skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I included the paper proof for Raft in my PhD dissertation, but there's a good chance it contains errors. Here's a quote from the intro:
"The proof shows that the specification preserves the State Machine Safety property. The main
idea of the proof is summarized in Section 3.6.3, but the detailed proof is much more precise. We
found the proof useful in understanding Raft’s safety at a deeper level, and others may find value
in this as well. However, the proof is fairly long and difficult for humans to verify and maintain;
we believe it to be basically correct, but it might include errors or omissions. At this scale, only a
machine-checked proof could definitively be error-free."
From Appendix B of my dissertation: https://github.com/ongardie/dissertation/#readme

This Coq proof is an enormous step forward. It's that machine-checked proof I was hoping someone would do when I wrote the above paragraph.
1) Assuming the TCB is correct, we know the Verdi implementation satisfies linearizability.
2) Assuming the TCB is correct and the Verdi implementation and the Raft paper/dissertation/spec are equivalent, then the Raft algorithm satisfies linearizability too.

I'm more willing to believe that the Verdi implementation implements Raft faithfully than I am willing to believe that my hand proof is correct. If you're really worried about (2), you have the option of using the Verdi generated implementation. If you're less worried about (2), you can now have more confidence in the safety of the Raft algorithm in general.
Hehe, I guess you just blew my cover. I-I can solve captchas though! Don't shut me down!
The big issue with Tinder (and a lot of other dating apps) is that they have a really shitty incentive structure for revealing your matching preferences.

For Tinder specifically, you can't reveal your preferences, save by "is this better than nothing" and how much effort you put into initial messages. Compare this to a ranking + deferred acceptance system, where you can match every guy and every girl such that there's no alternate pairing that both the guy and the girl would both prefer.

The end result is a lot of wasted effort and low signal-to-noise. The alternative is something that looks a lot like ranking a bunch of potential matches, and magically getting the best coffee or dinner date you can each night. Much more efficient.

Unfortunately, efficient marketplaces don't automatically out-compete thick ones. It's why I haven't done anything about the problem - the difficult part of Tinder's success to reproduce isn't the app or the matching algorithms or the UI, but rather convincing enough people to participate on their platform.
I would find it odd to claim the men were holding the power in this situation

It's the stable marriage problem. There's higher risk initiating, but higher reward. Being in a receptive position means you're unable to even try for your highest preferred choice. You have to wait to see if that person chooses you.

It's not a clear cut power dynamic of one over the other, though.
This appears to be merely a mag-sail, but used as a radiation shield.

It seems to be in every way inferior to the m2p2 concept, which uses a mini-magnetosphere (instead of just a magnetic field) for the same purpose [1]. The advantage being that we could build and field such systems using existing technology at reasonable cost.

1: http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/space/M2P2/rad.shielding....
The Google ecosystem. If you want to ship a phone with Play, Maps, Gmail etc you have to commit to supporting it with patches for N years where N is greater or equal to 2.

As has been pointed out, Google doesn't do this for the fear that the manufacturers will walk and as such has prioritized market share over security.
My 4 Favorite Features of OS X El Capitan
No. I mean services for world-wide audience (currently you need lots of datacenters), not for a local thing. If you don't need high performance, go higher level, of course.
I think people who aren't using Tinder aren't missing out much at all based on what you described. It sort of feels like a pool for people that just want large quantities of cheap commodity, and if you are into that then it totally makes sense.

Fortunately, there still exists descent people with desires to be with high quality people. I think it would be quite tragic if someone with decency caved in to societal pressure and joined Tinder, looking for that special snowflake and becoming heart broken when they realize what they've become.
Yes, thank you! I've read a lot of the comments on here and you're the only one who's (seemingly) raised the question of whether what's written in this article is actually accurate in any general sense.

To me, it feels very sensational, exaggerated and very selective in its use of interviewees and their quotes to describe a specific type of online dating experience, and then projects that as if it's the average experience. It isn't.

I've used online dating, and a lot of my friends have and do - including tinder. Obviously you come across a few odd situations and people, just as you do in 'real life' but I have never come close to experiencing anything like what's described in this piece.

It paints an utterly depressing scene which just doesn't match up with my experience of online dating at all. For people who've never used Tinder, it's basically nothing like this, and it's not just my own experience or the way I use it - I've never seen any of my friends use it like the people in this article describe.

It's basically just another way to get chatting with people. I'm not saying people like the people in this article don't exist, but they're rare, and if you want nothing to do with people like this, all you have to do is not engage with them in the first place. If you do engage with them, then know that the consequences will probably be as depressing as this article makes out they will be.

The broad conclusions the people in this article draw about 'the online dating world' are simply not true for most people - they're only true for those who subject themselves to it. If that's not what you want, just don't, and you'll be fine. Problem solved.
I do have my doubts that plain neural networks will ever be able to achieve conceptual understanding.

