HN in general has a very strict policy against what "people find interesting":
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
News are like addiction, people don't act in their own best interest, they upvote things that they don't really want to see.
Also "just flag it" is not "wasting moderator's time", but the recommended procedure:
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
Well, that means hardly anything. Is up to us, and the moderators, to choose what we want HN it to. I find politics interesting, and often are pretty much on topic, e.g. politics related to protecting personal information. But often are not, and full of ad hominem "arguments"
From my POV, there is no doubt HN is getting more and more involved in politics and more and more polarized, which IMHO is not good. But I'm just one of many users... if it keeps going that way, I may have to leave. Is ok. In the meantime I will keep giving my opinion, as that is the very least what I expect from such a site: to be able to give an opinion (respectfully) without being instantly attacked, verbally or downvoted to oblivion. As can be seen in this case, we are reaching the point where that is not possible anymore... Let's see if the honest people or the trolls win the "battle".
It doesn't mean hardly anything, it means exactly what I said. The guidelines are not strict. They are loose guidelines. That's not an attack on them, it's just an observable fact. The guidelines say one thing, but the users vote for another.
Nah. Goodhart's law is literally just "if you play a matrix game don't announce your pick in advance". It is not a real law, or not different from common sense. (By matrix game I mean what wiki calls "Normal form game[0]", e.g. rock-paper-scissors or prisoner's dilemma.)
In education, regarding exams, Goodhart's law just means that you should randomize your test questions instead of telling the students the questions before the exam. Have a wide set of questions, randomize them. The only way for students to pass is to learn the material.
A randomized standardized test is not more susceptible to Goodhart's law than a randomized personal test. The latter however has many additional problems.
That's not even remotely true. A randomized standardized test will still have some domain that it chooses its questions from and that domain will be perfectly susceptible to Goodhart's Law. It is already the case that no one is literally teaching "On the SAT you're going to get this problem about triangle similarity and the answer is C." When a fresh batch of students sits down in front of some year's SATs the test is still effectively "randomized" relative to the education they received. But that randomization is relative to a rigid standardized curriculum and the teaching was absolutely Goodhart'd relative to that curriculum.
"The only way for students to pass is to learn the material."
Part of Goodhart's law in this context is precisely that it overdetermines "the material" and there is no way around this.
I wish Goodhart's law was as easy to dodge as you think it is, but it isn't.
I do not believe schooling is purely an exercise in knowledge transfer, especially grade school.
School needs to provide opportunities to practice applying important skills like empathy, tenacity, self-regulation, creativity, patience, collaboration, critical thinking, and others that cannot be assessed using a multiple choice quiz taken in silence. When funding is tied to performance on trivia, all of the above suffers.
It could've solved the task instead of being wrong and spitting nonsense tho.
This is orthogonal to the style, still, if it realizes that it can use Python's arbitrary precision integers instead of floats then the problem becomes absolutely trivial. Fast, and numerically stable.
Was present, so what? It was 1 in 1 million, now it's 999999999 in 1 million. It is perfectly valid getting really tired of it, in fact, this is exactly what "getting really tired of" means and has always meant.
I don't know if they used such a method, but it is possible to provide a proof for the key before it is actually useful.
E.g. everyone provides a hash for their key first, and the actual key a some seconds later, when all the hashes for the keys have arrived. Someone is 'cheating' by claiming key loss if s/he claims the s/he lost the key during that few seconds.
A lot of people say that lightweight desktops/distros help. Probably GNOME/KDE unnecessarily use your SSD, network, GPU and other resources even when you are idle, compared to using a minimal WM and only starting the daemons you actually need.
I personally never tested it, and I can't find definite benchmarks that confirm and measure the waste.
Let T^S = {f| f:S->T} be all functions from a source set S to a target structure (set + operations + relations + axioms) T.
You can lift all the operations and relations from T to T^S, and you'll get a structure with the same type signature.
Universal equations involving operations remain true when lifted. Therefore if T is a variety[0], T^S is a variety of the same type.
So for example if S a set with 2 elements, then T^S is TxT + lifted properties. If T is an Abelian group then TxT is also an Abelian group. If T is a ring, TxT is also a ring. If T is a field, TxT is not a field since (0,1) has no inverse.
What about the relations, what types of identities remain true when lifted form T to T^S?
HN in general has a very strict policy against what "people find interesting":
News are like addiction, people don't act in their own best interest, they upvote things that they don't really want to see.Also "just flag it" is not "wasting moderator's time", but the recommended procedure:
reply