skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think two questions have to be considered, then:

How would you phrase the question/game so that 100% of people all get the same answers as you?

How would you expect others to phrase the question, so that you'd 100% agree with their answers?
how is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no
Claiming something was/is "too politicized" is typically just a tactic to say you disagree with something politically with a false air of superiority that you're not "making it political", while you actually are the moment you bring up politics.
I think it's a ratio of votes to time. I think as little as 4 votes can get something on the homepage if they come in fairly quickly.

The source code for hn is available if you want to go and look up the specifics. I'm not sure if this is the most up-to-date mirror, but the site doesn't change that often: https://github.com/wting/hackernews
So which side of the vehicle/nonvehicle line did you choose for these? Wagon, wheel chair, skateboard, surf board, parachute, roller skates, ice skates, shoes, socks.
Wholesale?
If a developer can complete a take home test with ChatGPT, can they also do their regular job with ChatGPT?
A lot of comments here about how the intro instructed us to make a very literal interpretation.

I'm not so sure. The exact wording is "You might know of some rule in your jurisdiction which overrides local rules, and allows certain classes of vehicles. Please disregard these rules; the park isn't necessarily in your jurisdiction."

Rephrasing an earlier comment here, but - it's still a park right? On earth? What jurisdiction on earth blocks matchbox cars and space stations? Or even ambulances and police cars, which were the main ambiguous ones? Does some country not allow ambulances in its parks? Are we supposed to include all of modern human culture as a "local jurisdiction"?

The instructions of the game were pretty unclear, that seems to be what's sparking a lot of the debate.
> Roller skates are clearly not a vehicle

I don't think that's particularly clear and I think a non-negligible number of people would disagree
Many countries have otherwise uninhabitable land. You can always float them as well. Farmers are also able to dual use land for generation and growing
Twenty Five Thousand march on Moscow, Prigozhyn announced
And so we come full circle. Using a DC battery to power an inherently AC induction process. These are not your mother's home appliances.
I'm not sure what your point is. The laws can't be written clearer? Even if they were, you'd still get stuff that's ambiguous? As a lawyer you don't write the law so you have to go with what's written? You like interpreting vaguely written rules?
Ok, but then how can you compare that to other countries to say the US is higher/lower? I haven't been able to find a unified source of raw interest payments by country (not as a % of revenue).
Rostov under siege, mercenary tanks around gov buildings
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/167244330715308032...
Probably wholesale vs retail ?
CNN is much maligned, but at least they mentioned Rostov is a long way from Moscow.

If CNN and others are covering it, I think it reinforces my point, that censoring HN is irrelevant.
In a legal context "highway" has a broader meaning than in everyday use. From the link above: highway "includes every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles"
Why Did the United States Invade Iraq? The Debate at 20 Years
It's a good start! Keep working on it - Anki has aspects that are very, very dated (IMHO) and an open source competitor would be good for everybody.
Thanks for the input! I'll look them up.

Depending on the resolution of my parameters, I'm dealing with a 32-40GB-ish data.
At some point, it is just a numbers game. If they only have 1 position available and 5 people complete the take home test flawlessly, 4 people are going to be rejected for no good reason except that they have only one position available.

As a wise man said, it is possible to make no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness, that is life.
Is this some dumb philosophical thing? It's just contextualized language, with fairly well established context.

You have a "park". You have a rule about "no vehicles in park".

If you have been to enough parks, you know that they generally will entail some sort of separation of nature from the more general technological society around it, and certainly from one of the major aspects of that technological society, big ass heavy noisy smelly destructive annoying vehicles.

You will also know that parks are managed and funded by some authority, who may have necessity to enter and maintain them with "vehicles" that they know and are trained to operate and use properly in the park, likewise with emergency services and their vehicles.

So let's look at content moderation in this standpoint. Almost always, content moderation is within a context of a forum, where there is a subject matter and a set of germane topics. The subject matter often has implicit constraints, a lot like a park.

The other interesting thing about a park is that you arrive at one, and you can generally tell what is acceptable behavior in a park without the rules by observing what other people are doing, and "conforming" to that behavior. And if you don't know, you ask people around you and they will tell you yes/no/dunno and whether they are knowledgeable.

I can see a forum or subreddit kind of the same.

If a person was going to the park asking these questions, the actual answer after about four or five questions is "you probably shouldn't go to a park, or do whatever it is you want to do there, because you don't understand parks very well"

Similarly for something that is content moderated, after about four or five questions that clearly show you don't understand the subject matter of the forum or how to interact with other people involved in the subject matter, the answer is "you shouldn't post or say anything in that forum".

