freedom to take drugs. Most people don't want to murder or steal.
Failed to get consent from parents

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs...
What lousy lawyers Tesla must have. There were TWO jury trials, and the plaintiff was successful in BOTH of them.

There are also many companies with illegally discriminatory workplace environments in existence.

Just because "pedo guy" Musk claims something doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

There's always more than what's reported in the news. It's not like we're going to read the court transcripts.

Please be specific about what's wrong with this law, otherwise it seems like you are blowing smoke to minimize Tesla's blame.

I'll quote from the first opinion at https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-4 as a starting point:

> The jury heard that the Tesla factory was saturated with racism. Diaz faced frequent racial abuse, including the N-word and other slurs. Other employees harassed him. His supervisors, and Tesla's broader management structure, did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation. ...

> On Diaz's second day of work, Diaz saw the N-word scratched into a bathroom stall. Id. at 401:6-12. Over the course of his employment, more racist bathroom graffiti was added. Id. at 403:5-15. He encountered swastikas and the phrase “death to all [N-words].” ...

> The jury, in special verdicts, found that: (1) Tesla subjected Diaz to a racially hostile work environment, (2) Tesla was a joint employer of Diaz, (3) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a supervisor, (4) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a non-immediate supervisor or co-worker, (5) Tesla committed a civil rights violation in a contractual relationship, (6) Tesla failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent Diaz from being subject to racial harassment, and (7) Tesla negligently supervised or negligently continued to employ Ramon Martinez and that action harmed Diaz. ...

> The weight of the evidence is against Tesla's minimization of Diaz's emotional and psychological harm. Diaz testified about the severe consequences he experienced during his time at the factory. See supra Background, Section II.E. Jones similarly testified about the effects on her father. Id. And his psychological expert confirmed all of this, including by performing psychological evaluations to determine whether Diaz was “overreporting” his symptoms. Id. The jury, in short, had ample basis to believe Diaz's testimony that he was severely emotionally harmed.

Given that two different jury trials found Diaz's claims valid, what should the law be to prevent this level of hostile workplace environment?

If $3 million in punitive damages too large, and you think it a smaller one is more reasonable, how much is enough to deter Telsa from having a hostile work environment in the future?
> There aren't that many entrepreneurs who failed multiple times before succeeding at a business. If you look at the big businesses that dominate the US tech economy, they're all first time founders (Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft etc).

For this analysis to be complete you'd have to look at all companies, not an arbitrary selection of tech companies.

Furthermore, tech is unique (and so is the list of your companies) in that one couldn't have started a similar company before the ones you listed since modern tech literally had just begun.

A better example would be to look at the new generation of tech companies, such as OpenAI, if you want to focus on tech.

Finally, let's look at your companies:

Microsoft - was not Bill Gates' first company.

Amazon - It's true the name was the same, but the company pre and post 1998 (Amazon as a bookstore, and then Amazon as an ecommerce site, and then the development of what is known as AWS in the early 2000s) was fundamentally different. The only real similarity is the name.

Google - it's true Brin and Page started this company first, but they had effectively done all the work for "free" as part of their PhD (at Stanford, no less). Keeping up with the parent post analogy, there was not much risk here.

Apple - Similar to Amazon in that Apple as a name and company had continuity from now to its beginning, but Steve Jobs started Next which you could argue is the DNA of modern Apple (it merged back with the almost then defunct Apple), as well as Pixar.
New Polars release What's new in Polars? Let's find out
This is not surprising given my own (presumably horribly wrong) mental image of what a proton is. Is it surprising given current theoretical models?
It seems very many people have this problem - skim through the hundreds of comments on this page [0].

I remember when I first panicked about having my BP taken: I had an irrational thought that the cuff would completely cut off my circulation and kill me. (I since discovered I have OCD.) So of course my BP shot up. And a second time, I was running like crazy to get to the appointment, and very stressed from a new job I'd just started and had just finished for the day, so again the BP was crazy high.

