Second or third reco for Fluent Python. Also, to be a purist for a moment. Explicit is better than implicit. Use this as a razor to decide all ties in your design.
Without speaking to the content of the post, there should be a special hell for this type of hype followed by a paywall. This tactic is responsible for a great deal of the shittyness of the modern web IMO. I hope it is judged as the low value click bait it is.
There are plenty of authoritarians in the US to conduct warfare against our institutions that are up to speed. We don't need to wait for anyone else overseas to get this party started.
I'm curious why you'd think that. China as a country has many people to start. Some percentage of these people will end up in AI. Assuming people from all countries are roughly equally intelligent, the numbers clearly favor China. Universities over there are quite good, there's a pretty strong "work hard" mentality I see from all our Chinese students. Plenty of Chinese graduating or starting university these days during the AI hype peak. China as a country isn't sleeping on AI either. I think China as an AI hub looks quite promising. Anecdotally, China also retains quite a lot of talent or people go abroad to study and return to China. Compared to some European countries or India that "leak" a lot of talent to the U.S. I think China is quite a bit more stable.
On the hardware side, things tend to be produced there as well.
China definitely "leaks" a lot of talent to American companies - most AI papers that I've seen from respected Western universities include at least one Chinese name.
One challenge for China has been the university enrollment rate. While in Western countries half of each cohort has been going to university for decades, China is not there yet. In 2019, just 17% of Chinese adults have degrees compared to 44% in the US.
So the large Chinese population is offset by its relative lack of access to education, while the US can draw from its own highly educated population in addition to attracting the best and the brightest from the rest of the world, including China.
Because arresting drug dealers is not actually a thing that means that retail will have more customers in downtown SF. There's a legitimate discussion about having downtown areas be economically viable and pretending that if we "just" arrested all the criminals or whatever then things would get fixed is very dismissive of real, actual things that could be improved.
You need customers for retail to exist. People working for SF-based companies don't want to go to the office (you might make an argument it's for crime reasons, but it feels obvious the overriding reason is just wanting to work from home). So retail is suffering. Notice how crime plays at best a second order effect there. Yet every story on HN about this topic is filled with people saying it's crime.
I mean the place is already next to a bunch of houses. I'm imagining that all of those places aren't exactly empty. But of course this thing is built across the street from a Safeway (which feels pretty relevant to the lack of the success to be honest).
It feels just like there are so many more simple narratives here. Like seriously, there's a supermarket that looks larger and has a parking lot just there! Why would people bother crossing a 4-lane highway to go to whole foods? And so you're left with a huge supermarket that is trying to cater purely to foot traffic, outside of a place with that much of it to begin with. It sure feels like hubris meant this site simply did not work.
It just feels like such a stretch to claim that crime is the thing here.
There is neither a highway nor a Safeway nearby. Also, the apartment complex where the WFM is located (the Trinity Place) seems to have ample parking for retail.
are you sure you are looking at the right place? i don't see any Safeway close to 8th and Market and there are plenty of boarded-up abandoned houses on Market and the streets next to it. Also, have you just seen it? It's the stinkiest most repulsive part of town with a bunch of deranged people hanging out nonstop day and night on that corner there.
According to the article, the store was closed due to security concerns. There was no suggestion in the article that it was due to insufficient sales. Are you suggesting the company is lying for some reason?
It’s well documented from last year that Walgreens similarly used crime as their reasoning for closing stores but it didn’t at all hold up to real scrutiny
Walgreens’ CFO has said outright that the crime stuff was overblown , 2 years later [0]
[1] has a breakdown of the arguments for why this stuff doesn’t align with reality (“biased” of course, as it’s a media critique podcast, but I find their arguments convincing. I admit they confirm my priors)
“Safety” and “shoplifting” are of course not the same. And many people here talk about feeling unsafe going there. But people also mention it being empty! And there’s a Safeway across the street.
Companies like making money. Something tells me you don’t close down a massive store if it were making money. “Large supermarket without a parking lot in an area without much foot traffic” just seems like an expensive proposition.
as an amateur hacker news logician and avid rachel maddow watcher I believe it is because the comment is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, fails to note that correlation does not equal causation and also doesnt mention how 40 years ago ronald reagan closed the mental hospitals which meant CA could not enforce laws against pooping in the streets ever again.
I can't speak for other people but I'm not gonna go after you or anything. It's not unreasonable or anything to see freedom as in liberty as contradictory in nature, people say the same thing about the paradox of tolerance or tragedy of the commons. It's one of those things things if you say viewing freedom from a systems perspective is invalid then its the natural conclusion.
I don't really see it as doublethink. There's plenty of
examples were rules make people more free. Our whole system of laws is based on that idea.
I can drive on public roads and get where I want to quickly and safely because we all follow traffic laws. I have greater freedom to travel because there are rules.
I can mostly (well during the day at least, give it up for being a woman) walk around freely and completely defenseless because of the laws about assault, murder, and theft.
Right now we're on a forum where good discussion can be had because the mods will drop the banhammer if you start posting hate. If you know that posting anything about a controversial topic or just being a person who's identity is controversial at the moment will bring out a tidal wave of green accounts hurling insults against, you likely wouldn't post. Would you feel comfortable existing in the public sphere as a trans person if when you tweet you about any topic you got a hundred replies telling you to kill yourself already? Would you want to hang out in an IRC channel where any time you talk someone says, "shut up woman, get back to the kitchen?"
If you believe your right to swing your arm ends where my face begins then whether you think it's right to restrict hate speech or not I think there should at least be some recognition that my position is at least logically consistent because I see hate speech as an act that restricts others' speech.
<< Would you want to hang out in an IRC channel where any time you talk someone says, "shut up woman, get back to the kitchen?"
You, an individual who does not want to see this can set ignore on that someone.
<< logically consistent because I see hate speech as an act that restricts others' speech.
It is consistent if you accept the logic leap made to assume restriction on speech somehow enhances it. Personally, I am not convinced, because I think you confuse safety ( or mental comfort ) with freedom.
Maybe the word freedom has become too overloaded with meaning in English language. Maybe we should use something else:
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Also, as a very practical measure, even if we do assume that hate speech actually does what it is supposed to do ( identify hate and remove hateful content ), do you really think it is smart to hide it from public view? And we did not even touch that 'hate speech' has recently come, not unlike nazis' to mean 'anything I don't like'.
I wrote a largely autonomous agent that seeks and builds data dossiers on everyone you point it at. Then you buy legally encumbered data, genuinely sensitive stuff for fractions of pennies, and you reverse identify the person, unencumbering the majority of the data, because writing privacy laws that don't cripple well intended business is very difficult.
It is not inherently bad. Some of the real life uses are practical and beneficial, but it can also be weaponized.
Just to swim upstream. For http requests and bounded IO I've found asyncio to be straightforward and a game changer. In the context of call an endpoint with a data payload and have the endpoint process it with outbound http calls it is a 10x'er for very little complexity and no external libraries.
