jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> No, that's false. The sole purpose of language is to communicate, and that only requires two people. If two very intelligent youngsters create their own private language, and if the language produces communication, how can that not be called a legitimate use of language?

It's an entirely legitimate use of languages, and both speakers of that language can understand each other. Doesn't mean those two speakers won't disagree on the meanings of certain words. Add a third speaker and the language will develop more nuances.

Yes, language exists to communicate. Like it or not, some attempts at communication will be perceived as correct, and some will not. Assuming you speak or write in an attempt to communicate, and not just to hear yourself talk, you need to care about that perception.

You talk about communication between two people; that's already sufficient to raise this issue. One person may speak or write, and the other person may hear or read, and while the second person's very flexible parsers may correctly interpret meaning, those same parsers will also generate signals like "this person seems quite intelligent" or "this person writes like a lazy teenager on a cell phone". Useful language guides will tell you not just the meanings of words, but also how those words will be perceived by your audience.

When I referred to "consensus", I simply meant this kind of information about perception, scaled up to the entire population of speakers of a language, and made statistical. There's a fuzzy scale from "wrong" to "colloquial" to "dialect" to "variation" to unqualified "correct".

A dictionary that said "there" is a possessive pronoun also written as "their", without commenting on correct and incorrect usage, would not be nearly as useful as a dictionary that does.
To people hoping this will succeed (which I would very much like it to, personally), think about this:

1. Do you patch your socks, shirts, pants, jackets? Do you know regular, passive folks (so not the standard HN overachiever) doing this? I don't know anyone doing this.

2. Do you repair your home appliances? Same thing, I don't really know anyone doing this.

Of course, this being the internet, someone will reply "yes, I do this", but my reply to that: "of course someone does it, but it's not a real market, there isn't any money in this".

Poor people tend to repair their stuff, well off or rich people don't do it because it's a negative status symbol. And poor people can't afford expensive stuff, which this will probably be. Poor people can't afford high up-front costs, even though TCO might be awesome.
When you are working for yourself, practicing, or studying, you always get to take the path of least resistance to some extent, because you get to pick some portion of what you want to do, what challenges to solve vs which to go around, what you want to emphasize. It's only by being stuck with someone else's scope and schedule that you really start to convert theory into skills. It's like how you can think you know something until you have to explain it to someone.

So I'd say I learned the theory, and how to learn, in school and on my own, but actually how to apply all of it to make something someone else wants came from work.

This is a major improvement area I see with people coming out of academia (and was a big one for me) - people think that if a project is tough or not working out, they can just change the scope and solve a different problem. And that telling someone who's paying you why their problem is poorly framed is just as helpful as actually solving something. (This is pretty common on forums too)

Tldr, the skill is working on someone else's terms, which in turn gives rise to all sorts of new technical skills.
Most of your clutch's working fluid is nowhere near any block heater. It is in your clutch master cylinder right above your clutch pedal. It is essentially inside the cabin with you rather than under the hood with the engine. You might have a fluid reservoir under the hood but, warm or cold, that fluid isn't being used unless you have a leak.

As for running temperatures, the standard trick is to reduce airflow across the radiator. Trucks put on "bras" or you can rig up something made of carboard in front of the radiator. Always cardboard because it is soft enough not to damage anything if it gets loose.
Yup. And unlike on Earth, getting self-sustained settlements on Mars to work is actually within the motivations of at least some people with resources - which makes it a perfect way to develop technologies we need on Earth to hedge against catastrophes, but that we otherwise won't develop because it's not immediately profitable.

This alone is a reason to support the space program. The excitement and curiosity it taps into gives us an opportunity to fund science and technologies we need longer-term, that are otherwise unfundable.
- Zbrush has an extensive ecosystem of bushes. There are specific tools for specific jobs, and (not having used Blender at all) I am skeptical Blender successfully replicated these workflows.

- Zbrush has modes that are extremely precise. For example, you can mask off a specific section of the mesh, similar to masking off a portion of an image in Photoshop. Except, in Zbrush, you can do it spatially -- it's not a "mask per triangle", but rather "a mask per pixel". You can literally slice a mesh in half, vertically, screen-wise, then hide one half, do some work on the other, then un-hide. It's an effortless flow that people use all the time.

- Zbrush is most natural to use with a tablet in one hand and a keyboard in the other. That video isn't using a tablet at all. Having a mouse interface just isn't appealing for artists. The reason I bring up this point, is because I can't overstate how natural it feels to use zbrush with a tablet –– you can bring up a "context menu" just by tapping a button on your pen, select a new tool by flicking your wrist slightly, and immediately begin using that tool. It's far more configurable than I'm describing here.

