skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I know what women are scared of in that area, God damn I'm autistic but not stupid. I'm slightly on the edge as well, that's understandable. What I'm trying to grasp, is how men perceive they're being discriminated against. If you feel like you're being discriminated because women are scared of men at night in a bad lit sketchy area, that's not discrimination, that's just survival instinct, and I have it too, be it some guy walking his dog on a leash or a woman in her fifties walking alone
Yes, I think a lot of Trump voters are just trying to force this to a head so we can reset and shake the bugs out of what is clearly a political system that is going off the rails.
I am always wondering who writes code so badly unaware of concurrency issues, to rely on the GIL. Wondering how many libraries and programs will actually break. But probably the number is way higher than even I imagine.
Trump is transactional. He'll do something for you if you don't something for him. Want an abortion law nationally? Give him corporate tax cuts. Want to fund Ukraine? Give him more deregulation. He's got no political principles. He's anyone's if the price is right. 8 more years of Trump then
They are not. Strive to understand while not vilifying their position. Your inability to do so is why you may be confused by half the country
This is sad to hear. I guess Trump’s values (whatever they might be) resonated more with them than Harris’s progressive liberal values.
> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much, if you can make a strong case and gain the confidence of the electorate.

If this were true it would mean Americans are dumb as rock and don't really care about "boring", technocratic but important decisions like climate change, geopolitical alliances, etc. - and just want a showman to dazzle their softened brains.
I recall some optimization advice to choose a leading dimension that is NOT a power of two, in order to avoid cache set associativity conflicts. Guess it's highly hardware dependent (in particular, that advice was for cpu's not GPU's).
How do you figure that not providing life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant mother and letting her and her baby die is going to protect that unborn life?
What kind of political landscape will democrats come back to in 2028? Doesn’t project 2025 aim to dismantle a lot of the current establishment?
People are tired of competing with 3rd-world wages while having to meet 1st-world expenses—especially in a ChatGPT world. It’s no surprise that shutting the borders and capping the visas is a mildly popular platform—especially when the Democrats (with a few exceptions, like Sanders) abandoned their labor constituencies back in the 90s.
Quest for a deeper theory of fundamental particles hits a curious snag
All the libertarian mumbojumbo about the internet and encryption prove to be wrong. The internet becomes a tool of mass surveillance and misinformation affording the oligarchic takeover and dissolution of democracy and broad based freedoms.
This guy isn’t interested in having a real conversation with you btw
I understand that this appears to make sense for a lot of people but to me a president should... actually be qualified to be a president.

Otherwise, it's as if you had a string of bad CTOs and then decide to hire a gardener with no tech skills as your new CTO.
What about "If things don't go my way, I don't mind starting civil war?"
Yeah. Exactly.
There already are states where abortion is very restricted or illegal. There aren't states where terminating pregnancies is forced
Giorgia Meloni - President of Italy.

Victor Orban - President of Hungary.

The AfD in Germany got a higher percentage of the vote in Thuringen in Germany than any other party. Currently polling higher than any member of the governing coalition nationally.

Geert Wilders - successful in the Netherlands.

Marine Le Pen - possible next president of France.

The Freedom Party of Austria - has been in government.

These parties all sometimes win in Europe.
You are quite plainly lying.

She proposed controls on gouging, which is already codified in even the reddest of red states.
Did you read that link? It has no information other than a vague speculation.
> To let states decide how it should be handled

If that's the case - why are states criminalizing getting an abortion in another state?

Some states decide for all states, that's the sort of thing that has to be decided on a federal level
The result is a combination of all these factors and many others, including racism, misogyny, and a desire to return to a time when groceries were cheap. Next summer, the recession will come as a great surprise to those who expected to be better off under Trump
Kind of? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-wom...
Most people already believed climate change won't be mitigated.
Only if this attracts professional punters. I imagine pros prefer to punt on preductible things like 1000 soccer games they modelled using a million datapoints rather than 1 hard to predict election. A combination of vast predictive data and Kelly Criterion. I imagine the election money was dumb. It may have happen to be right.
The limits of time travel in the face of undefined behavior in C
Lina Khan has been fantastic imo, even for tech. I think she forces companies to compete where we actually want competition, and not let us rely on insane levels of lock in
> The fact is, we were ok that time, it’s gonna be ok this time too.

Trump has always wanted to be a tyrant; he has always wanted to run the country like he runs his businesses -- he says something and it's done, he makes decisions for his own personal benefit, he rewards his friends and punishes his enemies.

In 2016 he wasn't expecting to win and didn't really know what he wanted, so he appointed well-respected people from the Republican establishment. Those people believed in the constitution, the rule of law, the rules-based international order, and so on, and pushed back and refused to obey him when he wanted to act like a tyrant.