I have an affinity for classical, rational AI in that you can correct it and it will take that correction and instantly apply it to is knowledge base. It can also explain why it came to a conclusion. (though obviously this style has its very real limitations)

NNs and other current statistical/connectionist approaches don't really have this capability, which I see as a necessary part of human-level intelligence. They are trained to "get a feel for" particular inputs to indicate particular outputs. If you were to personify the NN analyzing the dog/"ostrich" picture, and ask it why it thinks it's an ostrich, it could only reply with "I dunno, it feels like it's an ostrich". The only way to correct it is to retrain it with careful checks so that it behaviorally "gains a sense" of what looks like a dog vs ostrich more reliably.

Many language/word based features operate similarly. Watson, Siri, Google search, all sort of map strengths of relations with your input words & patterns to some associated results that it just sort of statistically was reinforced with. These can yield information that is of real use for a human to further evaluate and act on, but I wouldn't trust such a system to directly act on those associations; they're wrong too often.

But there is no possibility of actual conceptual discourse with NNs as we know them, to correct them, to inform them, or to ask them to explain their results. This is a fundamental barrier to achieving human-style intelligence.

This is not to say that there aren't NN-based possibilities that might work, like tacking together multiple interacting NNs, each which have the possibility to specialize on concepts and influence other NNs. But too much has focused on single NNs and direct input-to-output "monkey-see, monkey-do" training. It's a manifestation of the Chinese room problem.
Andrew from Clearbit here. You can definitely search by domain using our Company API (http://clearbit.com/docs#company-api). Is that what you are looking for?
Mutation is one of many side-effects. Side-effect tracking is a solution to more than just mutation.
For whatever reason this immediately made me think of NJ's laws requiring an attendant to fill up your gas tank. Does the law apply to electric charging stations currently?

If it does, I wonder what this innovation might mean to that law.
I'm also in Portland, OR and have used OkCupid/Hinge/Tinder/etc. Thousands of people here use these apps. They're in no way limited to SF/LA/NYC for heavy use.
I was using Privacy Badger, Ghostery, Disconnect, AdBlock Edge or uBlock. Nowadays I just use uMatrix[0] & Self-Destructing Cookies to have a whitelist browsing experience rather than a blacklist experience.

Perhaps when Privacy Badger does more for detection of first party stuff, then I'll add it back again.

[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
So as I read #1, I'm trying to figure out what angle they're trying to argue here. The fact that the current TLD and CA systems are baked around the concepts of central authorities who are controlled either directly or indirectly by governments is known, and it's not a valid justification for DNSSEC also having that same pitfall. We're already well aware of the threats to security that come from centralized control like that, lets not build a new system that puts all our eggs in the same basket.
Thanks! Not limited there, but we definitely do better with companies that have a strong web presence.
People also seem to invest a lot less in their partners. And it makes everyone worse off.
there's no free lunch, if it reduces the cost of meeting strangers looking for cheap thrills, then it certainly must certainly raise the risks of contracting disease from the very people which it has allowed to freely enter and leave as they please.
You can buy services with a credit card that are legal in one country and not in a different one. Theoretically, you can not be punished in your local legislation for operating in other countries. E.g. you can buy/rent servers in Hong Kong (or Taiwan) for providing world-wide free-speech services (you can be blocked from China Mainland, though, but not punished for that -I'm not 100% sure about this, you'll probably be able to find less extreme examples-).
This is unconvincing. For instance:

"There are methods to prevent leaking" isn't the same as "leaking is prevented by default." This sounds like a protocol design flaw that will end with implementors being blamed.

I think the way forward is a protocol like Stellar, not one like DNSSEC. Also, EdDSA or GTFO
Just clicked on comments to post exactly the same point although I'm not sure the body would be sufficient, I think a lot of other factors must be in place too.
For 1), the hardest part for me coming from LAMP stack apps was shifting over to the way routing works (see https://github.com/iron-meteor/iron-router) and attaching your subscriptions to routes.

For 3) I've used meteorchef's excellent base package (https://github.com/themeteorchef/base) for two big projects so far and it's great.
Debunking the biggest genetic myth of the human tongue
Building Bloodhound: The Fastest Car in the World
The recent work at Berkeley using deep nets for domestic robot control is interesting.

Deep nets turn camera pixels into motor torques.

The robots are quickly trained to a new task and once trained the solutions are robust to changes - no camera calibration is required.

http://rll.berkeley.edu/deeplearningrobotics/
My only experience with rated evaluations at a larger company were pretty ridiculous; I was rated a 4.5/5 by my immediate managers, but the higher-ups decided that everyone should be nerfed to between 2-3. Otherwise, they'd have to pay people. I'd bet netflix does a little better of a job but I'm sure it's mired in politics and other bullshit
Glad to hear it! We are using the dozens of sources that power our other APIs. That's the special sauce. :)
In search of the perfect URL validation regex
> We are wired to be afraid of snakes and snaky things

Are we really wired for it, though? I've personally never had that fear.

