skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The point of the argue both sides exercise is that it does help get to the ultimate truth.

When you are forced to argue for things that you disagree with, you will quickly come to realize that some of the things that your opponents say are true!

That does not mean that their conclusion is ultimately correct, but doing the exercise helps you get out of common mindset that anything said by your opponents is wrong.
Since I called out "spiciness" in the chart above, here it is with that ratio (comments/votes) added:

Year Stories Points ( mean ) Comments ( mean ) Sites Submitters Spice
---- ------- ------ --------- -------- --------- ----- ---------- ------
2007 9382 92264 ( 9.83 ) 61207 ( 6.52 ) 2644 1163 66.339
2008 10980 294775 ( 26.85 ) 186339 ( 16.97 ) 3458 2021 63.214
2009 10950 608603 ( 55.58 ) 303962 ( 27.76 ) 4157 3017 49.944
2010 10950 1062763 ( 97.06 ) 491718 ( 44.91 ) 4397 3987 46.268
2011 10949 1657004 ( 151.34 ) 632724 ( 57.79 ) 4830 4889 38.185
2012 10980 1829402 ( 166.61 ) 778634 ( 70.91 ) 5047 5537 42.562
2013 10950 2132819 ( 194.78 ) 998387 ( 91.18 ) 5250 5975 46.811
2014 10905 2057628 ( 188.69 ) 916438 ( 84.04 ) 5338 5920 44.539
2015 10950 2001269 ( 182.76 ) 845719 ( 77.23 ) 5301 5313 42.259
2016 10977 2521394 ( 229.70 ) 1137575 ( 103.63 ) 5238 5341 45.117
2017 10950 2776064 ( 253.52 ) 1259899 ( 115.06 ) 5236 5274 45.384
2018 10950 2762928 ( 252.32 ) 1262654 ( 115.31 ) 4986 5038 45.700
2019 10950 3051011 ( 278.63 ) 1447141 ( 132.16 ) 5302 5123 47.432
2020 10980 3338150 ( 304.02 ) 1734703 ( 157.99 ) 5938 5564 51.966
2021 10950 3376829 ( 308.39 ) 1859933 ( 169.86 ) 6178 5339 55.079
2022 10950 3308025 ( 302.10 ) 1986265 ( 181.39 ) 6446 5443 60.044

The low-water (or low-spice) mark was 2011, at 38.185. High-spice was 2007, though in the post-2010 world (after HN has more-or-less stabilised, and after the flamewar detector was implemented), it's reached in 2022.

For those who think discussion's getting more heated, there's some evidence of that.

Note that HN's "flamewar detector" is triggered for comments > 40 and comments/votes > 1 (or 100 as I calculate it above), best as I understand.
Why not PHPBB? Not discourse, the UI is still endless scrolling based and obnoxious.

Using chat as a forum is... Just not a great idea. It seems most remember a strong sense of community on forums. We talked about actual interests and learned things and it was great, and stuff didn't get buried or too disorganized , nor did it feel like any kind of time pressure thing where you had to be on at the right time... Why not just... Do that? It was amazing.
Yes, but you still have to point out that the opposing teams arguments are irrelevant. If you just drop the argument, you will lose points.

(Caveat: I'm speaking as a parliamentary debater, I have extremely limited experience with policy debate. In policy, can you just drop an argument without responding to it at all?)
Unicode was absolutely a good change, the burn was the execution
Not necessarily. We were doing this in sociology seminars at college and it was not about manipulating the audience at all. It is about stepping out of the opinion you inhabit and trying to look at it from your opponent's perspective. It is basically a practice of the skill of critical thinking. When you try to argue your opponent's side and to your surprise, you come up with arguments that seem good to yourself, that is getting closer to the truth, isn't it?
Or Henrietta Swan Leavitt, who discovered the Cepheid variables that made Hubble's fame possible (shortly after her death).
I never knew you could set a delay! Is this widely supported?
What does it matter if a train driver is 10% better at math? If a gifted mathematician is 10% better at math they discover a new result.
You were probably driven away because your contributions did not live up to your ego
Everyone is trying to become definitive. Traffic now, rank, monetize later.