The ACTUAL corner cases in this are "well, can I take an electric bike into the park?" "Can my personal dog-robot follow me into the park?" "can I ride my electric blade scooter in the park?" "Okay, how BIG of an e-bike can I bring in?" "Is the no-vehicle policy about loud dirty ICE engines, or is it mostly about size?" because electric vehicles will ACTUALLY stress that stuff out.
What’s the difference between a powered mobility scooter and a modern wheelchair?
People keep telling me this too, so I’d be super interested to know if it wasn’t the case, because it really feels like a weak/overinflated reason.
We agree that it's not definitive evidence. You typing a lot of words and citing another non-definitive source doesn't make it more definitive.
Ha, so they have
Yeah that's what I remember too. Pelosi made a big statement about going to eat in Chinatown in response, and in general it was quickly an issue that the left pounced on so they could say Trump was an idiot and a racist.
Just ‘cause, 2

why are they so reluctant to acknowledge that the US didn’t need to do anything, America’s territorial unity isn’t threatened by its people getting a dose of that. It was an opportunistic thing during a brief time period where the President had a 90% approval rating.
Man you are rewriting history for sure. Twitter was banning Wuhan lab theories as misinformation and Fauci's leaked emails show him asking the NIH to further "put down" the lab leak theories.
Gotta be honest, this sounds like a nightmare. Clojure felt like it got out of hand in my own _personal_ projects, I can't imagine going through 250k lines of it without a strong type system backing it up.

And they're building a "programming tool". Hmmmm

> We have about 400 macros defined through our codebase, 70% of which are part of source code and 30% of which are for test code only.
Are you sure you didn't just watch Contagion and get confused? I do not recall anything of this sort, in fact until March 2020, no one thought Covid was anything serious as far as I can really remember.

I recall most people believing my employer over-reacted when they shut down the offices. I don't think people would have felt this way if what you were describing had been a thing.
think the fundamental difference is that “vehicle” can be broken down into a number of concrete subcategories that cover the vast majority of vehicles that people use in practice, while “hate speech” and “speech glorifying violence” are often very nebulous and hard to define.

It's true that “vehicle” can be vague, but it's also true that in many contexts it's well-defined. The very common ”no entry for vehicular traffic” road sign applies to bikes and mopeds and cars, but not pedestrians, wheelchair users and roller skaters, for example.

Similarly, you can operationalize the “no vehicles allowed in the park” rule by enumerating the different types of vehicles people might wish to drive in the park:

- A bike? No.
- A moped? No.
- An unpowered scooter? Yes.
- A powered scooter? No.
- A skateboard? Yes.
- Roller skates? Yes.
- A wheelchair? Yes.
- A powered wheelchair? Yes.
- A car? No.

etc. The point isn't whether you agree with all these decisions (maybe skateboards shouldn't be allowed in the park?), but rather that you can enumerate two or three dozen vehicles and cover virtually all the vehicles people might possibly use in real life. Occasionally new categories need to be added (e.g., electric bikes or drones weren't really common 30 years ago) but mostly this can settle all possible debates.

And yes, it's still possible for some weirdo to build a supercharged wheelchair that can go 80 kph, but that's the extreme exception, and if the guy keeps driving through the park at 80 kph repeatedly eventually he will get arrested and then he will claim he is in the right because he's driving what's technically a wheelchair, and then a judge will rule that a wheelchair that can go 80 kph isn't actually a wheelchair in the sense intended by the law, and the rules will be updated to say “powered wheelchairs with a maximum speed of 15 kph” and that's the end of that.

The problem with “hate speech” and “glorifying violence” is exactly that they are very hard to nail down in an objective and clear way, and the majority of cases where someone is banned for “hate speech” involves vague and subjective judgement.

For a concrete example, Donald Trump was banned from Twitter on the grounds of inciting violence by tweeting “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” There is some really creative reading going on in here. How would you substantiate the rule against inciting violence in a way that it clearly covers this statement? People aren't allowed to announce that they won't be attending some event? That seems overly broad. Sitting presidents aren't allowed to announce they won't attend their successor's inauguration? This feels like it's overly specific, covering only this one event.

So that's the fundamental difference here. “No entrance for vehicles” is a rule that can be operationalized by enumerating and defining the kind of vehicles that people might think of using to enter the park. While “hate speech” defies objective definition.
There was a performance issue with channel loading, documented here: https://status.slack.com/2023-06-23
Hopefully it wasn't "I just kept trying various ones until one happened to work"
This reminds me of the local political candidate who argued that the 100m distance rules around campaigning extended to a sphere around polling stations, so he claimed he was allowed to fly a banner over the stations as long as they maintained enough altitude.

