skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I stopped using DoorDash once I saw the big 'every delivery costs an extra $5 now thanks to Seattle' modal on their front page because it's so dishonest. If they really have to jack their fees up that much and it's not a variable cost I can tell they're just trying to manipulate me.

I don't mind fees going up some, and in contrast GrubHub isn't playing games - the fees are just higher now. That's fine if it means the drivers are getting paid more. I noticed that they adjusted the default tip percentages to be lower, so it seems like the actual cost of an order by default probably isn't higher. If the driver earns the same amount in the end (or more) that just means I'm spending less money on the "tip".

EDIT: Thinking about it more, the "their wages have been slashed" phrasing in this article is also deeply dishonest. They weren't wage workers before, and still aren't! They're freelancers who rely on a steady flow of gigs and tips to earn enough every hour. If the flow has slowed then of course they're going to earn less. We can argue that the ordinance caused the flow to slow down but other factors could be at work too, like the apps adjusting recommended tip percentages.
> Unless you could somehow make an Alcubierre warp drive.

Even if you can make it, even though it's theoretically possible that the warp bubble could move through space faster than the speed of light, it's a separate and completely open question as to how you might actually get it to move that fast to begin with.
> What were you using for version control

I started with CVS. I had been aware of sccs from an early Unix training course, so I knew how diffs worked, but I never used a VCS until I needed CVS. Later I switched to Subversion, which I think is pretty good, for my use-cases. Subversion flags a conflict if your commit against rev1.1 is submitted after another commit to the same file, but against rev1.2. You have to figure it out yourself, or grab rev1.2 and redo your changes. Git has lovely features for dealing with conflicts, much better that Subversion. But in practice, in a team of (say) three working on a feature, and communicating well, conflicts are rare, and easily resolved.

I should have been using revision control since the early days, of course; but I don't think many of us did - it required more storage, and floppy disks weren't cheap.

[Edit] Perhaps I should note that for a time, I had to work with Microsoft's Visual Sourcesafe, over Frame Delay, to a repository across the Atlantic. Those were bad times.
> No, I think the people of these regions should have been allowed to decide their own fate, which then should be internationally recognized.

This means that Russia needs to go back to its border and free and fair elections need to be held, in accordance with the country’s constitution. Right? You realise that Russia leaving the country is a pre-requisite for the people to vote freely? Unless you count what we’ve seen in Crimea, in the Donbas and in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts as somehow free and fair. You know, when the ballot boxes were brought to each house by armed Russian soldiers with tanks on the streets.

> But this would have at least been a viable path forward in 2014.

2014 was when Putin put everything in motion, having spent the previous years setting it up. If you think that anything reasonable could happen under Yanukovich, well, you were not paying attention.
Why is it narrow? N is a few hundred at a well ranked and good amount of rigor university, and is aimed at the graduating class and then their earnings as they rose through to probably mid career positions past entry level.

I haven't read the entire study mostly because I don't care, but I think you're wrong in your statements.

GPA is well correlated to earning potential, as well as earnings in reality.
dumb question - why does going faster make it more likely you encounter fast protons? couldn’t protons in any reference frame be going quite fast relative to you?
I don't want Elon to run Boeing, that's never been part of my argument. I want leadership at Boeing that elevates engineers, understands that engineering is absolutely critical, and punishes bean-counters for pushing against a good engineering culture.
> IIRC there was a report about a third plane that (after at least the first crash, not sure if it was before or after the second) ran into the same issue with MCAS, but correctly followed the recovery procedure and was fine. Now, it could be that the recovery procedure is unreliable, and that third cockpit crew got lucky. But I don't recall what came of all that.

> And on top of that, the two planes that crashed didn't have optional equipment (a disagree indicator, IIRC) that would have likely given the pilots extra and sufficient information to understand what was wrong and avoid a crash.

The first plane had experienced unwanted/incorrect runaway MCAS activation on the flight before the accident flight; the pilots turned off electric trim for the rest of the flight (which is part of the memory checklist) [1], and the aircraft was subsequently cleared by mechanics for the accident flight.

On the second accident flight, it seems that the pilots were unable to complete the specialized checklist for improper MCAS activation, as aerodynamic forces made manual trim impossible. Wikipedia notes that the earlier 737-200 had a procedure for recovery in this situation, but it had not been part of training for quite some time.

> And on top of that, the two planes that crashed didn't have optional equipment (a disagree indicator, IIRC) that would have likely given the pilots extra and sufficient information to understand what was wrong and avoid a crash.