There are SO many of these efforts.
It's not really saying that they're actually autistic, it's saying that the a corporation was able to basically buy its researcher into their research & credit because they didn't navigate the academic system sufficiently to get tenure or respected positions a la a k-drama, possibly because they were more into their own work than networking and status. In a sarcastic/bitter/eye-rolly way.
Wikimedia is much much less shady than Mozilla in a bunch of ways. Some people might take issue with the way they spend their money, or the tactics they use to raise money, but I don't think I would consider them shady.

Full disclosure: I was employed as a software release engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation from 2015 through 2022.
Everything was a challenge with EUV—the source, the vacuum, the mirrors, the reflective reticle, getting sufficient throughput…
The inventors will absolutely be well compensated (assuming their work pans out). They will get a patent and either sell or license that patent. That patented will probably end up being held by a rent seaker, who will extract money from the entire globe for the next 20 years until the patent expires.

Given that, why not have a government spend a bunch of money to buy the rights, then release it to the public domain.

If I had to guess, the scientists would be willing to sell it into the public domain for less money then they would to a private company; however they probably would not be willing to donate it to the public domain when there is massive private money on the table.

Given all if this, the fact that there will likely not even be an offer for this by the government is a policy choice that we will be paying for for the next 20 years.
Rather than append an edit at the end, just delete your post if it was completely debunked, otherwise people, like myself, read a paragraph of text only to learn it's all apparently "debunked".
Electric vehicle driven 7 kilometres under water
Selling shovels to the people selling shovels
Many tournaments (especially on the West Coast) and their organizers enjoy and encourage kritical debate. (That's what they did in high school -- Kritical debate was born in Policy Debate, and spread to other formats, so many coaches have that previous experience) Many on the East Coast ban it entirely, or heavily discourage it. At some level, there are almost two different leagues. The "tech" debaters even have their own championship, of sorts (NPDI).
There supposedly are some health properties for endurance athletes with the non-alcohol parts of beer. I think the German team brings non-alcoholic beer to the Olympics. If the alcohol doesn't bother them, I can see many athletes drinking a lot.
> i.e. kids doing well "don't need help" until they do is a much more common outcome - which is to say, you're smart enough to do very little work, but never actually learn how to do any work so once that no longer applies the reality-shock is pretty high.

Can sooo relate to that... That's essentially the thing where I took my top-3% highschool-degree (spending presence-hours+30min/day on school - the day I grade-overtook a person spending 4h/day by final results was fun) to a "mediocre" uni degree.

EDIT: back then, around 30% of people attended that kind of highschool.

What did I do with time: read prose of my native language and America (leading me to optimize highschool finals by dropping english for even less work old greek...) - I guess someone making me learn for 2h/day would have not really hurt my (very underused) culture knowledge and helped me a lot the uni years.
What I would do if I ran Tarsnap (2014)
What do you mean? How can the connector in the phone break when it’s just a hole?
Came here to ask that: Any chance for battery powered LoRaWAN version?
The point is to learn to see through manipulation, among other things.

Truth can only be found if both sides share axioms. Very often they don't, and the point of a debate is to detect and outline that difference, and show it to your audience, if any.

The exercise is exactly to detect and pick a set of axioms that a particular character used to have, and then honestly think along those lines. It's a hugely important exercise, and not merely for disputes. It teaches you to think in terms of logic of somebody else, see their reasons, understand their feelings. That other party is not necessarily your opponent in any way; it could be your teacher or your student, your business partner, or even your spouse.

Great many people are never taught how to leave the "my truth is the self-evident truth" point of view, and this results in a lot of suffering, theirs, and those who have to interact with them.
I don't know anything about the Minecraft code, but can't people just run the code with a serialization filter?