Since then, I always panic about taking my BP, even at home, though it's worse in the office. To my previous worries, I've added fears about heart attack/stroke from high BP, irony of ironies but a common one.

My solution is to buy a machine with a memory, take several readings per day over a period of at least a week (2-3 weeks is better), and cover up the screen on the monitor with a piece of card when taking the readings. At the end of the 2 weeks, remove the card, discard the first two days' readings, and take the average of the remaining readings. When I do this, my BP is almost normal (low 120s over low 80s).

I don't waste my time trying to relax, since it tends to make things worse, although I do make sure I've been still for a couple of mins. I have a supportive doctor who understands statistics, which helps.

(Standard disclaimer: this isn't medical advice. IANAD. Real hypertension is dangerous.)

[0] https://www.innerhealthstudio.com/phobia-taking-blood-pressu...
I’m comfortable using the round two pin charging ones for things that only use the port for charging, not data, like mice, headphones, radios and speakers.

The data ones are almost universally sketchy, as they expose pins (and sensitive internal circuitry) that should absolutely be kept away from the outside world.

There is an emerging range that reduce the exposure somewhat, but I’m still wary.
Thanks for sharing! I'll start putting everything here in practice immediately. Some of these are already widely practiced at the company I work for, though, so I probably won't stand out too much.
From finding his name in the Twitter comments, his channel seems to be https://www.youtube.com/@kokichisugihara3277
The improvements would be in the empowerment, not replacement of human moderators. That is to flag undesired or AI-generated content for further investigation, for example. Surely there will be communities that will try to actually automate it to their own demise as well.

My second point was, crudely, that I believe there to be people who would rather read a good book (or insightful comment or whatever) written by an "AI" than a bad one written by a Human.
This is a bit of a rabbit trail, but something I’ve been wondering about lots of these new languages. Who uses them and why? I’m genuinely asking here. I have a hard time imagining going to a team or customer and saying “c#/go/java/python/javascript are the wrong approach for this project. We need to all learn this new language and use that instead.” Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad people are innovating, and I get that personal curiosity and growth might be good reasons to build a new language. But I just wonder about the real world uses and actual stories behind new and lease known languages. Why did someone create Gleam and how is it being used in production today? What are the long term goals for it? What would be the argument for using it on a company’s projects?
The "don't rock boats" is really what can slowly destroy companies. The -nx engineers know a lot of other -nx engineers that can come onboard until the stable boat just sinks.
>Simple: I know that humans have intentionality and agency. They want things, they have goals both immediate and long term. Their replies are based not just on the context of their experiences and the conversation but their emotional and physical state, and the applicability of their reply to their goals.

This all seems orthogonal to reasoning, but also who is to say that somewhere in those billions of parameters there isn't something like a model of goals and emotional state? I mean, I seriously doubt it, but I also don't think I could evidence that.
Dogecoin jumps more than 30% after Musk changes Twitter logo
I don’t follow your argument - yes of course, the only way to put a stop to this madness is by global legislation, but that shouldn’t stop us naming and shaming those who keep doing it in the meanwhile.

If slave labour is legal in North Korea that doesn’t mean we can’t criticise someone posting in hacker news about their new startup that will offshore UI testing to Pyongyang slave workshops
> Rich kids can afford many throws.

True. But the advantage is broader than that. They also have more able networks. Their parents more likely to know someone who can help who might know someone else who can help. The (support) network matters.

But that's not the difference marker. It's WHAT they throw those darts at that matters. True story...

A few years ago I attended (as a spectator) a hackathon at Princeton Univ. It was mostly PU teams but there were a handful of outsiders.

On day one each team presented their ideas. The team from Rutgers' idea had to do with drinking. An app that figured out the amount of alcohol in your glass or something like that. I honestly don't recall the PU ideas but I know they didn't center around partying.

It was then I realized the difference between those two schools. It's not the quality of the education per se. It's WHAT you think about and HOW you think about it.

Rich kids are exposed to a way of thinking (and role models) that is 100x more rare in the middle class or below. Sure you can claw up from the middle/bottom but it's 100x easier from the top.