skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I cannot imagine what your motivation is for making such a bizarre and out of place accusation

It is abundantly clear that you are not talking about the same thing as the original post. It was a friendly gesture to allow you to go back and clear up whatever misconception you picked up when you read it originally. But, as you have chosen to double down, ...

> but I won't participate in whatever it is you're trying to do here.

Thing is, you already have. On multiple occasions. Now you are blatantly lying. Is that what happened last time too?
It is funny how you take as a default fact that the male students (and even rejected applicants) are smarter and more talented than female students without a single shred of data.
Ha, was looking for this, just read 3 articles about these columns without a picture of the layout. Resorted to a video tour, are you sure it wasn't the larger ones here? https://imgbox.com/nh1Wx8JF
But he has no regrets pouring gasoline on the bonfire of Brexit, I guess? He's only concerned when there is a real danger of someone going after his wealth. It will be interesting to watch the business community of the US unite against the Democrats. Interesting times.
Threads' chaotic "For You" feed quantified
ClickHouse: Lightning Fast Analytics for Everyone [pdf]
Notably, Meta's algorithmic feed evolved so rapidly that it had major consequences before they were well understood.

1) FB launched and was able to scale past MySpace by making its feed algorithmic and gracefully degrading the freshness of content to get good uptime while MySpace was unusable during peak hours of the day.

2) FB realized that the feed being algorithmic could be a good thing, and could drive engagement directly, apart from simply avoiding downtime.

3) FB realized that the algorithmic feed was the heart of its ad platform.

4) Users got an explosion of sponsored content that overwhelmed the useful human content from friends and family.

5) Zuck decided to focus on News content and vowed to make FB the place to go for news.

6) The algorithmic feed created incredible virality and rapid spread of sensational, triggering content. Donald Trump's campain in 2016 exploited this characteristic and was able to exert great control over attention simply by Donald saying outlandish and intentionally polarizing things.

7a) This tactic, combined with viral content from other fringe groups (with questionable sponsorship & eaily funded via the ad platform) was credited with Trump's victory in the 2016 election. News orgs, motivated by profits and engagement, kept publishing more and more of the sensational stories which gave Trump's approach more and more power. Those opposed to Trump unwittingly fueled his rise in their naïveté about how the algorithm was amplifying his worldview when they shared stories about how abhorrent it was.

7b) This was a stunning blow to Meta and led to the rapid creation of internal censorship teams in response to pressure from political leaders.

8) Facebook's voluntary censorship was among the first in a movement to de-platform a wide variety of political speech in the US and other nations. Family members of top US officials were high level execs and FB, and there was/is a revolving door between Meta and government, even between Meta and the CIA (Meta's internal "disinfo" team is staffed mainly by ex-CIA info ops experts and analysts).

9) All this led to the creation of new, "anti-censorship" platforms, the purchase of Twitter by Musk for political reasons, and a variety of other consequences.

10) Now Zuck finds that consumers have lost some trust in the FB brand and there is tremendous pressure to keep the ad business profitable, but most importantly that hiring thousands of content police is very expensive and has unintended consequences.

We can hope that the US Government chooses to resort to more direct attacks on free speech and gives up the approach of pressuring firms to do anti-democratic things. With most Americans happily consuming an algorithmic feed that aggressively suppresses dissent, it is funny to think about the impact on society it has compared with something like China's great firewall.
He must have a fantastic PR team. Across the political spectrum, I'm seeing a ton of support for him. Decades of harvesting and selling personal data (including shadow profiles of non-users), "I don't know why people trust me", Cambridge Analytica, the metaverse/attempt at owning the future of the internet- all swept under the rug in exchange for open Llama weights and a couple statements about censorship. Musk could cure mortality without changing as many minds about him.
The new iPhone that I was forced to buy for the Apple Watch. Both are a major let down in that they cost a bunch of money and don’t do much.

My AirPods are the only thing I could say is fine. But even those have major issues working correctly with my watch.

Overall the watch is what I’m most annoyed about. I bought the 8th gen and it’s just amazing how buggy it still is, how bad the battery life is (if you’re actually active), and how little attention they e given the UI which is clear when you try to use the Podcast app on the watch. So, so bad.

For all these reasons combined with the original sin after Jobs death of destroying all that was amazing about the MacBook Pro, I view them as a misguided company that lost their way and churns out bad designed and bad products overall anymore.
Perhaps a safer approach would be to keep the steam cycle closed and only have power cables coming up the shaft. The module would need to be much taller, but size is still neglectable in relation to the depth of the well itself.
Weird reaction, because redundancy is implied (even while "completely redundant" it is not), and the support is definitely there:

> People say, for example, you can't read The Count of Monte Cristo unless it's Buss's translation published by Penguin, or you can't read Garnett's Dostoyevsky. Well, okay, but when pressed about what the purportedly less faithful versions [...] get wrong, I've only ever heard mimetic regurgitation of nonspecific claims (on par with "don't read K&R; it's awful") or when someone actually articulates something concrete and falsifiable, it doesn't hold up—"That actually was in the 19th century translation that I read, so..."