This is available as a backport all the way back to Java 8 and is just a command line option.

https://debugagent.com/java-serialization-filtering-prevent-...
I suspect the culture wars are largely a psyop by corporate interests who perceive the FSF and other user-freedom advocacy groups as obstructions to their attempts at controlling the population.
Considering everything is already in scifi zone. "By harnessing orgasms of space cats"
Any guesses on the average lifespan of the tools on these lists? I'd bet 25% of them are already non functional. 1% have any shot at popularity / profitability. I'd say 90% will be gone within the next 8 to 12 months - including this site itself. And that's being generous.
> Injuries that you're entirely unconscious of can cause significant levels of stress which are measurable.

The unconscious is the mind too.

Body and mind are interdependent, without mind the body would be dead.
Did you find speed or spread common in Parli? In any circuit I was in you would get dinged on that fast, and it was more of a dead giveaway that a policy debater was trying Parliamentary.
A large gold mine is quietly preparing to start production in Interior Alaska
This also happened to a Japanese fellow named @Xai.
> The reality is that she wasn't going to be a good match if she wasn't able to communicate if she had a concern like your linkedin not matching, or even just give you the benefit of the doubt. Imagine what else she wouldn't communicate.

It's reasonable to have a default posture of not trusting people you just met online and if you give them a further reason not to trust you (online profile doesn't match what you said), even if unintentionally, it's also reasonable to cease communications before more time is wasted on someone who is potentially untrustworthy. It's a red flag. And there are hundreds of other people you can communicate with instantly online who don't have glaring red flags. I find the behavior reasonable unless they had already met/had a lot of time invested.
Even if this is assumed to be fraud, it seems premature to pin it on this nationalistic motive without some specific supporting evidence.
If there were congressional term limits we wouldn't have this problem as much.
Coincidental observation:

Your username is the same as the initialism used internally to refer to the Wikimedia Foundation.. The WikiMediaFoundation: WMF
That's not entirely true. A lot of Parli is concentrated on the coasts, and most of the West Coast encourages tech debate, so most West Coast debaters end up attending "tech" tournaments. Also, most "close to home" tournaments still give NPDL points.

Also, TOC is the national championship. (NPDL Nationals Exist, but they are a relatively recent addition, and aren't highly respected in the community)
In the end I agree, I wouldn't want to promote an association that is still pledging to "Defend Richard Stallman"

But the amount of Drama in this is over the top

Also, what was the last relevant project launched under the GNU Umbrella? Gneural network had the momentum of a damp toilet paper ball and I see that it was now discontinued https://www.gnu.org/software/gneuralnetwork/
I read something recently that claimed that most of the European geniuses of the 1900-1940s had tutors, fitting in with one of the article's observations.
Two reasons. Firstly, I still get paid for the time I don't have the opportunity or the work ethic to create value. I'm able to financially plan and feel far more secure that way. Secondly, it would create a nightmare if everyone operated this way. Imagine paying a stipend to Toyota every year your car keeps running. A payment to the builder every year your house doesn't fall down. A payment to your professors every time you get a paycheck since their work contributed to you getting a job and a payment to your computer manufacturer every time you send an e-mail. It's rent-seeking behavior that society has chosen, for some reason, to tolerate in the producers of entertainment.
A quick search doesn't bring up any examples of radiophile organisms, in the sense of taking up radionuclides that are used for something. "Radiophile" bacteria exist, but that just means they are highly resistant to ionizing radiation. What are radioactive fertilizers? Potassium is radioactive to a small extent, but it doesn't seem like it's ever used for that property.
Again. delete this post. your edit at the end is useless.
That's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination usually is much slower compared to a bike. Cars are still allowed for the people that either really need them or don't need them but are willing to pay extra
But I agree that Utrecht is a better city bc of less tourists and even more bike infra
Which after school programs do you use?
Are you just casually degrading an entire continent? Impressive
People still use Google, despite numerous horror stories of unexplained account suspensions without any possibility to appeal.
That is pretty neat. I'm hoping for a better future for low carb snacks.
You’ve confused a stack trace with a core dump (or something similar).
How do they come with these quantifications that something is 3000 sweeter than sugar. What does that even mean? Cool find though, I hope it works - in the past it's seemed that while you may be able to fool your tongue, your stomach and brain are not so easily fooled.
The people who run today's society use the creations of yesterday's gifted and motivated, along with their own, important, incremental updates.