This time is different. He knows what he wants: People who will be personally loyal to him. The Republican establishment has been destroyed. The Supreme Court has officially decreed that nearly anything he does is immune from prosecution. He will have a much easier time getting his way this time than he did in 2016.
Do we have any sense of to what extent Russian interference played a part in the outcome?
Something I've been wondering lately is how big of a blind spot I have from being habitually online. Like, I'll read the news, and I'll read political discussions on HN and r/politics and r/conservative and Twitter, and I'll try to get a sense of what everyone is thinking, but unfortunately I don't think that's possible. The posters on these sites all have one thing in common: they're into politics and current events.

Having a chance to talk to more people in meatspace this year, it was a surprise to find out how many people have only a passing interest in politics, but still vote. Like, the average user here probably reads 5+ news articles a day, but there are plenty of people IRL that will read one a month, or maybe just skim a headline. They don't really keep up-to-date with the race. They mostly vote by feel and pragmaticism.

People always talk about "shy" Trump voters, but what makes me more curious are voters that match the description above. If you put someone in a voting booth who isn't interested by news, who do they vote for? I mean, Trump has a lot of surface-level qualities - he's a tall, confident white man who's a successful boss of business and an anti-establishment outsider - and maybe that's enough to capture this demographic.
What sources are you thinking of? Everywhere I looked, I saw "the polls are very close, the result probably won't be so close but we don't know which way it will go". I don't recall seeing anyone outright predicting a very tight result (beyond "here's what happens if there's a tie" articles -- background info rather than prediction).
The border deal was a hail mary 3 years into a presidency. They should have done something about the border years earlier when voters started to complain about it if they wanted to.

It doesn't matter what some economist says the economy is doing. Most people are be unhappy with the economy. That's what matters. Democrats listened to economists instead of voters.

Of course Trump's votes don't understand economics. Why do you think overwhelmingly we see educated people now vote Democrats and non educated people vote for Trump?

Trust us some economist says we're doing a good job was a crappy message. This was an own goal.
what are the most probable policies regarding russia ? since russia and iran are in the same bed i wonder how things are going
> A lot of "tin-foil hat" things seem pretty real.

Yes it's tragically ironic that the people who believe most in outlandish conspiracy theories vote for the people who are openly involved in the most outlandish conspiracies, none of which said conspiracy theorists care about.
That's a silly comparison when even the EU is a mix of by-country/by-population (council/parliament—and even the parliament is weighted toward giving smaller countries more representation)
Congrats Melania!
curbing government spending:

increased taxes, as per evident of the UK government switch to labour

reduce illegal immigration:

shortage of labour for mundane jobs, as evidenced by the UK brexit. We now don't have farmers to do the jobs that we all hate

protection of unborn lives

abortion aided to the protection, so now expect a baby boom crisis. Your daughter gets pregnant, now what? You have to fork the bill of either supporting or child care of others.

economic growth:

You rely on china for everything, when was the last product you looked at that had "made in the usa?

What is there to grow upon? AI/ML? CyberSecurity?
Hispanic and black voters won’t turn out to vote for a woman, regardless of race.

Next time, run a 6’2” white guy with good hair.
A shame to remove the joke in the original title of including the word "just": "Please just stop saying 'just'"
Millions of deaths? Where do you get your numbers from? The bloodiest war in the Middle East, the Syrian Civil War maybe has a million killed... all other conflicts in this area have low two-digit figures. Iraqi campaign, since the very start in 2003 has total killed at around 100k-200k, which, I believe, is the second bloodiest war in that area.

To give this some context: Iran-Iraq war, where US didn't really participate, scored 1m-2m deaths.

And of those killed in the conflicts, overwhelming majority were killed by the locals, in order to further some local ideology, gain some local control etc.

Military, I'd imagine, US may be directly responsible for some couple thousands deaths, maybe dozens of thousands. But that's it. US has absolutely no reason to waste troops and ammo on killing a bunch of nobodies in ME. That furthers no military or political goals. Even if you believe that US is colonial / militaristic or whatever other sticker you like, US is pragmatic in what it's doing. There's just no point in killing many people. It's a waste of resources.

Also, you obviously have never been to ME, and have no clue of what's going on there right now. The idea that Israel is somehow performing genocide is, again, laughable. Yes, they don't care about how many people in Gaza will die. But that's it. They don't care. The Israelis want the deplorables behind the fence to stop launching rockets at them. If that means that the civilians will die behind the fence--so be it. Genocide is when a state kills off everyone belonging to a particular group, no matter what that group does. Israeli military nor police nor any other force has no programs of exterminating Gazans. It's just not useful, there's nothing to be gained from it. And it would've been a huge investment in terms of paying salaries to the force hired to perform the alleged genocide, to organize the logistics around it etc. It's truly bizarre how someone can come up with such b/s ideas and never have a reality check.