I don't think knowing that the airspeed indicators disagree is enough to know what to do, in absence of knowledge of the MCAS. Perhaps, it could have helped the 2nd accident crew, if they had been able to connect the dots and disable electric trim before trim position became too extreme to manually correct. For the first airplane, I don't think it would have helped, because the implications of wrong airspeed information were unknown; maybe it would have resulted in the broken sensor being replaced after the penultimate flight though.

Sensible limits on automation would likely have prevented both accidents (and was implemented after the second accident). Transparency about MCAS may have helped with the first accident, but clearly wasn't enough for the second. Separate cutoff switches for automation and electric trim would have helped with the second flight (there's two switches already!), but knowledge of MCAS would be a prerequisite.

In the first accident, both the pilot and first officer were quite experienced, but in the second, the first officer had less than 400 hours of flight time, which is significantly less than the 1,500 hours required to be a first officer in the US. Increased flight experience may or may not have helped in this case, but is an area where US carriers differ from international carriers.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Air_Flight_610#Investigat... see "previous flight problems"
> You're right.

I would not give in to their assertions so easily if I were you.
You’re driving and see a huge patch of the fog suddenly turn red, I would argue you’re seeing break lights not fog. But that gets into definitions not just physics.

Similarly, the CMB is energy from the Big Bang as last scattered ~380,000 years later. IMO, that’s the Big Bang, but reasonable people can obviously disagree.
why are protons more likely to be closer to rest relative to earth than relative to the fast spaceship?
But the boss could not have as specialized skillset and knowledge as the lower level worker would have, so the boss couldn't be able to know as much, compared to what lower level worker would need to find out.

Responsibilities have to be delegated from the up, down, because upper level can't possibly have all the knowledge and skill of the skill-workers themselves as they are not spending 100% of their time on this exact skill work.

> Assuming they became your boss through technical merit they should be able to adequately describe requirements and anticipate implementation details.

For a period of time when they are within the domain yes. However if you are not constantly working in the domain to the same extent as the skill worker, you won't be able to keep up with the information. In order to be able to be on the exact same level of information you would need to spend the same amount of time on the skill work itself.

> Good requirements shouldn't need follow up questions beyond you potentially not knowing how to do something.

There's no way you can write such good requirements in any at least even slightly remotely complicated project. Nobody could write such requirements. The complex things are always iterative. You can only do simple, repetitive things like that. Absolutely nothing innovative.

> This funnels all the planning towards the top and they have massive incentive to shut the fuck up and not leak anything. It really is that simple.

This could only work in something like military with standard processes and where everyone follows this routine and orders. But not in intelligence work. Intelligence work is never that straightforward.
>80% of startups that are "successful" follow this pattern

Doesn't this sound like selection bias? If every other startup follows this shoot fornthe moon plan then yeah it just becomes a self fulfilling prophecy
Relationships aren't an engine to be optimized. How do you even quantify these kind of numbers? This kind of post strikes me as coming from guy who would leave a long term relationship to then get married within six months to someone ten years younger, because he found someone "100% better."
No, that's not how that works. If tip is ground and ring is Vcc, there is no possible way to create a dangerous short.

So lets imagine what happens to the host port when you unplug a live device. Vcc breaks first, and all other pins shift. D+ and D- are safe to short together or to ground (and I'm pretty sure safe to short to Vcc) so they don't matter much. The shield is physically out of the socket. As the connectors move, you get connections that put Vcc on the device's Data pins, through the device ground to host Data pins. This is equivalent to a large resistor between host Vcc and data pins, which is safe.

As the connector is removed, the device's ground contacts host's Vcc. Nothing happens because all the other pins are physically outside of the socket. There is no circuit, no path for the current to go. The only way it could be a problem is if the device had some external ground connection. That would create a direct short between the host's Vcc and ground.

But (correctly implemented) USB ports can safely tolerate a short from Vcc to ground. If not, it's not complicated or expensive to build protection into the device.

Even if all of the above weren't true, it's still not complicated or expensive to design a port which is tolerant to any kind of short on any pins.

What you're arguing is both not possible and wouldn't be a problem even if it were.
I'm sure you're saying that from a place of honesty, but you clearly aren't speking for the people who actually make these decisions:

1. When the US actually wanted to get Bin Laden in a country that wouldn't extradite him, they sent a special ops team to Pakistan. They violated Pakistan's sovereignty a little bit and then everyone moved on. So the idea that they needed to launch a full invasion of Afghanistan is just silly and the people who sent the army knew that. They had to have had ulterior motives, or sending the military was so incompetent there would have been a very public purge of the US military leadership.