The people who create tomorrow's society are the gifted and motivated here now.
K's are more common on the negative side, however there's nothing stopping you from trying to redefine terms on the affirmative. Of course the counter is to point out topicality but as the article is saying it's really going to start boiling down to who your judges are.
In the case above, that's because it was invited.

Saying "I cut this thing out of my life" is one thing, it's another to say "I cut this thing out of my life, and so should you". The former is a statement about one's own preferences; the latter introduces a conversation about how much of the thing should be in the lives of the people in the discussion.

That's two people expressing opinions about how often the other ought have that thing in their life. The person who initiated that should know that.
> It is about stepping out of the opinion you inhabit and trying to look at it from your opponent's perspective.

But you do this automatically when you are trying to discern the truth - invalid arguments are to be eliminated.

The whole, now argue for the other side is kind of ... frankly, telling the anyone to argue for any side is ridiculous IMHO. You are pretty much putting the cart before the horse - i.e. picking a position before the arguing has even started.

The whole point of discussion and debate should be to decide which position to pick (because it's the factually correct one).
I think this is a simple mix-up ;)

Perhaps you confused me for xorbax, or you were still in the stream of consciousness of discussing with him: if you double-check which of your comments I replied to I think that you'll find it is not the one where you mention the demand for a citation that was simply non-existent.

It appears you believed my comment to be a reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36917506

while in fact I replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36917126

I would appreciate if you re-read your own comment at the last link, and observe the second paragraph you wrote about peer review, and then re-read my correctly placed comment. I think you'll find my comment to make more sense, and in my opinion ties in nicely with your second paragraph. I was not tryihg to summarize you, merely appending my gripes with the supposed finality and atomicity of the Journals redefinition of "peer review".

In reality the real peer review is in the back and forth discussions within the community, spread out over many papers, and sometimes even over generations.

As an oversimplified example consider relativistic mechanics correcting Newtonian mechanics: if we anachronistically pretend Newton published his Principia in some Respectable Journal under the current implementation of "peer review", then it would have been accepted with apparent Finality under peer review, even though it would eventually be repudiated by relativity generations later; this artificial example should make anyone pause about the insinuated Finality of "peer review", effectively forcing one to recognize that the current concept of artificially muzzled "peer review" through the arbitrary selection of the reviewers by journal editors does not constitute true peer review. I'm not saying it's useless to have an initial screening, but then it needs a better name, perhaps "Quality Control" or "Publication Criteria" or "Discipline Specific Methods and Publication Criteria" etc... Before the modern incantation where reviewing by peers is made artificially atomic and pseudo-final, anyone in the field could provoke questions about specific claims. The illusion of Finality works discouraging: where-as in the past you would feel compelled to respond to any criticism, the current concept of "peer review" implies "it already happened since its published" and nothing forces an author to come up with a rebuttal for a criticism. While this may help prop up appearances of the scientific field with an aura of Finality of conclusions made in its domain, its really damaging to the scientific process.

