skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think part of it is the old feminist theory of the "second shift" [1]; they have careers now, but they're working twice as much as they used to, doing the bulk of the housework and childrearing, and keeping a full time job. Men these days share more housework than their fathers, which mitigates the problem.

However, with the rise of living costs, now both partners need a full-time job, and the domestic labor is still there; more work needs to be done than before, despite technology making the individual worker more productive. It's not a surprise that fewer people are able to have children; they have more work and are still just barely paying the bills.

In the 70s, there was a movement called the "International Wages for Housework Campaign," which argued that women should be paid a salary for domestic labor, which is essential to society, and that this is an essential component of Women's Liberation [2]. It's interestingly contrary to the view that feminists are all liberal individualists who don't believe in men and women being different.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_burden

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_for_housework
My grandparents too, but what I've found out that they really are much happier, because they have seen so much worse. Try to imagine how you'd feel yourself at the moment if you'd have seen WWII, deportations, 50 years of communist occupation etc?
> and women can operate most guns quite easily.

No they can't, assault rifles are made for a male build and strength, women have significantly harder time using them. I was in the military and the women had a really hard time passing the basic tests for assault rifles since they had shorter arms and weaker upper body strength.

Can women do it with training? Yes, but basically every man can do it without training, I've seen it myself. And if those women doesn't keep up that strength as civilians they wont be able to use the assault rifle properly if they need to.

Edit: As for being smaller, being able to wear body armor is more important. Level 3 body armor is standard for combat situations and that is heavy, ammunition is also very heavy. Typical combat gear is about 20-30kg in total, that is heavy even for men and untrained men get significantly slower from it but they can still operate. That is for a basic infantryman with just combat equipment, no food or anything, that is the minimum to fight.
Yeah, and then they go on to say that all of the great sages weren't PM's, just great people.

I disagree. All of those greats that were mentioned succeeded because they kept the customer and the product tantamount to all else. So really they were just fantastic PM's.
I built a productivity app to cowork with friends
I built a Mac menu bar app called Flow Work that allows you to do real-time, collaborative virtual coworking sessions with friends and your teams.

It's currently on TestFlight: https://testflight.apple.com/join/R7lKtZdJ. I built this in three weeks so it's super scrappy - but it's my v1 and it gets the work done.

I also want to get more help building this so I thought about making it open-source, but that also seems like a risky move because eventually I want to sell this product to PMs and enterprise teams (while it's free for regular individuals - similar business model to products like Figma, Slack, Notion, etc).

Would love to get any feedback regarding the app itself, and any advice on whether to make this open-source or not. Thanks!

P.S. this is my first time posting on Hacker News:)
Hosting is very expensive, e.g https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr...

That is why almost nobody bothers to do it themselves outside of big tech.
My phone has a hardware kill switch for the mic/camera.
It looks like the average revenue is $1/user/month. However, the "average" isn't very interesting because the typical person that signs up to this would likely be far above average--no one is going to pay $5/month if they watch a single video, but if you watch 2 hours/day that's a great deal. So it's hard to say what a "fair" price would be.
Generally it is quite important especially for SaaS. Old TLS will cause SOC2 cert, PCI cert failures and similar. It is the kind of thing that can derail a major deal as often the 'whale' clients are the ones that really care about security certs while smaller companies and startups don't.

Non-technical PMs tend to gloss over things like that as an engineering-driven feature. Clients don't ask for TLS 1.3 (at least until it's often too late) because they generally aren't considering TLS trivia until it comes time for their next audit.
When a website actually tells me that I can't use it with an ad blocker, then I leave and don't come back. I don't have an ad-blocker-blocker-blocker, there's no technical barrier to detecting my ad blocker and responding accordingly.

Until that happens, I'm forced to assume that the service actually does get enough value from my attention that it's not worth it to them to lose my business (such as it is), and I am certainly not going to voluntarily subject myself to ads that aren't actually essential.
The problem is that it isn't an element, it's a background-image to the body. You'd need to overwrite the stylesheet for body, or block the image's url (/img/niconiconi.png)
How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”?

The scientific metaphysic relies on so many declarative/prescriptive statements which are themselves exempt from the criteria for science and are thus self-defeating on their own terms.

It is so peculiar when scientists are so dogmatic about science.

Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science? The testability/falsifiability criterion certainly excludes them from being sciences.
Of course MS asked for it. They created and sustain this situation where software needs to signed for it to easily run on the Windows platform. Who do you think put the signature checking code and root keys in Windows?? The code signing gnomes?? fairies??
This all seems over-complicated.