2. If we're saying the US military is a magic button to override the legal system in another country (which, fair enough, it is) then what is the issue with what Russia is doing? Their interests in Ukraine are more legitimate than the US not feeling like negotiating or due process for Bin Laden & friends. Of course if the US had spent a bit more time doing things legally, the planners would have had time to point out that a full scale invasion was counterproductive, and I think it is less obvious that Russia would have found something similar; I don't see how they could have dealt with what the US state department seems to be doing without an army. But hey, I'm not a diplomatic corps, maybe they could have come up with something.

And if I look at the wiki article [0], we see "The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the US would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks". Maybe 2-5 years of negotiating and some actual evidence would have been justified? The US must have had evidence against al-Q, because otherwise they couldn't have known who was responsible. if they'd negotiated to send him to Pakistan where the SEAL team is comfortable operating then they could have short circuited a lot of death, wasted time and wasted money.

I know you didn't say anything about the Russian invasion, but this is sort of my angle here - the actions in Afghanistan show that this sort of thing is a bit of a non-event as far as international politics goes. It is only a big deal because the US is making it one.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#War_on_terror
When I visit Hyderabad I'm reminded how nice it is to have an underclass, provided you are not a member of that class. Many services are practically free compared to the US.

Not sure I think we should create that here, though.

Edit: Wow, judging from downvotes it seems there are some folks here on HN that would like that underclass! Interesting!
Not really about the framing of these policies. What it really should be is 'new rules to limit exploitation of workers reduces exploitation'. What the US has too much of, is providing people just enough support that you have legions of people lining up for jobs that are effectively subsidized by tax payers. These services should not really exist at the current price point and scale.
> I often think the greed and bad acting (ex: platforms as silos) we see from tech leaders that are idolized

Among my acquaintances, I honestly don't know a single person who idolizes these tech leaders. So this statement depends a lot on in which circles you spend your time/life.

> I think we could do a lot better if we viewed the last 30-40 years as complete failure, ousted all of the supposed business "leaders" we have, and re-organized based on rewarding people that do the most to improve the planet and average quality of life.

By your conscious buying decisions, you decide which business leader you want to reward. It's that easy.
> If HBO and all the other content houses would all go to Netflix and say we'll close down our streaming service and license you all our content, and take our share of a household $60/month, everyone would all make more money

That's how it used to work. They all started making their own platforms and pulling content off of Netflix because they thought they could get the same numbers as Netflix and keep all the payments instead of whatever slice Netflix was giving them.
Toyoko Kids: The lonely street children of Tokyo
And yet we are doing better than ever, almost like we can adapt. Maybe the apocalyptic predictions are overblown.
> The punch cards had 80 columns – 72 for the program and 8 for sequencing – so each line of code could be at most 72 characters wide.

In case anyone was wondering why the code only used 72 characters, it goes back to FORTRAN, developed on the IBM 701. The IBM 701 was a 36-bit machine. Its card reader loaded 80-column cards one row at a time (sideways to what you might expect), putting the hole pattern in two 36-bit words. Thus, it could only read 72 columns. (A pluggable wiring panel let you select which 72 columns you wanted, but normally it was set to columns 1-72). The 72-character limit has persisted in various places, even though the IBM 701 from 1952 is long gone.
The universe police will be along shortly to mutate you into a large salamander. Them's the rules.
Use lasers for the first half of the journey to send a rocket that can decelerate and build the laser station at the destination.
I've seen enough stories about how gig workers struggle to actually turn a profit thanks to all the costs that get offloaded onto them, so I don't know that 'getting rid of a certain class of jobs' is automatically a bad thing.
I really like the idea of using embeddings in this way. I'm sure scaling out to get "most" of the podcasts is no joke. But some bigger podcasts like Smartless didn't seem to be in your database.

Have you considered using embeddings to show similar podcasts?
I thought NYC didn’t recognize the S-corp, so you end up paying the corporate tax rate. Has that changed?
> it’s conjectured that the colonists already at your destination won’t appreciate you boiling the atmosphere when you hit them with blue shifted radiation.

There's a general principle known as Jon's Law (not sure where the name comes from) that any powerful space drive is by definition a weapon of mass destruction.

You see this in The Expanse when incredibly powerful fusion torchship rockets (a major part of the Expanse 'verse) are attached to asteroids and these are used to kinetically bombard inner planets. The results are far worse than a nuclear attack, from kinetic energy alone.

