517 karma · joined July 6, 2020
> This page shows stories whose rank on the Hacker News front page is significantly lower than their raw rank, indicating that they have been penalized by Hacker News moderators.
But flags, the anti-flamewar algorithm, and other automatic adjustments that aren't moderator actions may definitely be contributing.
Invokes several ideas: the Keynesian beauty contests and self-resolving prediction markets, and the Bayesian truth serum.
As a recommender system, I like the idea of a system where you gain some sort of credit (points, reputation, etc.) for upvoting something that eventually becomes popular before it becomes popular.
I see a huge variety of topics and languages. I think one problem is that most markets are going to have very little participation. Maybe starting with a filtered selection of already popular or trending-popular videos.
EDIT: with the exception of doing IO on a freshly allocated, in-memory buffer that doesn't escape the function call.
https://jonathanwarden.com/implicit-currying-and-folded-appl...
I think sometimes people are so certain about their beliefs that they perceive any argument that challenges them to be evil, bad faith trickery. But I think the best way to respond to these arguments is simply to give compelling reasons why they are wrong (and not why the person giving them is bad).
Otherwise, some people will be mislead by these bad arguments and you will have done nothing to help but say “don’t listen to him he’s evil”, which is not very convincing really.
Promoting truth and opposing lies are the same thing.
But the title of this HN post is extremely misleading. What happened is that OpenAI rewrote the mission statement, reducing it from 63 words to 13. One of the 50 words they deleted happens to be "safely".
However capitalism is perfectly compatible with a progressives taxation system such that the rich get richer at a lesser rate than the poor get richer.
But for other functions, even that won't be possible.
The point is that functions and arrays may be practically different. You can always do an `==` test on the contents of two arrays, but you can't do the same for two arbitrary functions.
People who consume a lot of news tend to have very shallow understanding of a broad range of current events. Worse they tend to be passive receivers of news instead of active seekers of information with intent to understand the world.
As a result, they are very susceptible to manipulation through selection of what makes the news they tend to consume. They become passive pawns in political power struggles.
Arrays and functions may be mathematically equivalent but on a programming language level they are practically different.
It sounds like his professional life or personal interests naturally being him in contact with a social circle that isn’t fulfilling socially. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with him.
I say, look outward! Intentionally get involved with other social circles.
Just x% | % wealth held | × poorest half
---------+---------------+----------------
20% | 80% | 4.00x
4.0% | 64% | 3.20x
0.80% | 51% | 2.56x
0.16% | 41% | 2.05x
0.032% | 33% | 1.64xhttps://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/ryckmant/On%20Sense%20and%20R...
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/06/correlation...
I associate the term with Black people, not because of how it sounds, but because I know what it means and know about it's origin among formerly-enslaved Black communities.
I will update the article so it reads like this:
Ten wealthy art patrons each contribute €1,000,000 to the local public art museum.
Total Contributions: 10×€1,000,000=€10,000,000
QF allocates: (10×sqrt(1,000,000))²=€100,000,000
Subsidy: €90,000,000
Ten lower‑income individuals each contribute €100 to replace lead pipes in their neighborhood
Total Contributions: 10×€100=€1,000
QF allocates: (10×sqrt(100))²=€10,000
Subsidy: €9,000.
Here, both groups get their contributions multiplied 10x. But the high-income group gets 10,000x the subsidy.Given the assumption of wealth equality (and other assumptions), the QF paper proves that allocating more money to art maximizes social welfare, because if people contribute more to the art, it means art it has more utility.
But given the reality of wealth inequality, and the theory of diminishing marginal utility of wealth, the wealthy may contribute more to art simply because they can afford it, and because 1,000,000 may not have any more utility to them than 100 has to a very poor person.