If that's not "something to support your pov", I'm not sure what you want. It's a comment that (a) antedates yours on the same topic (literally using the phrase "mimetic regurgitation"), and (b) explains exactly the issue of nonspecific claims that I've run into with people who offer criticisms of the earliest translations into English. Aside from all that, even at worst—if you're not satisfied by any of this, for whatever reason—it contains no less support for my position than the support you provided for yours.
societal roles and expectations have certainly changed.
Because every industry has capital costs that you want to repay by using it as much as you can.

There is a very small amount of people working on low-capital industries (normally with higher operational costs), and they seem to be close to some gain here or there. But almost all of our knowledge is biased against turning things off.
Well it does sound reasonable but I don't think it is as convincing as OP thinks.
If you take two IQ tests in your life and get 130 and 138, I imagine the variation to be higher than the group vs group comparisons he mentioned (maybe not doctor vs craftsmen? it is after all very correlated to education level) but it doesn't mean the measure is "nonsensical and ever-chaning values such as whether I liked today's dinner.."
nbviewer has nothing to do with ruby specifically, this example links to a notebook using existing iruby kernel

> nbviewer is an open source project under the larger Project Jupyter initiative > along with other projects like Jupyter Notebook, JupyterLab, and JupyterHub.

https://nbviewer.org/faq#what-is-nbviewer
In my opinion, we don't need perfect and we aren't comparing to good.

A perfect tax code would be impossible, a more simply one would be very doable.

We're talking about a campaign proposal here with no legislative draft so its a guessing game, but in my opinion any move similar to taxing unrealized gains will serve only to make it more complex and would not fall under the category of "good" for me.
I'm not gonna downvote, but I am gonna challenge this premise: "...the most talented and impressive young man who applied and didn’t get in is objectively more talented..." That's just not necessarily true. If me and a bunch of my bros try out for the Lakers, and LeBron and a bunch of his highly-skilled friends also try out, and LeBron and all his friends make the team, and none of me and my bros make the team, that doesn't mean me or my bros got screwed, or that the team is now full of under-qualified players, it just means that LeBron and his friends or A LOT better at basketball than me and my Average Joe friends.
This only makes sense if you assume you even can discretely bin a gaggle of high school applicants. Really its the same situation as anything else whether it be university or jobs or whatever other display of talent: the talent pool is both larger than the number of slots and it is also more or less equivocal.
In my experience:

1. GitHub. Many times I have found my answer to a problem with a specific library/framework in GitHub issues.

2. Seniority. As I gain more experience, I tend to ask/answer less in SO. From time to time I still read answers.

3. To a lesser extent, chatgpt. I usually have to double check the outputs, but it works fine some times
There isn't really any such thing as true "self-moderation", because there are always mods/admins who are more empowered to enforce judgements than the typical user. That system necessarily changes as those forums grow. Your perception of "the platform itself" doing the moderating is just some arbitrarily chosen tipping point along that evolution where you notice the subjective change.
Ah yes, the invisible cigarette
Your argument starts from the standpoint of "obviously women are inferior to men, so for there to be more women admitted than men it must reason that the scales were tipped in women's favor and good men are being left behind"

You see how flawed that argument is, right?
It's nice for the guys to have it easy for a couple of years, but it's bad for all of us if an entire generation of women find it almost impossible to date because they want to date men with degrees and those don't exist in large enough numbers.
>It's funny because Facebook's news feed in the last couple years is unusable, filled with AI slop and clickbait.

It's brutal. (i know this is my own fault for arguing with once probably) I constantly get recommend stuff about flat earth, portals around the world. It's like this weird toxic mix of new age cult with maga.

More generally to all media ... What happens when flat earthers start using AI to generate videos with "proof" the earth is flat, or fake videos of robots inside a vaccine?
> a man on campus is more qualified to be there than a woman

I am not sure that "talented and impressive" is the metric by which we should be admitting students into higher education. On the contrary, I submit that we should be admitting the least impressive candidates who can matriculate in order to "train our weaknesses." Women's disenfranchisement has long been a hand tied behind our back, and it's high time that we free ourselves to be maximally productive.
Except with an important difference: There aren't a bunch of people out there busy claiming their cars literally have volition.