Back to the comment confusion:

I've seen this happen to others when a sub-thread gets a lot of attention, resulting in a high rate of replies, where one of the authors gets confused which exact comment was being replied to. I would be lying if I were to claim it never happened to me ;)
Let's call it ppeets
I had one with Amazon once. I was just getting a refund - it did it without any hassle and probably faster than a human. I was super happy - and this was like 2-3 years ago.
Which doesn't mean each element of Y has exactly one matching counterpart in X, two elements in X can share one in Y
Debate is a tiny section of the high-school world. I'm a current Parli debater -- in class, we aren't taught anything even close to what you would see in rounds.
The FSF may believe that copyleft is the best way to achieve their aim, but they will not actively oppose any other licenses which are compatible. They see proprietary software and its ilk as the opposing force, not anyone else. The FSF looks at MIT and BSD licenses, etc. and think, “Oh, those are some people who might in theory be doing more to support us, but at least they’re not opposing us in any way.”.

Some, even many, people has somehow got it into their heads that the FSF is equally opposed to anything which is not copylefted, and this is decidedly not the case.
Self-Driving Car Bets
In many countries adults just continue to wear backpacks. One of the things I keep in my backpack is a big IKEA bag, meaning I'm pretty set for shopping on foot (or bike, which is more common for me). Medium sized purchases go in the backpack, larger things go in the IKEA bag.
I don't trust the secondhand reporting and translation work here. I have seen several korean articles which claimed that Dr. Hyun-Tak Kim disavowed both papers. This would be very significant, as he is the coauthor with the h index! However, in the korean articles where this claim has a cited source, the source is his new scientist interview, in which he disavowed only the first paper (the one with 3 authors, including Kwon and excluding Hyun-Tak Kim):

https://archive.is/DhijM

I have not seen any credible direct quotes which show that any of the authors have distanced themselves from the second paper (the one with 6 authors including Hyun-Tak Kim).

My tentative read is that every author besides Kwon is likely thinking "this is not ready / not real, but if I pump the brakes on the hype train, Kwon will get all the credit in the unlikely event that it replicates quickly, so it's best to stay tight-lipped for the moment."
Maybe a TLDR at the top would be better. There's often some pretty crucial context that gets nuked when the entire post gets deleted.
Your story doesn't really add up. 8 years ago would have been 2015, at which point 64GB drives had been dropped from most consumer SSD product lines for at least a year, and laptop sales had been outnumbering desktop sales by a wide margin for many years. I don't think you realize how thoroughly unrepresentative your experiences and purchasing choices have been.
I perceive your tone as purely hostile and frankly pretty ignorant, so maybe don’t talk about tone.

Aside from that, hating a form of mobility is weird. People that are assholes in cars will be assholes on bikes and vice versa.
It is common in high school debate tournaments to argue the same resolution repeatedly at every tournament through the school year. Each match you are assigned one side or the other and you should be ready to go 100% on that side. You aren't trying to persuade anybody. You are trying to make as many arguments as you can, be ready and refute any arguments from the other side, identify logical fallacies, etc.

The point of the year long effort, in my opinion, has nothing to do with any particular topic. It is to improve your critical thinking and to recognize various techniques used against you in everyday life. It is so that you can spot the problems when Trump tries to sell you hogwash or when Biden tries his pitch. It is to help you stay protected when your school district or home owners' association or even you yourself use faulty reasoning to justify a bad policy. So you can not be persuaded by things you should see through.

These are skills sorely lacking in most of the world where I live.
Yep. This was going to be the next phase: there isn't anything special about the SI system, but it is consistent. The poster didn't seem prepared for "or any other velocity units you want".

For the original poster, you could equally use c in miles per hour, mass in "pounds", and get whatever that produces for energy (I'm sure there's a name for it).

This is also why Imperial units produce such amusing things as Foot-Pounds (for torque). The math all works out in the end, but you get some amusing numbers along the way.
AI for me: Directory of 7000 AI tools and 1000 Categories
> Plainly put: You can never truly arrive at or trust your own beliefs if you can't completely understand and articulate the best possible case against them.

How does one know when they completely understand the best possible case against their own belief? Or know for sure that they’ve arrived at the best possible case against it? Seems like an unattainable bar.