Why not just use fadblock?

https://github.com/0x48piraj/fadblock

It doesn't need to be updated in this cat and mouse game. it just skips the ads in milliseconds and you don't even notice them.
This is correct, Falsifiability was origionally concieved of by Karl Popper. I would also add, that while Popper had the best of intentions and good ideas in creating falsifiability theory, it is not generally accepted today by people who study philosophy of science. The consensus, which I agree with, is that it doesn't refelct how science atually works and it eleminatates many things that we do consider science. I mean many people may disagree with string theory, but it's hard for me to accept that it's science at all. Evolution also didn't pass Mr. Popper's tests, but he eventually recanted, not by changing his views on how evolution fits with his theories but just because his friends convinced him that it was "really important."

Popper made contributions to science in that he was one of the main thought leaders that began the field of philosophy of science. That said, I don't think falsifiability by itself is a very good criterion for science or truth.

I don't think the wikipedia article on this is very good. The encyclopedia of philosophy has a much better overview of his theory and where it stands currently

https://iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/#H3
How tall are you again?
I'm not saying that trauma isn't real, I'm saying that it doesn't have to impact your prospects in life. You don't have to let it define you. There's a capacity to sidestep it

Here's a personal example: having abusive family members tell me I won't be successful or independent, being hurt by it but knowing in the back of my head that I would get out of there. It's hope

And I get it: not all trauma is equal here, but if I have to choose one extreme I'd prefer the one that gives people some shred of agency
I absolutely want that I well! I took the fastai course and made some attempt at building my own custom OCR. I got some result but not good enough for production (after all I'm totally new to the domain lol). I still believe it is possible, but time wise, I had to go work on other tasks first. Ideally I want something that works client side, should run on mobile (think wasm onnx or something like that) and is specialized for webtoon. I don't know if I'm dreaming too big or not but I want to give a second try in the future.
I believe that FOSS maintainers should jump to the public showroom of providing open source software with a much stronger mentality of quoting and adhering to the license more frequently. That solves a lot of the user entitlement, in my experience. Just like a proprietary software provider would first try to be helpful but otherwise point to some rules that limit their responsibility.

Paraphrasing most if not all of the open source licences, the software is provided with no guarantee, not even with a promise that it will be fit for any purpose. Most users don't even think of the possibility that, given how the source code is offered, private contractors can be hired to make whichever modifications are deemed useful by anyone. I like to remind that to people who get too insistent.

That's basically a less lazy reply form of "just fork it", but it tends to draw the line pretty well. Just quote the license, folks. Otherwise, people usually don't bother to read it.
Machine learning is that use case, it'll eat up as much processing power as you can throw at it.

LLMs on your phone are a few hardware generations out, but they are coming.
I read Strang and then Axler. Strang is great at numerics but weak at presenting the abstract picture. I feel like if I had taken, say, finite elements (or any other subject where it's important to take the abstract / infinite dimensional picture seriously before reducing to finite dimensions) right after Strang without reading LADR then I'd have been seriously underprepared.
>I'm not sure that Axler's book is great as a first LA book.

Linear Algebra Done Right is a text for beginners who want to study linear algebra in a proof based, mathematically rigorous way.

So, if you want that I think it's a good fit as a first linear algebra book.
I've been wondering if falsifiability is misunderstood, based on what a few people have commented about it. The alternative version is only that if claims are made that a system has made specific predictions that proved to be true, then it should be falsifiable on that basis. This was Popper's criticism of Marxists claiming Marxism was scientific - they would constantly claim that Marxism can predict what already happened, but it's bogus to claim this in retrospect, they repeatedly claimed this for occurrances only after they had occurred. Is this the same as demanding every theory be falsifiable?

Sean Carroll talks pretty positively about string theory. I think he paints the picture that although the popular view is it's not falsifiable (or not yet), therefore it's somewhere between very suspicious and junk, but actual theoretical physicists are much more positive about it.
I've been waiting for this for 6th months. Thanks to Sheldon Axler for making it available for free. This is intended to be a second book on Linear Algebra.

For a first book I suggest "Linear Algebra: Theory, Intuition, Code" by Mike X Cohen. It's a bit different than a typical math textbook, it has more focus on conversational explanations using words, although the book does have plenty of proofs as well. The book also has a lot of code examples, which I didn't do, but I did appreciate the discussions related to computing; for example, the book explains that several calculations that can be done by hand are numerically unstable when done on computers (those darn floats are tricky). For the HN crowd, this is the right focus, math for the sake of computing, rather than math for the sake of math.

