skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>“For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality,” says Elizabeth Armstrong, a professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who specializes in sexuality and gender. “Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’

That's just as much a reflection of what women are looking for. If a woman is attracted to a guy who is "high value" relative to her then she is attracted to a guy who has options. She is attracted to guys she has a power differential with. These women could choose to settle for a relationship where they have the options and power but that's not what they want.
There's the old story of the guy that walks around asking every women if they want to have sex. Eventually one always says yes. On Tinder a guy can do that without getting slapped 100 times.
I got more of a Richard Branson vibe than Musk, from the book.
I love Dropbox, but from my admittedly limited viewpoint I don't see them shipping many product ideas. Maybe they've got a huge list, or it's a ton of ideas that work behind the scenes?
You say that Tinder reduces the "time investment and biological risk" of [sex].

I'm not a Tinder user, how does it reduce the biological risk? wouldn't the risk of an STD be just as great, if not greater, than the status quo?
I don't totally disagree with much of what you say, but in the case of anime, it is important to remember that the works that are highly successful in Japan are produced solely on the premise they will rake in cash for the IP owner. The income they get from non-domestic consumers is a drop in the bucket. Take away that incentive and there is a good chance that overall quantity and quality of content would decline.
Well, he was the first Shogun of Japan and he also lived the longest. Take it with a grain of salt.
That's the only thing anyone can own in reality. The other concepts of property can only exist with the mechanisms of the State. Capitalism in this function is an organ of the State and can only operate within a State since without a monopoly on force (be it a tribal council, a brutal tyrant, a publicly traded company, or a democracy) there's no means to deprive others of their labor or the product of their labor. And that is exactly what copyright does as a side effect.

So, within a State we have to ask the question regarding how to best protect both labor and the products of someone's labor. It's not as easy as writing a computer program to be sure. I'm just pointing out that effectively all copyright doesn't effectively pay a proper wage as like all titled property it benefits those who can leverage the legal system to their favor. And historically speaking, copyright law has inevitably favored those who can pay the lawyers the most which is not the vast majority of creators (as labor).
This should be in the onion.

Women use an "I'm not going to be serious" app and complain that all the men on it don't want to be serious.
It's not technology you're avoiding, it's the nature of human community. Technology merely exposes you to more of it than you might otherwise experience in a developed, individualistic culture. You'll find the same vapid subjects in any third world corner coffee shop/bar/community center/eating place.

The only thing stopping people from doing this in person is a lack of familiarity.

That said, talking in person allows you to hone communication skills you might not get to practice online.
What you are saying is that not every human is created equal?
It sounds like the point you're making is that Japan's brutality towards Korea justifies the bombings. Without arguing whether or not the bombing was justified, surely we can feel empathy for the HUMAN BEINGS injured or killed, particularly given that many of them had nothing to do with the war and merely had the bad luck of being born into that city and country at that time? This does not mitigate or excuse the violence inflicted by the Japanese, but merely acknowledges the value of human life.

Our history is full of brutality; to trot out a well-worn Gandhi quote, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to protect others. So, they become a part of the problem.

Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting others into the back.
You're right , the tech isn't hard. For example there's this arduino hobby project , a swimming robot snake:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-swimming-Robo-Snake/
I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. More specifically, I don't agree with the general principle that copying stuff without paying for it is OK within our current economic system. (I do agree that the heavyweight criminal penalties for minor infringement advocated are wildly disproportionate and that some Big Media organisations abuse some legal systems in ways they should not be able to, but I consider both of these to be separate points.)

The only reason your strategy is successful is that other people are paying for these works, which makes them economically viable to produce. By copying, you aren't just ripping off the original creators of the work -- work that you demonstrably value enough to still watch/use/listen to it even though you refuse to pay for it -- you're also freeloading on the back of all the people who do pay instead of contributing your fair share.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society.

Sure it has. That's why all businesses run Open Source software written by volunteers instead of expensive commercial software, fan fiction is much better quality than a well-edited novel written by a professional author, your local beer money band create the same atmosphere with their recorded-at-home CD as a professionally produced recording of a studio session, and Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Kingsman: The Secret Service were all funded on Kickstarter.
Dan Carlin has a wonderful analysis on this topic in his podcast.
Yep, I have several attractive female friends who keep multiple guys round as "options." The guys of course don't realize they're being led on and they believe they have a real shot at something more meaningful.