Ultimately, Blender has to serve too many masters. If you have to design a UI that can do anything, it can't do everything well. It must make tradeoffs. And these tradeoffs are reflected as reduced artist productivity, which is why many artists use Zbrush for their professional work – it's a tailored experience specifically for artists.

Now, all that said, I am impressed with what Blender can do. I like that it's open source. But, if you want to go toe-to-toe with the pros, the pros are going to point out exactly why the interfaces just don't cut it. If it takes 20% longer to accomplish X, those small costs add up. But there's also a "step change" that you get from the Zbrush flow that I don't think you'll get with Blender's interface. It's subtle, hard to describe, and honestly something you'd have to invest time in to understand.

Caveat: I've been out of the art world for around five years at this point, so feel free to ignore all of my points. But, I approach this from a gamedev studio mentality: from experience in the industry, I can say that Blender never once came up as a realistic option. It was 3ds max for a long time, then mudbox pioneered the sculpting concept (I remember Aron Zoellner from my first job going on and on about why Mudbox was so cool and a big deal), and then Zbrush totally dominated the scene. There are reasons for this, despite my inability to perfectly articulate them.

Scrub through https://youtu.be/EdEVj39ur-U?t=1545 and watch how effortless everything is. That artist is doing so many operations per second relative to your Blender video that it's hard to overstate just how much more productive they are. (I realize your video was an introductory example for Blender, but it's hard to imagine someone doing in Blender what that person is doing in Zbrush.)
I think he means that a progressive with show disgust if you show them a happy white family with six kids.
> why they can get a list of audio and video input devices without asking to use them first

I don't think they can do this without audio/video permissions (?)
Sucks to hear this :/

We've been using Index (https://tryindex.com) and are pretty happy with them - super lightweight and easy to get started.

Edit: looks like the founders beat me to this thread! Hit em up :)
This is very cool! If you end up writing about what the developer experience on top of Matrix is like I'd also be curious about that.
Ok, we are in violent agreement then. The usual thrust of “TwitFace did this” arguments is a call for regulation.
Fun fact, it's Pete Carter as Michael Jackson https://youtu.be/LCXWF-OEIkc?t=639
Stonebraker was tech advisor starting in 2001 for Addamark/Sensage, which developed a column-oriented/columnar DB for log aggregation/analysis for security/operations. Stonebraker's own C-Store and Vertica came later and were more fully featured. While Sensage's product was integrated into some HP offerings, HP unfortunately (my perspective) chose to buy rival Arcsight and then Vertica.

See discussion and comment from Adam Sah at http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/11/the-commoditization-of-mass... for more context for column-storage and log analysis.

edit: link to article.
"BBC Lab UK tests are now closed"

That is lame. I wanted to see how they got these values.
I think basic income is a really interesting topic, but this analogy is terrible and the article is just babbling nonsense and odd Oculus name dropping.
Cost is more if your purchasing new, but used is a great choice financially. I bought my 2011 TDI Gold 6spd for 13k with 68k miles, it gets like 51mpg highway and 38 mixed. I fill it up once every two and a half weeks.
I think this is the relevant data:

1991: page 9 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf

2011: page 4 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8816806.
The only real constraints are sentences with first non-alpha. I'd try something like:

converted is store for modified text
new paragraph is store for modified sentences
abbreviations is list of common abbreviations (eg,nb,dr...)

paragraph is split by newline '\n'
for each newline in paragraph
/* abbreviation check using '.' seps */
if fullstops in newline greater than one
check newline for abbreviations and replace

/* break down para into newlines by '.' */
split newline into sentences by '.'
for sentence in sentences
if sentence starts with word
replace first letter with upper
else
move to first word, replace with upper
/* build up paragraphs */
append sentence to new paragraph

/* modified text */
append new paragraph to converted
write converted to display

tricky bit is 'abbreviations & dots' [0] & preserving the format. Will fail on names (eg: J.A. Smith)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_abbreviations
Ah, and pklite pro and lzexe from the olden days for winDOwS shit once upon a time.

Though the goal should be generating less code. Link in fewer dependencies, reduce features, DRY up duplicate logic and cut LoC. Also compile with -DNDEBUG -O2 -g- and whatever LTO switches are available for whole program optimization if you're statically linking everything together. Also be sure to include static dependencies of other static dependencies like zlib (-lz), or you'll inevitably end up with missing symbol errors when compiling a final program. LTO cuts out all (most) of the shit that you don't need and attempts to optimize across translation units.

Furthermore a consideration against static linking, on most platforms, if the same shared library is already loaded, it's reused by mmaping it into a process. Not sure that duplicating code is going to reduce memory usage or the IO it takes to load from disk. Giant runtimes like Go, Ruby, Python and fucking Java shouldn't be duplicated N times... That's just wasteful. (I hate any language with an epic runtime or VM that includes the world to do anything.). Libraries should be reserved for the few redundant things that take tons of code to implement and change very little.

