skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Safer method:

Get a can of "air" that still uses the smaller size of straw (they've broadly gotten bigger in recent years).

The OD of this straw is close-enough to that of the plastic tube of a Q-Tip.

Cleanly off one end of the Q-Tip, nice and square, and then install the cut end into the nozzle on the can.

Then invert, point away from people, and spray for just a second or less.

The refrigerant travels down the tube in largely liquid form. It boils off and evaporates once it reaches the remaining cotton end of the Q-Tip, becoming stupidly cold.

Congratulations, you now have a DIY cryotherapy rig.

It boils off fast and is coldest whilst still boiling. One should experiment with it first to get an idea of how it works.

With the valve disengaged (finger off the trigger), touching the still-boiling liquid on the remaining cotton Q-Tip end to the wart will flash freeze it.

Wear eye protection in case it goes wrong (which we should all be doing anyway when dealing with compressed anything, including canned "air" in its intended use).

(This method also works well for dispensing just a tiny, controlled amount of lots of other stuff that comes in aerosol cans.)
As it appears you are more familiar with the case than I am, it would be helpful if you could point out what those errors are?

As best I can tell 'Judge Wood ruled that an older state-certification test, which was intended to measure teachers’ knowledge of the liberal arts and science, was racially discriminatory.'

Elsewhere I'm seeing "The court found that Black and Latino teachers clearly passed these tests at lower rates than white teachers. In order to prove that this wasn't illegal, the defendants had to show that the test actually demonstrated what it promised: that teachers who did well on the test would do better in their jobs."

It seems to me that the error was using the wrong test and it was the wrong test because it had disparate impact. What it does not appear to be is a case that is not about disparate impact because it instead had errors.
Thanks for bringing this up! Absolutely, the integrity of the information we provide is crucial. ChainClarity is a 100% research tool aimed at 'translating' complex whitepapers into more accessible language, avoiding the common biases in the crypto market. We are not discussing projects' market values, not reviewing their market potentials, not providing financial or investment advice

We ensure the content is accurate and reliable by focusing strictly on the factual content of whitepapers. This approach helps us maintain clarity and impartiality.
It's still not a good idea. Analysts may attempt to de-cloak the word with varying degrees of success by analyzing the width of the redacted word against font character widths and using techniques from the study of Natural Language Processing to identify likely word candidates that fit in context (e.g., with respect to the rest of the sentence or document).
I think if we follow your logic exactly, and make mathematically optimal decisions in every instance, leaving no space for the human spirit - we're robots anyway and may as well go to space!
Yeah, a 9 meter diameter one, which adds mass and volume and complexity and detracts from the payload.

Instead what they do is use thrust to accelerate the whole vehicle a little, which presses all the liquid into one end of its tank where it can be pumped out. Instead of carrying special settling thrusters, they originally planned to use ullage gas for this but it's not clear that can work.

deeper discussion with math:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60124.60
Childcare is just one of the ways low-income people (single or not) are "screwed."
Sounds like a plausible theory. Nudging your immune system into flooding a response to the area and giving everything a closer look, via irritants, makes sense.

And also explains the diverse array of purportedly efficacious substances.
One reason this topic on HN is not out of place is because the role of tech and its leaders, if nothing else.
Any in-place redaction leaks the length of the text.
My apologies, I was not trying to be pedantic or to correct you. It's for other readers too and does not contradict, really.

FWIW, I looked up those numbers because I do not have them memorised. The typical reader here seems even less informed than that, and they would benefit - I don't think that "we all know these numbers".
OpenAI is heavily relying on Scale AI for training data (contractors).
> you can assume that consciousness is a real thing independent of physics

To make that claim is to engage in Cartesian dualism, don’t you see it? I find Cartesian dualism not a particularly elegant theory (even less so than monistic materialism). If you believe you are arguing with a Cartesian dualist, then we are talking past each other.

(This is, I guess, an illustration of why I find complete lack of philosophical rigour so frustrating when arguing with monistic materialists.)
"What are the security implications for this?" does a similar thing. People don't like it and eventually you either take the hint or people stop inviting you to meetings.

On the positive note, it works in so far as once it's said, the folks in charge can't hide under the blanket of ignorance. But it doesn't work in that it you're seen as the problem rather than asking "why the heck do we keep suggesting illegal things"?
Sure but a mindset that is dominant enough to influence the direction of research can reasonably be expected to persist - even though there's turnover in the field.
A cheatsheet?

https://aqua.org/stories/2023-09-27-mistaken-identities-frog...
Childcare essentially can't go down in price. The vast majority of the cost is labor and their average salaries are shockingly close to minimum wages. Adult:child ratios aren't changing either.