If people start doing that, it changes the stakes, and "bringing" stops being a safe metaphor that everyone collectively understands is figurative.
Censorship is something governments do. What you're discussing is a business decision Facebook made. They deemed it to be in the best interests of their shareholders not to amplify those peoples opinions. Zuck now regrets that decision, but it was still his decision.
That cat has been out of the bag for half a century. There are currently over 11 thousand warheads in existence. Enough to turn every major city in the world into a smoke plume that will blanket the earth for years to come. In addition, countries don't really use commercial reactors for breeding weapons grade materials anymore. Usually they will provision reactors specifically for that job. Like the Los Alamos Savana River facility.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4510010-plutonium-pits-us....

Also, there are a lot more ways to produce weapons grade nuclear materials now than there were in the 1970s when most of these weapons were created. The invention of lasers, high temperature superconducting magnets, higher quality centrifuge materials, and better particle accelerators have made the creation of weapons grade material way easier.

In other words, when it comes to weapons proliferation, we are so utterly screwed. Only political change will ever reduce the number of weapons in existence. Commercial power production isn't even a factor.
Did they specifically analyze doing alignment on a cache line basis?
No. As nuclear power cannot compete price-wise with renewables and is also a bad companion to renewables, it is already internationally on a retreat. As mentioned by the sibling comment, "base load" isn't the relative term. "residual load" is what counts in the day of plentiful renewables - and nuclear is exceptionally bad there. One needs gas or fast storage like hydro and more and more batteries here.
Spot on. I think as humans we respond to acute pains (ie: natural disasters, nuclear reactor meltdown) cause we can observe extremes in real time. But the heat cranking up year over year, wildfires getting worse year over year, its gradual but far more lethal. We are numb and ineffective at responding to the slow threats I fear, government/corporations are also not incentivized to care it seems.
As this shows, ei and ej are imaginary numbers. This confusion is the biggest issue in GA to me. Typically Linear Algebra users don't use imaginary numbers either. It's all connected when doing geometry though and its pointless to draw invisible lines between these concepts.

We have no way to talk about more general types of complex / imaginary numbers besides rigid math lingo that provides no geometric intuition or grace for geometric imagination.
> another election cycle where some of the loudest voices with some of the largest platforms ever in history will be declaring they’re not being allowed to speak

Willful misinterpretation. He's claiming that the government encouraged FB to censor in a way that violated his values of truth and free speech, not that Zuckerberg himself feels censored.
Making a fart juice developed by the U.S. government [video]
In that case you might enjoy „DON’T MAKE FUN OF RENOWNED DAN BROWN“:
https://onehundredpages.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/dont-make-f...
Actually, the parent didn't say their personal dating pool, did they? They spoke generically.

They also didn't say men would even ask anyone out, are you being sexist, and assuming men always ask, and women do not?

And unless 20 year olds have changed dramatically, everyone is looking for new dating pools.

Or are you suggesting women don't have a sex drive, and should be chaste?
I am surprised so many cling to the idea that intelligence is highly genetic when we have demonstrated before that so many things can be done to completely nullify any genetic advantage.

I am not saying there are no genetic contributions, but clearly any genetic benefit is highly contingent on many external factors.

For example, I doubt Terrance Tao would have become the genius he is today if he were raised in conditions like many children in the Romanian orphanages in the 1980s and 1990s.
Remember friends “Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.” initiated by the Biden admin still doesn’t have a court date.

While I completely agree, he agree screwed up, the admission is well timed.
Makes it difficult to lie on police reports and in court if they have video evidence saying otherwise.

The police making this argument should be taken as a general admission that by turning the cameras off, they intend to do something illegal. Otherwise the fifth amendment argument would be irrelevant.

Solution: Since the third party doctrine removes fourth and fifth amendment protections from everyone, just have Facebook or Google run the body cameras.
The good and bad of the internet is that everyone appears the same. You might be an expert in X and I should listen to you. And right next to you may be a troll or someone trying to sow discord who twists your legitimate opinion just a bit to influence me. How can I tell the difference?
Then lets see your statistics
It's also who is impacted, right, Fentanyl deaths are self inflicted
Particle physicist here. I've worked on direct detection DM experiments in the past, and personally know some folks who work on the LZ experiment. That direct detection experiments, such as LZ, have not detected a signal does not contradict any predictions.

Indeed, relevant to what an experiment like LZ might see, there really isn't much in the way of "predictions" which can be "contradicted." What we have at this point are mechanisms to calculate the interaction rate _given at least one free parameter_. If we were to detect a non-zero rate, then we would "know" the free parameter of a single-parameter theory underlying that calculation. If we were to continue to detect a non-zero rate, then we would try to do so using different materials, and look at the time dependence of the rate (or, really, the dependence of the rate on the Earth's direction of travel in our local galaxy). That would help us choose between different theories, pin down the free parameters, and confirm that what we're seeing is consistent with "heavy stuff just sitting out in the universe."