If anyone wants to compile a Linux system from scratch, try LFS and hackaround with static linking. It may take patches, extra flags to get what you want.

Hope Static Linux scales, because it's easier to upgrade static programs without dependency hell but the increased memory usage of duplicated code might not be so great of a tradeoff.

Another hack would be to statically compile every system program in each directory together (/sbin/, /bin/, and parts of /usr/bin, etc) into a single executable per directory that is then symlinked to itself to select which "program" to load via argv[0]. It will be one giant exe per directory, but it will be cached basically all the time and with LTO, there won't be much duplication as with N programs compiled separately. This would take a main which dispatches to other renamed original mains and renaming all symbol conflicts across all translation units.

/bin/static
/bin/[ -> /bin/static
/bin/false -> /bin/static
/bin/true -> /bin/static

(Probably want to use hard links also)
True, everything has unintended consequences. Some are worse than others, though. And some unintended consequences can be worse than the current situation, even when the current situation is flawed.

You're falling for the "politician's syllogism": Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. But it's called a syllogism because it's flawed logic. The worse the situation, the more important that we do something that actually helps, not just some random something.
I wonder if malicious plugins are modifying the page and injecting things? I've encountered ones that physically change Google results pages, it looks like the page came from Google but the results are from some scam network.
Before reading the article: In x86 assembly, add ax, bx ; rcr ax, 1 works. I guess technically that is with overflow, but using overflow bits as intended.

EDIT: it's included in the collection of methods in the article as expected.
> It assumes that every book has an equally likely chance of being good.

No it doesn't, it just has to assume that

P(good|obscure) > - P(popular)/(P(popular)-1)

Or, more practically, when P(good|obscure) is just a hair more than P(popular)

Let's say all popular books are good, so

P(good|popular) = 1.

Then we'll say 1/1000 books are popular.

This means P(popular|good) == P(obscure|good) (i.e this is when the number of good books that are popular equals the number of obscure books that are popular.) when P(good|obscure) = 1/999. This true if we assume that P(good|popular) = 1, which is the highest value it can take. If this number is lower than this constraint is reduced, so we can take this as an upper bound of the relationship.

So knowing nothing about the rate of goodness among popular books, we can assume as that there is a huge number of obscure books, and a book is just reasonably more like to be obscure and good, than it is to be popular, the we can confirm that there are more good obscure books.

This constraint is much less demanding than assuming all books are equally likely of being good.
The value of anything as a medium of exchange and store of value always depends entirely on whether or not a critical mass of people want to use it as such. Once you establish that a thing satisfies all the properties of money, or close enough, then the only question is network effect. Even if minor theoretical improvements could be made, it has to be 10-100x better to overcome runaway network effect.

Sea shells and bags of salt were drastically better money than mentally keeping track of favors owed in a small tribe, because we could expand our exchange of favors beyond dunbar's number to cooperate with people we don't intimately know. Gold was much better than sea shells and salt because it's globally scarce and durable. Paper backed by gold was much better than raw gold, namely because it is drastically easier to trade, transport, and fractionalized.

The technical nature of bitcoin isn't special and it can be trivially forked, modified, and a new network started for near zero cost. That's exactly what coins like litecoin and dogecoin did. Copy paste bitcoin code, change the name and some constants, and boom, new money. What makes bitcoin special, and why there can only be one dominant cryptocurrency long term, is network effect. I don't care about litecoin and dogecoin, because barely anyone uses them relative bitcoin. Barely anyone is developing and building on them as a foundational layer. The only reason anyone cares about dogecoin these days is because one eccentric billionaire has a hard on for it, and that's way too small of a bus number to store a significant amount of my wealth in.

The same holds true for any network protocol. I can copy paste libraries for TCP and make modifications that I think will make it far superior to the current form and release it to the world! And nobody except hobbyists will use it because standard TCP has an unassailable network effect. You have to have an extraordinarily compelling reason to change, and even then it will take decades (see IPv4 to v6 transition for example).

The thing about bitcoin, is that it is the first truly digital money. Fiat currencies like the USD have been trying for decades to pretend to be digital, and they'll probably try harder to use blockchains to make it better, but ultimately it's still fundamentally stuck with an analog foundation defended by guns and tight cliques of trusted human gangs, which makes it globally weak relative to bitcoin. That's why bitcoin has a 10-100x advantage over dollars long term. It's natively digital, open, and permissionless from day one.
This is exactly what I am thinking. Its not that I believe I am amazing, I just see so much incompetence around me.
Are most of their employees younger?