The only thing reducing the number of children needing daycare can really do is reduce the number of adults employed.
> There aren’t really any ways to make 1 adult caring for 4 babies more efficient.

By definition, efficiency is going down, if real costs are going up, though... That's the problem.
Interesting. Never heard about this. Did an MD do this treatment? If yes, in which country?
Maybe it's similar to Tinder. In the past you got a few local applicants and you made your pick, but now you get hundred of applicants, so you narrow your requirements while probably filtering out good matches, just like girls who filter on 6 feet tall and six figures.
Aaaaaaaaaa.org is possibly the worst domain name I've ever encountered in all my time using the internet. I support your mission but you need to change that.
What exactly do you think a CDN is?
For a long time I thought they were a cloud IDE "with steroids" to "justify", but I never bought the idea that a webapp would ever be better for professional swe. For that use case, I don't see a valuable thing in a browser environment that can't be delivered in a desktop env.
I never really understood this “exceptions are non-local” stuff. They are basically the same as the sum-typed approach, with sane defaults. They are just “early” returns, that go to the callee, and either go to a local handler logic, or just early return from there as well.

As for sum types, it is definitely not good practice, but I would say that if you fail to handle an error condition close to its source, and it managed to get to some “global” scope, determining where it originates is very hard. Similar to that illegal database row that somehow managed to get entered, resulting in a difficult investigation.
It's not a good idea to take Miguel's criticism of .NET seriously in the last couple of years, after the falling out. Give it more years and we might just hear the similar style of statements towards Swift and Apple's ecosystem now that he is promoting it.

The only thing it does is spreading the FUD further.

(I knew it was him even before opening the link, as he's the only source of vocal publicity of this kind)
I asked chatgpt for a headline based on your prompt and it gave me this:

HaystackDB: Swift Searches, Massive Savings - Index Billions, Store Smartly, Query in a Flash!”
How the coupon was invented, and how tech propels marketing
> I suppose one could condense the video to only show the ends of those segments and just talk out-loud about the concrete thought that has coalesced at the end of it and the actions that are now being taken.

I like that idea.
> we’re focusing on one such technique – pixelation – and will show you why it’s a no-good, bad, insecure, surefire way to get your sensitive data leaked.

It isn't, you just use random generated text instead of the actual one, so you get the aesthetic benefit (black bars are ugly) without the leak

(though there is still the issue of leaking length, which might be important for named, e.g. there are only 10 generals, and only one had a very long name, so redacted you still get to guess who that person is, would need to break the formatting of the original to hide that)
They're probably including equity, not just cash. Equity can be worth significantly more than the base pay at higher levels.
Pensions insure longevity risk, as you say, but people can create their own pensions to supplement Social Security by using their 401(k) funds at retirement to buy immediate annuities that offer monthly payments for life. Few do.
I feel its the complete opposite. Playing video games for hours makes me generally incapable of deep thinking. Btw the same happens after hours-long coding sessions.
You are correct. Font character-width analysis + NLP = Exposure
Great. The super rich can and should donate their after tax money to the charities of their choosing. The rest of us should work on creating efficient and effective government programs so that tax dollars go to where we vote them to.

I'm curious but why do you think you're not qualified to say the rich shouldn't pay more, but still feel qualified to say these programs are diversions that won't do any good?
Who hired the engineer? It seems like they failed to make a successful hire, but that happens sometimes.

>but I kind of want to have a conversation about how they code, what they do, what their method and see if it rings true.

I think these are great ideas. What kinds of things were you asking in your interviews?
> The vast majority of the cost is labor and their salaries are shockingly close to minimum wage on average.

But minimum wage is down substantially in real terms. So why are costs up substantially in real terms?
The Business of Breaks: Time Off Report 2024
A cabal of motivated users burying a story isn't analogous to an employed staff of a restaurant refusing to serve anything but what's on the menu.
The article is paywalled so I can’t read more than the intro. Personally, I think there are several factors in child care getting more expensive.

For one, parent’s expectations are higher. It’s really hard to take care of many kids at once, and if the ratio of workers to children at a childcare center is too high, some kids end up being ignored or neglected rather than being actively taken care of. Parents are more sensitive to that now.

Another factor is urbanization - there are more people living in places with high cost of living, and the childcare businesses simply have more expenses. It’s also difficult to have a lot of consumer choice in these areas. In a suburban or rural area, sure you can easily drive to a childcare business that’s further away. But in a city that travel can take away several hours a week (even if by car) and so you have to go with whatever is located near you. If you rely on transit, forget it - lugging a child and their essentials (think car seat, stroller, diaper bags, etc) is incredibly difficult.