One insight I gained from the book was the 4 different perspectives of matrix multiplication. I had never encountered this, not even in the oft-suggested "Essence of Linear Algebra" YouTube series. Everything I had seen explained only one of the 4 views, and then I'd encounter a calculation that was better understood by another view and would be confused. It still bends my mind to think all these different perspectives describe the same calculation, they're just different ways of interpreting it.

At the risk of spamming a bit, I'll put my notes here, because this is something I've never seen written down elsewhere. The book has more explanation, these are just my condensed notes.

4 perspectives on matrix multiplication

=======================================

1 Element perspective (all possible dot / inner products)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(row count × row length) × (column length × column count)

In AB, every element is the dot product of the corresponding row of A
and column of B.

The rows in A are the same length as the columns in B and thus have
dot products.

2 Layer perspective (sum of outer product layers)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(column length × column count) × (row count × row length)

AB is the sum of every outer product between the corresponding columns
in A and rows in B.

The column count in A is the same as the row count in B, thus the
columns and rows pair up exactly for the outer product operation. The
outer product does not require vectors to be the same length.

3 Column perspective (weighted sums / linear combinations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(column length × column count) × (column length × column count)

In AB, every column is a weighted sum of the columns in A; the weights
come from the columns in B.

The weight count in the columns of B must match the column count in A.

4 Row perspective (weighted sums / linear combinations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(row count × row length) × (row count × row length)

In AB, every row is a weighted sum of the rows in B; the weights come
from the rows in A.

The weight count in the rows of A must match the row count in B.
Development phase is the project. Maintenance phase before sunsetting is I guess another project.
>Why shouldn’t they go thermonuclear?

What does "going thermonuclear" look like in this context?
I occasionally buy content from Youtube (primarily complete episodes of various series, occasionally a movie or movie rental).
My experience with product managers is that they wedge themselves between the business and the technical teams and then wield political power while doing very little.

I'm currently trying desperately to get two different PM's to talk to each other so we can be consistent with permissions sets across two different projects. Both projects use the same set of API's.

One of the PM's is basically incognito, the other has actively been trying to avoid doing any of the work.

But the technical teams will get blamed for this, I know because I've watched these same PM's blame the technical teams for their own failings on other projects.

I'm with the article, fuck Product Managers, grab a senior developer and let him or her spend part of their time interfacing with business while also teaching the younger developers the skills necessary to do it.

The problem isn't that their responsibilities aren't useful, it's that there shouldn't be a role dedicated to their responsibilities, it immediately draws moats around everything and suddenly the need for communication and collaboration jumps through the roof because the people in that role don't understand the technology the way a senior developer would.

There's a segment of the developer population that wants to put their head in the sand, do their job, and clock out. These developers are low value and will never be able to take on the role described above.
Exactly this. If a belief can't generate a testable prediction, even one not necessarily testable by us right now, but testable in principle, then that belief is meaningless. There's no basis to claim its true or false, it has no impact on reality whatsoever. It's a waste of effort to even think about it.
I use an ad blocker but I'm not entitled. If YouTube decides to stop me from using it I'll either pay for Premium or stop watching YouTube. I don't think I have any right to watch it for free without paying if they don't want to allow that.

It's hard to know if in the long run they will start requiring subscriptions, develop better anti-blocker tech, or just give up and eat the loss. But somehow I wouldn't bet on #3.
They were not well fed a century ago. The US had to start putting iron and iodine in all the food because all the young men were too weak and sick with pellagra to be able to fight in wars.
By that same logic I have no right to complain when a website uses 3rdparty trackers, or tries to run a monero client without my knowledge, because after all, I should have known they would do that ahead of time and not visited the site. But since I did, since I 'requested' it, I should just take everything I'm given and do exactly as told, mmhm.

> But no, it’s much better to exert your “rights” to try and control what gets sent to your computer.

But no, it's much better to exert your "rights" to try and control what gets run and shown on end-users computers.

> Also known as what you requested

I requested the video, nothing else. I don't care what you think I should or shouldn't know, I'm only trying to access the video and I am only requesting the video. If Youtube doesn't want me messing with the bytes they're sending me, they should not send them to me.
They're currently forcing logged-in users to share screenshots if they want to share something with non-logged-in friends and preserve any context whatsoever (you can no longer see replies, or what a xit was in response to, if you're not logged in—all you can see is a single xit). Search also doesn't work anymore if you're not logged in, and if you visit a user's page, their xits are ordered by some even-more-nonsensical-than-usual algo that puts years-old xits near the top. The site's basically totally unusable if you don't have an account.

This may be making some metric (account signups, presumably?) go up, but sure seems risky to me.
I'm very sure you are actually just rebuilding the container images themselves, not the package tree you are depending on. Building reproducible ISOs, or container images, with a package repository as a base isn't particularly hard these days.
Software Development Engineer is the one title to rule them all
The Feds have good sources for the all various admin code/statutes/slip laws/etc, but there’s not a great unified source for case law.