"Disclosing that information could only result in neutral or negative outcomes for me. It is not logical for me to behave in such a manner. Do you generally hire people that make illogical decisions?"

If they're asking you for detailed salary information like that the answer to the above question is going to be yes regardless of what they say. Don't accept that kind of abuse of information asymmetry. If they behave that way during the hiring process, imagine how they will behave once you have committed to the job. Find a better place to work IMO.

The government publishes transparent salary information for over 800 types of jobs, segmented by state. http://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm
Whatever causes we claim after the fact for these people's condition, depression has been compatible with a high level of artistic creativity for many, many famous artists (out of laziness, I'll only add Kafka and Foster-Wallace).
I think the implication was more that the substance abuse effected their creative output.
I think, to improve the environment around us, what matters most is our mindset. If the way we think is best suited to the environment we aspire to live in, the environment will change. To reduce the people's dependence on the government, independence as a trait must be promoted. That means convincing people their lives are up to them, and not to wait for the government to do something. You know as well as I do the governments of 2015 are dysfunctional and power hungry enough they're not going to do anything of the sort you're hoping for, even if it earnestly tries, even ObamaCare as well as interference in Syria and Iraq was a mess.

To change the world, we first cultivate ourselves, and then our family, community, and radiate outwards, and finally the world will be changed.

Confucius

When things are investigated, then true knowledge is achieved; when true knowledge is achieved, then the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, then the heart is set right (or then the mind sees right); when the heart is set right, then the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, then the family life is regulated; when the family life is regulated, then the national life is orderly; and when the national life is orderly, then there is peace in this world.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 54.

What is firmly established cannot be uprooted.

What is firmly grasped cannot slip away.

It will be honoured from generation to generation.

Cultivate Virtue in yourself,

And Virtue will be real.

Cultivate it in the family,

And Virtue will abound.

Cultivate it in the village,

And Virtue will grow.

Cultivate it in the nation,

And Virtue will be abundant.

Cultivate it in the universe,

And Virtue will be everywhere.

Therefore look at the body as body;

Look at the family as family;

Look at the village as village;

Look at the nation as nation;

Look at the universe as universe.

How do I know the universe is like this?

By looking!
Isn't this why enterprises favoured things like SOAP web services with XSDs and WSDLs? The verbosity acts as human and machine-readable documentation, and the files can be used to generate client code.

Ignoring the benefits of using HTTP as the request transport mechanism, this seems like another cycle of people coming up with a comprehensive but complex solution, other people getting frustrated with the complexity and developing a simpler solution, then filling in the gaps (such as documentation) until the solution is a complex patchwork of competing libraries, none clearly better than the others, leading to fragmenting of mindshare and expertise...
You must have a pretty racist world view if the first thing that strikes you in a tech story is the skin color of the people involved.
I am not going to disagree with the article or dispute that sitting all day is not as healthy as occasionally moving around, but does anyone else feel like this is the latest "health scare" meme? It reminds me of how leg embolisms on long flights were the focus of attention a few years ago. (i.e. completely absent from the news at first, then an overabundance of stories once a single scientific study is published.)
tl;dr - You shouldn't spend more to acquire a customer than she is worth to you.
local man discovers value in simply "shutting the hell up"
If the point is "test your supposed redundancy," I agree 100%. But please, for your customers' sake, don't do it in the middle of the day, especially if it's your first test.
The Manhatten Project wasn't a conspiracy any more than the CIA is a conspiracy. And the Manhatten Project is pretty well documented and would be carried trough with each new president in the know. Plus The Manhatten Project wasn't done against Americans.

If you are comparing those two projects as equals then you are basically insinuating that Obama must know about this project and is keeping it a secret?

Otherwise it's pretty obvious that you are trying to build an argument out of basically nothing.

You are simply proving my point. You are claiming there are conspirators. Unless you are willing to assume the likelihood that there aren't any, that pretty much means end of any meaningful debate from my point of view.
Tibetan Buddhism isn't for you then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala

"Sand mandalas traditionally take several weeks to build, due to the large amount of work involved in laying down the sand in such intricate detail." "A sand mandala is ritualistically destroyed once it has been completed and its accompanying ceremonies and viewing are finished to symbolize the Buddhist doctrinal belief in the transitory nature of material life."
Given how well DropBox and Skype are doing this doesn't say very much about Google management. I'm surprised Pichai and Chan still have their jobs.
I was hoping the data would be in a text format so that I could build a tree of blame -- so basically you could see exactly how 'information' from someone who may not be giving accurate information impacted future prisoners.

Sadly, it's all just embedded PDF files.
I wonder how many g:s it's pulling when it is in the fastest part of that loop in the video..
And like you said, he was 17 at the time.