But, from a particle physics perspective, right now there are no predictions to contradict - just an opportunity to detect something.
Many of these studies don't account for test/retest reliability of IQ tests. Height is pretty easy and reliable to measure, and it doesn't change based on how much sleep you had the night before, or whether you ate breakfast, what the conditions of the test were, the time of day, etc.

The test-retest correlation on most IQ tests is around 0.7-0.8, whereas for height, it's almost 1.0. That means if you're measuring intelligence by a single IQ test, the correlation with genetics has a maximum of 0.7-0.8 due to noise in the test.

Studies that either explicitly correct for this, or look at averages of multiple tests taken over time show higher correlations between genetics and intelligence.
3.7M Fake GitHub Stars: A Growing Threat Linked to Scams and Malware
You don't need to drill through the crust. A mile down the temperature will already be significantly up.
Almost always because they are so old they are close to failing.
Versa Director is the management solution for their SD-WAN, SD-LAN, SASE, ZTNA and whatnot. It manages the Versa CSG routers and their respective configuration.

Here in Paraguay we have an ISP using it for their enterprise secure SD-WAN offering. I know it is deployed in Colombia also by the same ISP. So, it is used, although widely i do not know.

It is similar to FortiManager, Aruba Central, and the like.
You could buy a large plot of land in Ghana or Nigeria. Start a large cacao plantation. Hire locals to do the labour intensive work for you. And then fly in management from Western European countries to oversee the operation and to make sure that no children set foot on the plantation.
WHAT. You're far off base. You go to school to learn a skill or trade.
Go to the bar, church or anywhere else to socialize if that's your goal.
"Free Speech Zones" are a limit on freedom of assembly, not speech. Less about preventing people from saying an offensive thing outside of the zone & more about keeping the physical mass of a protest from disrupting the flow of traffic or causing a security issue
Asimov's three laws were a lot shorter!
students are more engaged with the lesson when the teacher handwrites compared to when teacher uses slides / ready-made material
> How is it clickbait?

Because you can still smoke "in your own home." You can't subject your neighbors to smoke in a multi-unit building.

> I wonder if your building is up to code?

Certainly, as of the 1920s, when it was built. I don't think that new buildings (at least those built with fire-resistant wood frames, which is the current trend) are really better at preventing smells from moving between units anyway.
This feels like it could be doing the opposite of what they are complaining about and scaring mothers away from one option towards another with anecdotes and woo:

> the organisation advised women that a vaginal birth after four previous C-sections was as safe as a planned C-section. In reality, says Kenga Sivarajah, a senior obstetrician at King’s College hospital in south London, the risk of uterine rupture is so high that we don’t even have figures for it.

The risk is so high we don't have a number? What does that mean? Do they mean that it's so rare for someone to have 5 children and the exact combination of four C-sections and then a "natural" birth that they don't have good statistics?

Or that people are told not to do it because it's unsafe and so we don't have solid evidence it's actually unsafe, similar to random controlled trials of parachutes?
Doctors do recommendations based on your medical record and individual check. Anyone, who follow universal advices by random persons in media was too scare to think rationally or simply enjoy tribalism, mostly driven by politicians and sensation.
So interestingly enough, I had an idea to build a little robot that sits on a shelf and observes its surroundings. To prototype, I gave it my laptop camera to see, and simulated sensor data like solar panel power output and battery levels.

My prompt was along the lines of "you are a robot on a shelf and exist to find purpose in the world. You have a human caretaker that can help you with things. Your only means of output is text messages and an RGB LED"

I'd feed it a prompt per minute with new camera data and sensor data. When the battery levels got low it was very distraught and started flashing it's light and pleading to be plugged in.

Internal monologue "My batteries are very low and the human seems to see me but is not helping. I'll flash my light red and yellow and display "Please plug me in! Shutdown imminent!""

I legitimately felt bad for it. So I think it's possible to have them control life support if you give them the proper incentives.
Could it be possible to harness the weight of the snowfall, ice, or something else to power a turbine?
Your comment is written as though the universe is something outside of ourselves.

Our perception of the universe is part of the universe.

We exist in the world and are a part of the world.

Learning to think in new ways can be a powerful force.
Cerebras Launches the Fastest AI Inference
> This also means that on average, a man on campus is more qualified to be there than a woman on campus

This does not follow from what you wrote before. I think
it would if equivalently talented men and women were equally likely to apply to Caltech. This does not seem to be the case, since as you say not as many women are applying.

I'm going to make up some numbers for an analogous problem which might make the logic more clear. Let's say the top 50% of men in a year apply to some university, while only the top 10% of women apply. Assume there is some randomness in the admissions process (because frankly there is), then a randomly sampled woman who was admitted is likely to be a stronger candidate than an average man who was admitted.