The same, I imagine, goes for Saudi Arabia. They don't want the deplorables from Yemen to shoot at their oil drilling installations. They don't care about the lives of the people on the other side of the fence. In fact, they probably don't see them as people at all. But they don't care enough about them to organize a genocide. That's just too expensive, unproductive and wasteful.

As for Iran, you are missing the point: US has interests in the area, that's why they choose to side with this or the other political / social group and support / oppose some groups. They aren't responsible for what those groups want or do. The Iranian revolution happened because people in Iran revolted. Not because US organized it.
And when told that it sounded like something out of "Mein Kampf" Trump's response was that he had never read "Mein Kampf".
Congratulations to Elon Musk. Best $44b spent.
It doesn't need to specifically be Harris or Biden's policies to drag them down. There's very obviously a backlash against some progressive ideology going on, and the democratic party is clearly at least partly beholden to adherents of that ideology. That's why Harris can't give obvious and clear answers to (some) simple policy questions.
That's fundamental to this election mode. Most swing states were within the predicted range, they just happen to all be correlated (which is expected) and swung in the same direction having a huge effect on the electoral college.
Agree 100%. The "am I wrong? no, it's the voters who are wrong!" is a sure sign the next campaign will flop as well.

A large percentage of Americans aren't interested in what the Democratic Party is selling. The party can either stick to their policies and live with these kinds of showing, or take some time to really think about what the American voter is looking for.
> I don't think the policy positions even matter that much.

The tribalism at this point is insane, it’s basically organized religion. You choose your tribe and get assigned a (terrible) religious leader and a list of dogmas you have to subscribe to without getting ostracized. Why should my view on trade be linked to regulations be linked to climate be linked to drugs be linked to criminal justice be linked to refugees be linked to Israel be linked to identity politics be linked to abortion be linked to guns? No idea, but take it or leave it. And the choices of religious leaders? Between someone who lies as readily and confidently as he drinks water and someone who’s a boring ladder climber and <omitted because this is an overwhelmingly one-tribe site>. No thank you.
“Except for day one”
I'm genuinely at a loss as to how that connects to anything I wrote. It's not Harris' gender that was the issue - to the extent that the position I'm taking helped shift the dial. It's the perception that she would continue the policies and forward the ideological perspectives listed above. It doesn't help that she seems extremely disingenuous and politically opportunistic. Trump is of course both these things - but conservatives seem to care less about that, likely because of the redemption narrative built into Christianity. You can be as much of a villain as you like provided you push that button. It's worth noting that Obama and Bill Clinton both pushed their Christianity when campaigning, and that appeal wasn't lost on evangelicals. Progressives, it would be difficult not to admit, are pretty adamantly set against redemption currently.
> Sure, but then shouldn't the universal vitriol cancel itself out somehow?

It does, both sides got about the same amount of votes as you can see.

> It feels much more like the Democrats ignored (or were perceived to have ignored) a lot of substantive issues for a large section of the population.

I don't think so, it doesn't matter how much you try to do for people if you also namecall them at the same time, they will assume you aren't on their side even if your policies are better for them. Vitriol ensures the vote becomes tribal instead of rationally inspecting both sides and picking the better option.
Wow, I knew the comments would be bad. But this is the point where I literally said wow aloud.
> Like when Anna Seltzer's poll came out the left ran with that but largely ignored the +10 poll for Trump that came out shortly after.

My understanding is that they were a less trusted pollster in the first place especially vs Ann's poll.
There’s no bottom, bro.
You did: "The latter is probably true, but why would they say that" The implication of your comment is that politicians shouldn't tell the truth because that offends voters.
I think it’s more about taste being subjective. So if my “better” cake is actually less preferred, then it’s not actually better.

Making an objective statement about subjectivity is kind of silly in the first place. Then losing shows it to be stupid.
Some people definitely think it is.
The only way to curb government spending is to completely eliminate Medicaid and Medicare at this point. If you look at the data there's simply not enough tax revenue to cover those programs with an aging population, and the Republicans were against allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices so I'm not sure they'll give the program any teeth.
That was a long time ago. A decade or so ago Jim Meyering did experiments with a lot of allocators, and subsequently went on a spree removing NULL checks before free() in a lot free software toolchain projects (gcc, gdb, binutils, etc).
Well for one, strawmen are very flammable and fire is bad for unborn life.
How do you feel about cancer cells?
Bthreads: A Simple and Easy Paradigm for Clojure
Or maybe, just maybe, the Democrats (and other similar parties elsewhere) went too crazy and left and did not focus on real issues ordinary people face?
> PlayStation mostly, too

I really don't know much about XBox but this sounds wrong. Wasn't the PS5 the first actually backwards compatible, and only with its immediate predecessor the PS4 (Pro)?
A zygote is not a life? Is bacteria "a life" for you?