Trying to find a link to a news story about this. I swear it's true.
Others answered this correctly. Python is more like a glue language that is easy to use. I ended up using type annotations in my code and in the end it looked a lot like a typed language. But the nice thing about Python is that types, manual garbage collection, etc. are not necessary for most applications.
Odd, I remember it perfectly well, too.

> There absolutely, 100% was complete denial, all originating on the political left, that a leak from a lab in China was a possibility.

Well, that's just patently wrong. There was not "complete denial" by any means, as the majority of scientists were open to any and all possibility of origin. As such, the left--who was following those scientists--maintained the same position.

Saying that "there is no evidence that it was leaked" is not blanket denial. It is just that--there is no evidence, thus the possibility remains open but shouldn't be entertained as decisive.

Yet many politicians on the right, despite there being no evidence, dug their feet into the ground, convinced it was.

Not sure how you got the impression that not having evidence of something equates to "complete denial", but it's incorrect.

> Suggesting it was possible, much less plausible or even likely, was labeled racist.

We knew the virus originated in the Wuhan region of China. Don't pretend that suppression occurred because of simple discussion of the topic--it was predominantly due to politicians raging xenophobic wars by trying to rename it "The China Virus".
I'm confused by some of this. Specifically, pandas columns are essentially just a thin wrapper around record arrays in numpy right? How could it be that much faster to use numpy over pandas if it's effectively the same thing?
> The lab was nowhere near the site of what they were studying.

> The coronavirus strains came from a cave 600 miles away and brought to Wuhan for further study.

The best theory I've come across is that patient zero was a person collecting bats in caves for the lab in Wuhan. By all records, they wore woefully inadequate PPE (unlike the people in the lab itself who had well-established procedures).

This theory explains the jump from animal to human, the geographic origin, the reason why China didn't allow any outside investigations, and why most geneticists believe it likely had a zoological origin. (Yes, that last bit remains true no matter how badly the conspiracy theorists want it to be false.)
Did you read the article? The point is that they're adopting memory management features inspired by rust to give programmers more fine-grained control.
What are you talking about. Why can't they look ahead. Will a bad economy mean we need less DR's or less plumbers? Are they incapable of doing basic math. If it costs 100k to get a degree in a job where you earn 40k a year, it's a bad ROI.

Forgiving the debt from who? I mean if you borrow 50$ from me, and it gets forgiven, then well I'm out 50$. If you forgive the debt to the Fed, well then the fed is out 50$. Now the Fed has less, but they need X, so they ask me for it. Mind you they ask me while holding handcuffs, and pointing a gun. So "ask" might not be the right word.

Now. If you have a degree, you are likely making more than the average, so you're "richer". And if I didn't then I'm poorer. If you make 100k and I make 50k, but we both pay tax to cover your loan. I'm essentially paying for you to become richer, while I have less, so become poorer.

What debt forgives actually does is put the burden of paying the debt into the hands of people even less able to pay, and people who didn't get the benefit of the loan.
> censoring HN is irrelevant

How is censorship irrelevant? Yes there are other news sources but it’s not a good look for HN.
The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.
Contradictory or inconsistent requirements? I've heard lots of anecdotes around that sort of thing in hardware engineering. It happens whenever abstractions meet implementation.
The collisions need to deliver malicious payload as well, making it extra hard
Kites, toy cars and toy boats are toys (to me). Slippers, skis and skates are footwear. A toboggan isn't normally attached to a person's body, so a vehicle.

Drones and balloons I would say are in the park, whereas aircraft (at normal altitudes) I would say are not. Unfortunately: I'd like more parks to have a protected square inch of silence.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Square_Inch_of_Silence

1. https://onesquareinch.org/
> it was quickly an issue that the left pounced on so they could say Trump was an idiot and a racist.

Trump did that to himself with his response by trying to stir xenophobic hate by calling it "The China Virus".
> Why doesn't the government make their own document?

(Sorry this is a US-centric explanation, I don't really understand how the EU system works)

Sometimes legislators say "We don't feel like having government employees write this particular set of regulations from scratch. Instead we'll make a law that says such-and-such a document written by a private organization is effectively promoted to a law."

There are three separate questions here: (1) Should legislators promote documents to laws? (2) Should legislators be allowed to promote documents to laws? (3) If legislators do promote a document to a law, how should the legal system interpret that action?