Another issue is different social habits and increasing isolation. People don’t live in multi generation homes anymore, so there are no grandparents to rely on. And since the economy is increasingly concentrated in cities, people move away from family for jobs. And people are less willing to inconvenience friends by asking for help watching their kids, even though this was normal only a couple decades back. So the reliance on paid care is much higher now.

Finally, we’ve normalized dual income families. Increasing the supply of workers this way hasn’t helped us - since obviously supply of labor pushes down wages and in the end you don’t come out ahead. But it does mean there isn’t someone at home to take care of the kids.

I don’t think there is a great fix. On the one hand you could subsidize child care heavily in order to ensure a thriving population, but I also think there is truth to the financial cost being a good filter for those who are in a good position to be a parent and those who aren’t. This doesn’t stop people in a bad position from having kids though, so the question is if it is fair to take away from some parents (through taxes) to help other parents’ kids instead? I think that’s a difficult thing for people to accept.
the linked viral video isn't transphobic.

i don't find the "people behaving badly" video genre a classy form of entertainment, but that's all it is.

i suspect the meme status of it is especially relevant due to the global social context of this art - it may be a statement along the lines of "the best reality show is americans".
Yeah I saw your other comment and was curious. If it was purely pensioners seeking higher returns wouldn't those be getting circulated back into the economy, driving costs down? It seems counterintuitive to me that there's a big cohort of older US-ians who are profiting more from every sector, but simultaneously not creating massive competitive pressure and driving down prices/up quality. Not doubting that ex. PE acquisitions are driven by pensions, but just curious how the whole dynamic plays out on a macro scale.
Taxing the super-rich might be admirable from a jealousy point of view. But I do not think it will change any government spending capacity.

Some numbers for the US.

The richest 400 people owned a total of 4.5 Trillion USD in 2023 [0].

The US federal spending in 2022 was 6.3 T [1]. The CBO projects a federal budget deficit of $1.6 T for 2024. Beware this is only federal level, not including spending and debt of individual states.

Government budgets are mind boggling.

Even taking all the assets of the richest people in the world (meaning nationalizing most companies) would only temporarily make a noticeable dent in government spending. Taxing them will make no difference. For most other countries these taxes will be even less relevant.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2023/10/03/the-202...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Does setting pdfjs.enableScripting to false in about:config protect against this? IMO, permitting PDFs to run Javascript violates the Principle of Least Astonishment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...

Common sense suggests PDFs are the digital equivalent of paper documents. Paper documents can't run Javascript, so PDFs shouldn't either.
Let PostgreSQL Pick an Index for You
https://archive.ph/pHRj9
Which, if we're being honest, is not inherently a bad thing. I know people who worry about how much they lean on the grandparents for help, but then walking it back two generations, that's kinda, sorta how it always was.

It's hard for American's to understand sometimes, but no man is an island, and it's okay to not be fiercely independent and have fuck-you money for everything. Sometimes you're gonna just have to depend on other people to help you.
The wild thing is that even at good preschools, the teachers make less money than a barista or McDonald's worker (especially now that the special fast food $20 MW is active now in California!)

These people literally handle dozens of kids at a time, a super difficult job, and they pay them so little that they could not themselves afford childcare. Do the math: When they have their own kids, they are probably never coming back, since their wages would never be enough to make it make sense to put those kids in care in order to work in a preschool.

So to summarize, the price of childcare is already way too high for people to afford, yet the pay for those who provide that care is an absolute joke, meaning most people have a hard time justifying entering that field, meaning it continues to be difficult to find good childcare, there just aren't enough places.
The exact same way as in case of a checked exception.
They must work for one of these companies. The last 6 months of their post history is a majority of just showing up when an article like this appears and defending PFAS and other types of chemicals or poisons.
None, though I might be swayed if there were something that muted or, failing that, blocked users.

The comments section has become more cluttered and quippy than I'd prefer. This is likely due to the influx of users from the decline of Reddit.

I've started developing my own ad-hoc browser extension that adds a "hide user" link next to each commenter, but it's not yet in a minimum-viable state.
If you have the paid version of Acrobat, the built-in redact tool is pretty nice. It lets you just highlight the text you want gone, but it will properly remove that text and the image.
> In the middle of this testing, Johnson suddenly announced that he would be taking early retirement. [...] Johnson had always guided her research, and he hadn’t told Hansen what she should do next.

Though it's implied that Johnson's leaving is connected to the PFOS revelation, I don't see the article indicating whether Johnson had told Hansen anything more about it.

(Such as discussions behind closed doors, ultimatums, his own disillusionment/despair, etc.)
You are correct.

With regard to toxicity, PFAS is a term so broad that it is meaningless. It covers everything from Teflon (which is
perhaps the most chemically inert substance ever created) fluorine-containing acids like PFOA, which are water soluble and bioavailable, and tend to accumulate in the environment.