You probably meant "human life".
> refused to interview Harris

Why spread misinformation?
No, it isn't. And the fact that you think it is, is the problem.
He ran on a platform that he won the 2020 election, and it was stolen.

How is that not anti-democratic?
It's true for Twitter (I don't use TikTok so I'll take your word for it) but what about Reddit that was very anti-Trump?
Why is everyone else responsible but the people responsible? Not calling out fascism is surely just as problematic.

Do you have any data (except for interpersonal psychology) on whether letting fascism slide or calling it out ultimately makes the situation worse? At what point do you call fascism fascism? When it's too late?
It's pretty hard to define what populism is; it's kind of a "know it when I see it" kind of definition for most commentators.

My best attempt at a definition would be a platform that denies known truths in favour of superficially popular positions. For example, claiming that tariffs don't increase prices, or that legal convictions are lies, or even that solid, established scientific evidence (like vaccines are safe and hugely effective or climate change is real) are untrue.
I think it is naive to attribute this victory to accelerationists. Trump has a very clear mandate and this seems to be what the American people want now.
When you get punched in the face, the first thought is not who else got punched. Of course ppl will vote based on their own recent face punching. "I didn't get punched in the face when the other guy was president"
No we do get it. It’s these modern democrats that are so disconnected from the reality of the American people which is why they lost huge in this election across all racial and demographic lines. Look at NY how does it get that close?

The American people cried that the economy was bad for them and the democrat message was no it’s better than ever.

The American people said why are we sending billions to Ukraine when we need the money here. They were told we were supporting dictatorships. Just look at some of the responses to my comment here.

The American voter was concerned about the huge crime waves in the cities and the biden admin told us crime was good and made up.

The Democrat response to COVId was to shut up and take the vaccine or lose your job.

I’m surprised she didn’t lose more with all the pain biden Harris caused.
I merely pointed out that taxes and inflation are different things and that the respondent said one, where they were replying to the other.

Making it a left or right issue makes no sense given the content of my post was to point out the mismatch in arguments.

EDIT: This post is the same thing fwiw.
Your "analysis" is from someone involved in the Brexit campaign. Of course Cummings is going to say he was amazing at marketing.

Another argument would be that Vote Leave broke campaign spending rules. In countries with legally binding referenda, that would justify rerunning the referendum. But in the UK it was "only advisory".
It's just the standard leftist doublethink of the past decade. Any realistic definition that labels 99% of Republicans as far right would label 95% of Democrats far right too. If their ideas were popular they would have started their own party a decade ago instead of being ground up in the DNC.

They claim "harm reduction" but that's not how just not voting works, 95% is still a super majority and anything you "win" is just tokenism at the end of the day.
This disconnect is, I think, the point.

There are a number of people who feel they're doing pretty shittily right now, no matter what people's metrics say, and "no you're not" is not a particularly constructive response.

I'm not an economist, I have no detailed explanation to offer for this disconnect, but I personally know a number of people outside of tech who are not fiscally irresponsible, but are struggling to reliably keep food on the table without consuming their savings - most frequently because they have some health condition that necessitates costly things, and their pay at work has not kept pace as cost of living increases have happened.

So I have little trouble believing people in similar straits could vote for someone who made bigger swings about "I know you're hurting".
The anti-immigration thing is because the great experiment of mass migration has failed to work for the average person, and the political left have failed to show up with an answer, a policy, a plan -- anything, really. People are voting for candidates who are at least willing to pay lip service to the issue. I don't know how bad it is in the US, but in the rest of the West, it's been a disaster. Overcrowded cities, erosion of quality of life, strained services, competition for housing, suppression of wages, the complete abandonment of on-the-job training, falling tertiary education standards, minority enclaves with values that are fundamentally incompatible with the West... The list goes on.
Very clean. Does it use AI for grammar checking? Which one?
Anything that reminds me that we are living in an environment thin as an eggshell on a grain of sand surrounded by an infinite cold and deadly vacuum, punctuated by hellfires that would evaporate our hole planet if we got to close.

There are so preciously few places like Earth. How I wish more of us cared about it.
Perhaps it's time for you to reflect on the legitimacy of those claims?
GDP is a flawed measure, and that's especially true when you look at the 70% figure in detail. For details see https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/gross-domestic-fraud
India's ambitious lithium dreams have stalled
They are a corporate party, just like the democrats. Supporting secure borders is not far right. Republicans have support of every race, they are not racist despite the media repeating that they are. Trump is very hesitant about getting involved in wars. I see nothing far right about them, maybe they are somewhat nationalistic instead of globalist, but the US is a diverse nation. At the end of the day they are just another corporate party that appealed more to the American people.