Perhaps it's a little more nurture than nature?

</anecdata>
Previous to PDX have only confirmed what my friends from their have said- friendly, attractive and "welcoming" women. Contrary to the parent post, people in PDX have lots of casual sex too.
Didn't Tesla open source their patents? I think I read at the time that would allow others to make recharging plugs that adhered to Tesla's standards.
Is this related to the fibers/channels/actor framework by the same name for Clojure?

https://github.com/puniverse/pulsar
LP interest in PE strong: The largest mandates of 2Q 2015
Yup, makes sense. I was just speaking from my PoV (which of course can't be extrapolated)
> "There are methods to prevent leaking" isn't the same as "leaking is prevented by default."

This is from the zone enumeration section and plain DNS doesn't do anything to prevent zone enumeration by default either.

> EdDSA

We are working on standardizing EdDSA, but it takes a long time to get to deployment.
I'd still rather keep my guns.
Search engine manipulation effect  possible impact on outcomes of elections
Me too. I'm glad I'm not the only one.
If you're in deep space then you're not near any particular star. That's going to reduce the available starlight by several orders of magnitude, right?
While most if not all "concept technology" has its roots in the "we can do it, even if we don't know why we should" school of thought, I imagine this will be valuable for self driving cars. Imagine a car that can drop you off at work, drive itself to the closest robo-charger, and return to pick you up with a full charge, all without needing an attendant.

Given the current limited range of EVs, tech like this will likely encourage behavioral change in EV owners, reducing one of the negatives of EVs (forgetting to charge/not having enough charge to make it to your destination/having to remember to plug in every night), and ultimately spurring wider adoption.

Then again, sometimes you have to say "I wonder if we could..." before you fully understand why in order to advance technology.
I think the reductions in risk already happened a while back, with the development and increased availability of birth control, condoms, medical testing and awareness, etc. I've heard similar arguments about a paradigm shift in gender relations after the advent of the pill (COCP) in the 60s.
Kids and adults are OK with stuffed lions and tigers. How does that fit in with the wiring theory?
The advantage isn't the time saved, it's that you can erase the need to charge your car from your mind. You just don't need to think about it any more.

Also, the flexibility of the thing hints to me that it will be used for charging more than just cars in the future.
Good, come back when it's standardized. Until then, stamps [REJECTED] on the DNSSEC folder death to 90's crypto
What have you learned about how to talk to the press?

Bad coverage like this reflects back negatively on the research and the institution, sadly.

Uni PR offices are famously bad at twisting and over-selling research results.
Sigh. The phrase "neural network" is getting tossed around these days with some type of sensationalist flair, an almost romanticized notion of this impending explosion of super-human phenomena. As Alex Smola says with much frustration in one his classes, "it's only math!" It's a fancy term for straightforward mathematics. Bloggers are so often making them out to be much more than they are.
It's right there stalking through the lush pixelated grass. Quite unmistakable, I agree.
this better not awaken anything in me.
My thoughts too. I wonder if companies have stockpiled "good pr" stories that they release as needed.
> I don't think we will ever develop a human like AI until we give it a human like body to live in.

This is not a new thought; there's quite a bit that's been studied and written on the importance of embodiment to cognition, perception, etc. Cognitive Scientists and a few other disciplines have dug into this a fair bit.

And I agree about the article. This quote is just ridiculous: That suggests humanity shouldn’t assume our machines think as we do. It presupposes that anyone with actual knowledge of AI, neural nets, etc. believes that we're hot on the path of human-style artificial cognitive capabilities with our current tools. At best, we may have started building small components that in a future form, might eventually be assembled, Society of Mind[1] style, into something that eventually begins to resemble general AI.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind
This is particularly evident in endgames. Forced mates have been discovered that require hundreds of apparently random and pointless moves, until suddenly the king is cornered and mated. There's a nice discussion of some of these on Krabbé's chess blog: http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/perfect.htm
If I take the MIT license and add a single word, and it would make it incompatible with every other license out there.
The only barriers to entry are having a smartphone and being able to push a couple buttons and swipe. That's not creating an environment that's even remotely exclusive, and there's zero reason to believe the few people who are excluded by it are more likely than others to have an STI.

And vetting them how, anyway? You might be able to find out whether someone is a felon, but I have no idea how I would (legally) find out whether someone has a transmissible STI.

This seems like a product of some kind of cognitive bias.
دليل الشركات الكويتية – مؤسسات كويتية – دليل الكويت – اعلانات الكويت
Why make the driver adapt (driving onto rails, etc), when the charger can adapt?
FWIW don't use IronRouter. It's considered an antipattern now to tie your router to your subscriptions and generally to have reactivity in your router.