Because of this, you'll see all sorts of silly claims on every thread related to this topic, claiming that (for example) fry pans are toxic. This is silly, and driven by a poor understanding of chemistry, as well as some unfortunate hack scientists who continue to promote the idea that "alkyl-fluorine-containing = toxic", which isn't supported by evidence.

You can see this hyperbole in the sibling comment, where the quote "man-made compounds from household products didn’t belong in the human body" is asserted as some kind of fact. Even if you're predisposed to believe this (extremely general) statement is true, this isn't a claim that you can really defend with an evidence-based argument.
I agree so hard with all this, but especially the file management. I dread having to share a file between applications (you draw/edit in one app, use the image in another). So many times I just can't find the file I saved/downloaded; it's not in "Recents", not in the iCloud app folder, the search is useless. Sometimes the Share button->Save File doesn't do anything.

I still don't want to pick up my laptop after work, I just want real file manager.
That's true and easy to forget -- at the time, YouTube offered far and above the best experience for content creators and uploaders. And their end-user experience (the flash-based player) was miles ahead of the competition.
The problem with all of these rules of thumb is that they're vague to the point of being vacuously true. Of course we all agree that "premature optimization is the root of all evil" as Knuth once said, but the saying itself is basically a tautology: if something is "premature", that already means it's wrong to do it.

I'll be more impressed when I see specific advice about what kinds of "optimizations" are premature. Or, to address your reply specifically, what counts as "doing something dumb" vs. what is a "micro-optimization". And, the truth is, you can't really answer those questions without a specific project and programming language in mind.

But, what I do end up seeing across domains and programming languages is that people sacrifice efficiency (which is objective and measurable, even if "micro") for a vague idea of what they consider to be "readable" (today--ask them again in six months). What I'm specifically thinking of is people writing in programming languages with eager collection types that have `map`, `filter`, etc methods, and they'll chain four or five of them together because it's "more readable" than a for-loop. The difference in readability is absolutely negligible to any programmer, but they choose to make four extra heap-allocated, temporary, arrays/lists and iterate over the N elements four or five times instead of once because it looks slightly more elegant (and I agree that it does). Is it a "micro-optimization" to just opt for the for-loop so that I don't have to benchmark how shitty the performance is in the future when we're iterating over more elements than we thought we'd ever need to? Or is it not doing something dumb? To me, it seems ridiculous to intentionally choose a sub-optimal solution when the optimal one is just as easy to write and 99% (or more) as easy to read/understand.
Influencer Cartels
I think HOTT helps remove a lot of the footguns and computational hairiness around using type-theoretic mathematics. But the issues Buzzard is talking about are really more profound than that.
This relates to a much deeper (but familiar and nontechnical) philosophical problem: you assign a symbol to a thing, and read two sentences that refer to the same symbol ("up to isomorphism"), but not necessarily the same thing. If the sentences contradict each other, is it because they disagree on the meaning of the symbol, or do they disagree on the essence of the thing? There is a strong argument that most debates about free will and consciousness are really about what poorly-understood thing(s) we are assigning to the symbol. Worse, this makes such debates ripe for bad faith, where flaws in an argument are defended by implicitly changing the meaning of the symbol.

In the context of """simple""" mathematics, preverbal toddlers and chimpanzees clearly have an innate understanding of quantity and order. It's only after children fully develop this innate understanding that there's any point in teaching them "one," "two," "three," and thereby giving them the tools for handling larger numbers. I don't think it makes sense to say that toddlers understand the Peano axioms. Rather, Peano formulated the axioms based on his own (highly sophisticated) innate understanding of number. But given he spent decades of pondering the topic, it seems like Peano's abstract conception of "number" became different from (say) Kronecker's, or other constructivists/etc. Simply slapping the word "integer" on two different concepts and pointing out that they coincide for quantities we can comprehend doesn't actually do anything by itself to address the discrepancy in concept revealed by Peano allowing unbounded integers and Kronecker's skepticism. (The best argument against constructivism is essentially sociological and pragmatic, not "mathematically rational.")

Zooming out a bit, I suspect we (scientifically-informed laypeople + many scientists) badly misunderstand the link between language and human cognition. It seems more likely to me that we have extremely advanced chimpanzee brains that make all sorts of sophisticated chimpanzee deductions, including the extremely difficult question of "what is a number?", but to be shared (and critically investigated) these deductions have to be squished into language, as a woefully insufficient compromise. And I think a lot of philosophical - and metamathematical - confusion can be understood as a discrepancy between our chimpanzee brains having a largely rigorous understanding of something, but running into limits with our Broca's and Wernicke's areas, limits which may or may not be fixed by "technological development" in human language. (Don't even get me started on GPT...)
Hard to defend because once your model is out there other companies can train on its output.