Sex and sexuality are ultimately about power. People who have high sexual value can totally let that power get to their heads and start taking advantage of others. This isn't gender-specific, but simply the way the world works.
90% of women want to sleep with 10% of men. Men are far less picky. Even the best looking of men has been a whale-rider in his time.

Women: Is he rich? Good looking? Do other women want him?
Men: Will she sleep with me?

Once you understand that, all of the rest of this makes sense.
The project I've been involved with at Red Hat uses OCaml in a very procedural, imperative, workaday way. We purposely don't use fancy functional stuff, except in the very few cases where it makes sense. We also freely link to C code in the same programs.

These are programs used by large numbers of generally unaware real world users. Why would they need to know - from the outside they look and behave like C binaries.

Anyway, for some big open source projects written in OCaml, take a look:

https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/blob/master/v2v/v2v...
https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/tree/master/sparsif...
https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/tree/master/resize
https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/tree/master/builder
https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/tree/master/sysprep
ctrl+f "kiddo"

1 of 9 results
I hate to enter a semantic debate but I don't consider announcements to be marketing [..] That is all the marketing that most of the pirating consumers get - and none of it is from marketing the product in Japan.

Look, the existence of the studio and fansubs' awareness of it is itself a 'marketing debt' much like 'technical debt.' People only care because something from that studio has already been on TV in Japan, or they wouldn't know it existed. If you go to a fansub group ad say you (an unknown producer) have a great idea for a show that you will produce using an unknown artist, do you think people are going to send you money to produce the product?

>Have you ever tried to sell a creative product? Maybe you should.

I have.

And?

Ignoring your bad assumptions, do you think an artist would make money if their initial marketing, at some level, wasn't free? How many artists would make sales without a portfolio or free display of their work? How many musicians would get signed to a label without an EP?

But they are not giving away the copyright when they do that, and I think you know this. They retain their ownership interest in the work and then bargain for the terms under which they are willing to assign or sell it to a publisher in exchange for money and/or distribution services.

If I'm a record executive, hear a great demo, but don't like the look of the band, I can't just hire some photogenic actors to get a cover shot and start selling copies of the music without paying for it. I will get sued into the ground and possibly go to prison. The copyrighted work is an asset whose price can be bargained for. That's why experienced artists are very wary of submitting to contests and stuff like that, because some contest operators make assignment of copyright a condition of entry and people who submit to such a competition have no legal recourse.
Is that because you've only heard from women, or you just don't know anyone who's used it?
> For the most part, I find that most online social media just degrades human interaction. Twitter encourages short shallow quips, Facebook shows me my friends arguing angrily and pointlessly over random articles, dating apps encourage some of the behaviors described in the article. Heck, even HN encourages a certain kind of attitude that I don't find that great, all in all.

I don't know. I think, perhaps, in the 'real world' we learn to become very good at choosing who we associate with, and don't spend time with 'destructive' people (for lack of a better term), but perhaps this has yet to be learnt properly online.

For myself, I literally have never seen an argument on my Facebook feed. I have about 150 Facebook friends. I don't see flame wars on Twitter; I follow people I find interesting, that's all. I subscribe to subreddits with sane moderation policies. Generally, the internet I encounter on a day-to-day basis is actually quite a civil, friendly place.

I just don't think the online world is that much different from the real world. You choose where to spend your time, who to spend it with, and that shapes the experiences you have–just like the real world. Is it really so different?
Goodbye YouTube’s 301+ views
Absolutely, which is why if I was doing it I'd focus on a small part of the industry until I had some traction then simplify that part before moving in to the next.

If you try to eat the whole pie you'll choke.
Absolutely. Anyone who doesn't want to feel like a commodity product that gets evaluated in two seconds should not be on Tinder.

But I find it strange that the women are apparently such willing participants. If they don't want to get dick pics from the "fuckboys" (as the article calls them), why are they hanging out online with these people?
No, the topic has stayed unlocked too long for that :-)
I think technology is somewhat to blame, and agree with you in a way.

With broadcast mediums and technology, we first made it easy to compare any potential with the pool of all potential partners, and so many women (the historical gatekeepers of sex and relationships, fair or not) began to hold out on local suitors because they didn't meet some platonic ideal they'd seen once somewhere.

Now technology has ticked again, and men have access to a marketplace of potential mates. Unfortunately, women are no longer the gatekeepers on relationships or sex, and the winning strategies in this new market happen to be uncouth and crass and, most importantly, effective.

Speaking frankly as a somewhat bitter and jilted engineer:

If they'd wanted traditional relationships, they should've been friendlier and less aloof when they were being courted earlier.