Anything capable of traveling close to the speed of light would be "death star" level planet killer. We're talking smashing through the crust and boiling off the atmosphere or if it were massive maybe even fragmenting the planet. Obviously anything even wilder like an Alcubierre Drive would be likewise. Anything capable of going to the stars within a human lifetime could annihilate worlds.

Even present-day chemical rockets could be pretty destructive. Get something massive that won't burn up (like a rod of tungsten) up to interplanetary velocities and you can approach the yield of a small tactical nuke from just kinetic energy. This has been studied at least on paper by militaries. I think the phrase "rods from God" was used by DARPA at one point for the rod of tungsten idea.

This is glossed over in the vast majority of space sci-fi. Nobody even asks in Star Trek what happens if you point the Enterprise at a planet and say "warp 9, engage!" I'm guessing it would go poorly for the Enterprise but even worse for the planet.
I like KoBold a lot, but this is a wild take on what has happened so far - a traditional mining exploration technique found this deposit, KoBold then brought into this as a typical cashed up midtier/large miner would and haven't released a resource and reserve calculation at all.
Yeah, I think we only allow import x from y for the minute. And because we don't have a language server yet, it wasn't obvious that it was an issue. That'll change soon when the server is up though!
Experience building and operating large systems using public cloud services and design patterns without falling into the traps such as ludicrously overpriced SKUs, API limits, low quota, data transfer fees, and all the boring stuff in the fine print that will rack up a 7 digit bill.
Who could I pitch to?
What's a good deal?
Accelerators/Incubators seem like a potential pitch target sure, maybe even solving most of those problems quite efficiently but they also seem like a path that comes with a bad deal, even more so for this industry
> How do you find yourself as Board member or CEO of a company like this and not think to cut expenses a little sooner?

It's like playing Super Mario: one life left? Die sooner to restart again.

There will be a next startup soon, and saving this one does not worth effort. Besides that, the CEO has probably got his cut already as salary. This cow is done, bring in the next one.
It was 'sustaining' just fine until City Hall got involved.
How (not why) is it that Zionism is protected, particularly in Western countries, as some kind of necessity above all, while all other notions of nationalism are to be condemned?
There seems to be a choice between a lot of poverty-level jobs (with low consumer prices) and fewer living-wage jobs (with high consumer prices) and it's legitimate for a government to opt for the latter with something like this ordinance.

The problem comes that switching requires those jobs to go away. Even in the best case that's going to be very painful for the workers that lose their poverty-level job and have nothing. But what this article is highlighting is even worse - because of the way gig job works there isn't even a switch to fewer jobs livable-wage jobs, just less work spread between the same people. Hopefully that's temporary but it's not clear cut.

I think this is an example of a very painful policy choice. It might be the right decision long term but still can be a damaging transition.
I don't see how reviews can resist to LLMs in the future months / years.

Except if an id card is required to review, or if only your contacts' reviews are shown.
It's there in the mirror shot. Just not as prominent as people expect maybe.
Only the subject changes. Heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, violent video games, gay marriage, the trans panic. These things all inevitably become normalized in society because there's never a majority that remains convinced for long that "the children" are actually in any danger. And then a decade later we look back and laugh.

But the people behind these movements will happily keep taking Ls until the end of time because the people who want to stay scared of this stuff are the product.
In the presentation there are links to multiple companies observing a consistent 60-70% of high severity security issues being attributed to memory safety issues. These are companies that are organized, well resourced, etc.

Rust eliminates these bugs and it results in fewer security issues in Rust code than C/C++. See https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-language...

Additionally, even in brilliant soloist projects like curl, Linux, etc., you still get plenty of memory safety CVEs. The best still don't get it right.

> Are there any studies that show excluding memory overrun bugs...

Why exclude memory safety from the argument? That's the whole point -- to fix those significant fraction of vulnerabilities.
Isn't Immersed actually going into hardware and also trying to launch their own VR headset now?
Imagine a generation ship, consuming the energy of an entire star for the trip.
Well, it seems reasonable to me and there's no mention of Dawkins in the link you give.
Towards Sustainable Workplace Mental Health: Early Intervention and Support
Could use such a ship as a time machine (well, that only goes one way).
In short, a reference frame moving at c is pretty much a logical absurdity, because by definition it would mean having massive objects move at c as well.
Calling an http api from a ruby program doesn't really constitute running an "AI Model Locally with Ruby" for me. But if you want to get a little closer to that being true you could also use the llama.cpp bindings for ruby. https://github.com/yoshoku/llama_cpp.rb