If you say "(1): No," then you should vote for a Congress / President that doesn't think it's okay to promote documents to laws. But sometimes a Congress / President might be elected that does think it's okay, and they might promote some documents to laws.

US law currently says "(2): Yes." If you think it should say "(2): No" you probably need to change the system. I.e. pass a Constitutional amendment, which is extremely difficult, much harder than merely voting in a Congress / President that agrees with you. Good luck on that.

That means it comes down to (3). Which is where I make the analogy with eminent domain. You had a document that people were paying you money for. The government made that document part of the law, and the law must be freely available, so now because of the government's actions, people aren't paying you money because a copy of your thing is now free.

Sure, the government could have not promoted the document to a law. Or the system could be set up so the government isn't allowed to promote documents to laws.

But those things that could have happened didn't happen. Instead, what actually happened is the government promoted your document to a law.

Why didn't they make their own document instead of promoting yours? It doesn't matter at this point. They did promote your document, and they are allowed to do it under the current system.

The obvious ways to resolve the conundrum are: (a) Make people pay to see the law, or (b) Make the law free and have the taxpayers compensate you for the lost revenue of the document, or (c) Make the law free and you just have to suck it up, too bad, so sad.

(a) just feels icky because it effectively means the law is a secret. Penalizing people for violating laws they can't know about (without paying) seems pretty unfair and maybe violates some legal principles (due process maybe), I dunno the specifics, not a lawyer. (c) definitely seems wrong too because it seems like "the government took my stuff and didn't pay me for it" falls (or should fall) under eminent domain even if the thing the government took isn't land. That leaves (b), I can't really think of any other options
Those are still very hard to get for a random hash, and GitHub I think warns (or blocks?) you if you try to push a hash with a known vulnerability.
Huh, the vaccine uptake where I live was aberrantly low. Highly conservative. I know lots of older people, including many retired, of retirement age. I don't know anyone who has suffered a fatality from the disease - and many of those I do know who contracted would have contracted the alpha variant prior to vaccine deployment.
What happens is they have to update a sign every couple of decades.
The furin cleavage theory is fairly controversial: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2211107119
I agree with this take. Most questions were very obvious when thought about from the angle of "what is the intent of the rule", which is likely to be "let people enjoy the park by not allowing large, noisy, smelly conveyances".

Bikes, kites, monuments, Radio Flyers, etc. do not violate the intent. A tank is clearly a vehicle but doesn't violate the intent because it does not interfere with people enjoying the park. And rules do not apply to on-duty emergency vehicles.

Clearly not everybody thinks about the intent, and many people focus on discussing the nitpicking corner cases of the rules, or thinking about the definition of a vehicle or "being in the park" (see also "what is a sandwich"). That's okay, and that proves the author's point that moderation is not a mathematical problem with a single formally provable solution.
> Takehomes have been ruined as a concept by companies that spam them out before applying a first pass.

I had this experience a few weeks ago with Wolverine Trading.

It seemed clear that they didn't respect my time. Perhaps I dodged a bullet.
Same, the only three I marked as violating the rule were the car, the police and the ambulance. And it told me I agreed with 11% but showed a bar chart showing that basically everyone agreed with me. It was confusing.

Also breaking a rule is fine for an emergency vehicle.

I also took away the opposite of what the author tried to convey.

But I also got a bad impression of their argumentative integrity because they tried to use a strawman to illustrate their point - only it backfired anyway.

An ill defined rule that lacks examples and definition is not a good way to prove people interpret a good faith attempt at rules differently.

And the longer explanation at the end simply dismisses the notion of giving any examples or even trying to give a clear rule by hand waving and basically saying a motivated person can find ambiguity in anything.

So because a rule or law can’t be defined to perfection without the slightest ambiguity then we should just have anarchy? I’m sorry for the bluntness but that’s asinine.
Unpopular opinion, but I like the Magic Mouse and Magic Keyboard!

I try other Mouses but always return to the Apple products.

Trying to get other Mouses to have the same acceleration and tracking as you he Magic Mouse eludes me!

The thing with the Magic Mouse is the touch sensor on top! Being able to swipe and scroll horizontally and vertically is so ingrained that I miss it when switching.

Adding a TouchID sensor to the side of the Apple Magic Mouse would be super useful!

I don’t have a Magic Keyboard with TouchID yet, so I’m constantly reaching over to MacBook keyboard. I feel like if my thumb could just connect with the TouchID sensor on the side of a Magic Mouse, there’s be a lot less friction in the security UI!

I’m inspired to also try a trackpad given the enthusiasm shown in the comments here!