There’s nothing at the state level right now. I’ve been considering setting up a statue scraper under the openstates umbrella but it’s a bit of daunting project to start. Lots of yeoman’s work parsing gnarly websites or evading Lexis scraper protections.
Watch "Gary Vaynerchuk: Rails Conference Keynote | 2010" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/ZIaLTuaK1-k?si=rkic-7X67KrZvwmf

Saw it some years ago. IIRC, somewhere in the video, he yells, almost groans, "give a fuck" (about things you do), meaning the same as "giving a shit", the title of this HN thread. The overall talk is a bit funny to watch, including him strutting around the stage.
basically an ad for a web dev agency. Not sure this is allowed here.
Just to summarize: I have nothing against marketing/ads as long as it is responsible, treats me with respect, as a human being, and does not break local laws.

I have multiple problems with YouTube ads and online ads in general.
It seems, to me, that there are severe flaws in online advertisement regulations or it's just extremely hard to enforce.

One can compare the regulations and what responsibilities advertisers have for ads in other media vs. online ads.

Here are some of the reasons why I have problems with YouTube ads:

1. Online ads are often scummy, marketing some pyramid scheme, plainly lying with fake videos/screenshots, breaking my country's laws (probably, hard to verify) or, in the case of some web ads, contain malware.

2. YouTube takes no responsibility for what is shown to me or on which videos (for example, showing political propaganda from "ultra right" as ads).

3. The amount of online ads per minute of video is often obscene, even if you can skip some of them.

4. Ads volume is through the roof - this is intentional.

5. (off-topic) Zero protection from YouTube against abuse of copyright strikes.

6. (off-topic) YouTube takes no responsibility for their recommendation algorithms and yet wants to make money on all videos, regardless of the topic. I think such behaviour is irresponsible for such a big corporation as Alphabet.

Edit:
To summarize: please treat me with respect and I'll watch your ads.
You don't need llm for that I think. But sure, if you want people to just leave you. It is a pain but a part of scaling is dealing with a crowd.

And I would prefer LLMs to hallucinate a nice constructive criticism than to delete comments by mistake.
I'm sure the chip designers at Apple know the exact number, but that doesn't mean Apple's going to share it
But the software devs will always more-than use up any extra efficiency, so it'll still barely last a day, and will die early when it gets heavy use...
I have never lived in a world where there was not the existential threat of nuclear annihilation in every minute of every hour of every day of my life.

But you're right: I'm not going to get lost in my own city - or yours - because I have an iPhone in my pocket. I may never really learn my city and all its hidden little secrets you find only by wandering around, but I'll be efficient getting to the bar in a "climate controlled buildings" where I'll just stare at the iPhone some more and not really talk to anyone, as that's what everyone is doing, too.

"It is a world suited for monomaniacs obsessed with the idea of progress - but a false progress, a progress which stinks. It is a world cluttered with useless objects which men and women, in order to be exploited and degraded, are taught to regard as useful ... Whatever does not lend itself to being bought or sold ... is debarred"
–Henry Miller, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare
Quoting this out of context because it hits wonderfully close to reality

> it's just a historical accident that 'AI safety' is the name of the subfield of computer science that concerns itself with protecting the brands of large software companies
This is desillusional... How can it be a good thing ? Blaming users not willing to be forced to watch brain-washing videos is the right thing ? Really ?

I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground agreement. Such as serving 480/720p videos for free users, 1080p+ for ad watchers and 4k+ for subscribers. YouTube already makes a good amount of money only from monetizing watching habits and selling that data. We're giving away our tastes and deepest interests to a company at a daily basis for multiple decades. Why should we show them pity ? They don't have any for us.
I like to stew on this a lot. The root of it all might be economic and social opportunity. If you can succeed, you can attract good partners. If you are secure, you can be a better parent. If you have good parents, you will have more opportunity.

Of course, this has little to do with dating apps.
This is a bad defense because you're using "genetically determined", which is either meaningless or not true.

Height is not genetically determined unless you add "in an environment where nothing else that affects it happens". Like, say, someone cutting off your legs.

And the same goes for every other trait.
It was pretty much complete luck, on both our sides.

Neither of us were looking for relationships, or sex, or whatever. We've never done any dating apps.

We met literally in the Starbucks line. Conversation started up, we both had time and sat down for coffee. It just went from there. We've been together for 10y.

Would it happen like that or similar again to either of us? Nope. Nor is it repeatable.