Now that we're older and wiser and more financially secure, and with the technology giving us a ripe marketplace for relationships, why settle for anything less than convenience and our own arbitrary standards?
Other ways require more energy.

Many people don't like answering questions about themselves or filling out a profile so they flock to the quick meet app.

Honestly, I think it's completely their fault for expecting a long term relationship from Tinder.
Hip+Hop+-+Kash+Rockit+-+Dragon/용대가리+(Live)+-+Korean+Version
Not only that. The sense of entitlement is incredible.

who treats her like a priority instead of an option

Well I'm sorry but that's what humans are, options on legs. Be it on a job application or in dating. There's fierce competition, you gotta be good or at least better than your competition. This is the normal state of being, and nobody, not even girls (and especially not guys), is above it.

If you want real, emotional bonding, get off tinder and fancy clubs. Such bonds can form in places you least expect them and it cannot be forced.
I'm loving the openness of this new Microsoft. They keep launching cool stuff!
I never mentioned anything about shooting others in the back.
Tesla cars will be self-driving soon, right? Let's call such cars 'robots'.

Isn't there some convention against allowing robots to re-fuel without human intervention?

Isn't such a rule in the same class as the rule against giving them the keys to the armory?
You can think of deep learning as a way to automate feature extraction on very high-dimensional data, where the features are complex enough that they're difficult or impossible to specify by hand. This includes things like:

- objects in an image/video

- phonemes in raw audio

- events in multidimensional time series

- grammatical/semantic structures in unstructured text

- strategic features in a board game position (e.g. Go)

These kinds of inputs are difficult to handle with traditional ML techniques. But if your data already looks more like rows in a table, with simple, semantically meaningful features, deep learning isn't likely to buy you that much.
> Among the risks that HTML5 brings, according to Bellanger:

* Canvas image-rendering exploits, which can cause buffer overflows that a hacker could then use to inject code into the session
* Cross-site scripting, where intruders can steal information from a session in the browser
* SQL injection, where a malicious query is used to extract information from a database in the browser
* Cross-site request forgeries, where a user token is taken over to impersonate a user on the Web

3 of these seem older than HTML5. SQL Injection has been around a long time. How long have in-browser databases been used? Are these widely used?
Who will be the Uber of fertility?
The literature is mostly image based, but as other users have said voice, text, and video have also seen substantial gains. It has also been used to great effect for taxi destination prediction (heterogenous information) [1], drug discovery [2], and general operations on graphs [3].

There are also lots of examples beyond classification - structured prediction such as image segmentation [4], predicting depth, surface normals, and pixels from only RGB [5], text to text translation [6], image captioning [7], Turing machines [8], speech synthesis [9], question answering (Q/A) [10][11], handwriting generation [12], playing Go [13], playing Atari [14], speech recognition [15], drawing things [16] and many more.

[1] http://blog.kaggle.com/2015/07/27/taxi-trajectory-winners-in...

[2] http://blog.kaggle.com/2012/11/01/deep-learning-how-i-did-it...

[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6652

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03240

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4734

[6] http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0473

[7] http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03044

[8] http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401

[9] http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02216

[10] http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.04808

[11] http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.08895

[12] http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0850

[13] http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3409

[14] https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~vmnih/docs/dqn.pdf

[15] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608014...

[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt-7MI9eKEo
It's a problem of overvaluation.

Men are less selective about who they have casual sex with, so the most attractive men consistently and constantly meet up with women they'd never actually date.

For the few men it works great. For most women it works well for a while, but ends in disappointment. For the vast majority of men, the deal is the worst; they are considered unsuitable because women can do better (in 10 minutes, for 10 minutes).
Teens, Technology and Friendships
Ford Smart Mobility Game Challenge
Really? Is the need to get out and hook up the hose yourself really what's holding back electric cars?

There is certainly a cool factor with this thing, but think about how it will work at a real fuel/charging station. The driver will only ever see it in a mirror. And it looks like the range of motion is very limited, requiring the plug to be within a 30x30cm box. A later model will probably have a greater range of motion but I cannot see that be any less cumbersome. Give me a wire and a plug.

But maybe Tesla has done some market research. Maybe their target market is old people for whom getting out of the car is a real struggle. Maybe they fear large electrical cables more than rubber ones filled with gasoline. Or maybe they so distrust attendants that they prefer a mechanical octopus fuel their precious car ... until it misses the mark and does some actual damage to the paint.
When I was in my 20's in the last decade I would have killed to have been able to meet people with like-minded interests using Meetups, Facebook, and even reddit. I really have to agree with you on this.