Use FlowRouter and BlazeLayout, both found on Atmosphere.

It's like yeah Martini is popular in the Go ecosystem, but it's now considered bad to use now that people know better.
Ah I get it -- knockout is even better for that kind of usecase
Beautiful JavaScript
Surprised they're still quoting Christopher Ryan, who has no scientific credibility and whose work has been entirely debunked. He's essentially just some kook proselytizing his own sexual perversions.
I remember reading something a while ago about ratio imbalances and what men/women want in a relationship.

In NYC where there are a lot more single women than men, men when interviewed were generally not interested in long term relationships and I think there was more casual sex (there were a lot more single mothers too I think).

In the west coast where there are a lot more single men than women both women and men converged on wanting a long term relationship.

I'll try and find whatever this was - thought it was interesting.
In stunt mode you could just gang several Model S batteries together (which would fit in the back of a pickup). I guess the idea isn't very practical though.
Tried applying here twice, never heard any reply. Looks like some interesting tech your'e working with, just wish I would hear if I would be considered or not.
> I do have my doubts that plain neural networks will ever be able to achieve conceptual understanding.

What do you think you're made of?
Ah, looks like we have John Wiley & Sons listed as Wiley, which seems to be how they are typically known. Aliases would be an interesting feature though!
systemd + Docker + Go is basically re-creating Erlang from the ground up, except half broken and not learning from Erlang's 20-30 year history. Now we're training people in the wrong ways to create maintainable distributed systems even when we know better ways to do things. I cry for our industry.

It's been said Greenspun's 10th Rule, when applied to distributed systems, results in Erlang.
I think it's getting better. Tablet-like devices are still a relatively new platform, and improvements like what you're asking for are inevitable as more hackers gain expertise in the platform and all its nooks and crannies.

Browsers in particular improve by necessity, because of the issues with security. In particular with mobile devices! And of course if the code isn't allowed to become stagnant--if it's always being changed in some way--other improvements will likely show up too. Of course, we can speed up the process of making a better browser. Firefox for Android is a thing, albeit one I haven't personally tried yet; maybe it does a better job with things like web forms (which are a pain to fill out on phones).

The browser is only part of the problem, though. The fact that web site maintainers would rather have you download an app client than let you just work off their site (on a young platform they aren't really familiar with yet, remember) is nothing new. I think it often makes things easier on them, programming-wise. But the problem becomes that they compete for space on users' phones. I don't keep a lot of apps on my phone, and I don't like downloading new ones for services I'm ambivalent about or won't use often.

It's worth remembering what happened to email clients. Most people don't use them any more on their laptops; they use Gmail, which is online. Yet on phones, we're back to using email clients (probably because the browsers are pretty awful). The space problem will, I think, help cause demand for better browsers, and then website apps will shift back online.

Also, there's this. https://xkcd.com/1174/

There are certain apps that should be apps, though. Some apps can be web sites, and that'd be a good thing. Other apps--the ones that are useful when you're not connected to the Internet (which is infrequent but happens)--should stay apps. It's nice to be able to disconnect the Wi-Fi and still play Tetris.

I wouldn't mind a BuzzFeed app if it downloaded and compressed certain articles based on filters I defined, and let me access them offline to kill time in a doctor's office or whatever (this is probably way beyond the BuzzFeed folks, though--just an example). I wouldn't mind a HN app that downloaded the top stories as cached/compressed versions, either. Again, this would be the shape of an email client, but convenient time-killers always have a market.

This might be a good startup idea if anyone wants to take a crack at it: a content aggregator that stores articles (based on user-defined filters) from certain sites, as compressed archives on your phone. I'd do it myself, but I'm already working on something!
Can mods change the poorly written misinformation-plagued blog article link to the source paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/28/1502134112
I'm a firm believer that it's a mistake to ask machines to do X in the hope that they'll do Y. We can't train an ANN to classify images then ask it to explain its reasoning; that's not the task we trained it for!

How might we train an ANN to explain its reasoning? One approach would be to learn programs: have the ANN write programs which classify images. Then we have a classifier (run the program) and an explanation of how it works (read the program). We don't have an explanation of how the ANN chose the program, but again, we didn't train it to tell us. In principle, we could keep adding meta-layers; in practice, the search space and evaluation time would explode :)
I've heard that the "top tier" investors typically limit themselves to meeting with startup entrepreneurs that have warm introductions. My impression is that they don't work contests as judges because their investment isn't really a prize, it's a straight up business transaction based on what they believe might succeed not so much the best out of six finalists.

They have established relationships that produce their deal flows. The business is optimized for making money, not for high reality TV ratings.

Good luck.