I feel that the ease of communication has really cheapened it. It's kind of sad talking to people on Google Hangouts who live in the same city but never actually hanging out IRL. Before you had to make a real effort to meet the person for dinner or at a bar.

It's even more strange to me as you can find some group online for whatever niche group and have stimulating discussion and never leave the house.
RIP VR (1968-2015)
Seriously. I flew out to NYC for a job interview. Was there for just 2 days and I got laid. I wasn't even trying at all, I was just there for an interview! And this was after a 2.5 year dry streak in SF.

My god I want to go back.
> If a woman doesn't want to feel like an option, shouldn't she stay far away from Tinder?

Maybe but I think the problem is more general.
It is not just women who get de-valued. Human relationships of all kinds suffer from a society that sees people more and more as means to an end thanks to the redundancy that social online networks of all kind enable. For example, it seems to me that people these days accept several private invitations that take place simultaneously only to decide last minute which of the available options they like best. I think this is rather sad. But then again I entered the world of grown ups not so long ago. Maybe society hasn't changed that much after all?
But I'm still hanging out with friends, going to social places, volunteering, and so on. I'm not avoiding human community; I'm just choosing to structure my life in a way that exposes me to what I think are the best aspects of human community, and avoids the worst.
Bitcoin Blocksize: Debate Summary
What to log in production environments
Just China averaged 100,000 civilians killed per month (Korea and Indochina also had a steady massacre of civilians). Waiting for Japan to capitulate would of had its own serious set of costs.

[Edit changed "murdered" to "killed" to make it less inflammatory]
The real reason why michaelochurch was banned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10011017 .
Hydrogen as well as methane and propane etc were looked at for Constellation's lunar module Altair some years ago. You save a lot of weight since it's much more efficient than hydrazine.

At least for the lunar descent you could use hydrogen, that's the most mass anyway and you don't need to worry about heat management at the surface anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program#Altair

Lockheed Martin has been working on lots of technologies for long term flights with Centaur stages. You could have onboard refrigerators etc.. It's not so strange nowadays as it was in the sixties.
If you need that feature, and are willing to pay, check out the Demandbase API. I can't find any public websites documenting their API, but this Ruby gem gives an overview: https://github.com/leereilly/demandbase.
(My take on this problem, feel free to correct any assumptions I make that are wrong)

I think this is because neural nets are not actually "intelligent" in terms of the commonly accepted definition of intelligence. They are dumb. They try, usually with simple probabilistic techniques and input element-wise transforms, to mimic some function that produces approximations for a given set of inputs and outputs. The training data and the test data will always have underlying differences which will create gaps in the data generating distribution, assuming a reasonably large-sized set of data. This is contrary to the assumptions that (every?) machine learning algorithm makes, usually referred to as the i.i.d assumptions. The test and training data are assumed to be independent and identically distributed. Since practically no real world data sets are perfectly identically distributed, there will always be gaps in the learned model and the real model.

Beyond that, the set of training data can never fully encompass the entire domain of possible input/outputs, else what need would we have for a machine to predict new ones? The oddities that researchers find are actually problems in the relationship of their training data to their testing data because the i.i.d assumptions are never actually true. We can only try to get as close as possible.

The solution to this problem is just nigh impossible, so we try to reduce it as much as possible.
The situation with security vulnerabilities in software maybe should be a warning to not use (network-connected) computers to control everything. The internet of everything will probably mean that everything will become hackable.
I absolutely don't disagree with you. I've tried a more temperate approach like the one you describe; and I can get it with some degree of success for a while, but it never lasts long. Hence why I'm a bit more aggressive in my approach now.

I'm glad it's working for you though!
Very interesting.

Do you think this constraint would hold in artificial languages (Esperanto, Lojban, Tengwar) as well?
Most Common User Story Mistake: why agile tools alone don’t fix any problems
Yes, where does this data come from? Somehow I was able to find not-so-popular companies as well.
Just a theory of mine. I feel that the odds would be greater going to a bar and doing the usual pick up routine vs vetting them ahead of time.
What's your opinion on HN (or other places) ? What's your outlook about it and how would you compare it to other online social media [sites] ?
I wouldn’t mind these in Oregon when I fill up for gas (where the gas attendants have to pump your gas for you). Way less awkward as long as I stay in the car.
I'm not sure it's so obvious, but it does seem like a good idea to try stateside: a dating site where women get all the power.