skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A Haskeller tried convincing me that such a language is a good fit for human programmers, too, because all it is is a subset of more traditional, impure languages. But the notion of subset => simpler is a mathematical notion with no relevance to cognition. If humans operated in this way, natural languages would have been much more mathematically simpler, too.

-

I totally agree on this point and I've tried my hand at Haskell several times only to find myself going to some other language like F#, OCaml, or Common Lisp. It just feels too 'stiff' in terms of a programming language. I can't seem to write in it without running into its limitations (Not strictness. I can handle strictness in a language.). When I write a program I think about what I have to pull data from and what the data should become along the way. Even if parts of my program will be standardized into a library for a project I still like being able to get it setup in such a way that I can modify it easily. Haskell doesn't seem to let me do that without redoing the entire function signatures and sometimes due to the notation the signatures don't fit the data well if at all.
They raised money through Kickstarter, so they should answer and report to their stakeholders and have the obligation to update them with the progress/challenges they're facing/seeing in their venture.
The nr 1 thing startups are doing wrong
To me, JS/Node is actually a huge step down in terms of language quality/ecosystem. Perhaps that's why it's not catching on with developers?
http://vfio.blogspot.com/ is a good guide for setting it up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/2z2y7h/gpu_pa... is another fairly concise guide (a little out of date though).

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162768 is the main point of discussion for it - too much to read through entirely, but the top posts include a lot of info, and it contains a lot of valuable information on quirks for specific hardware if you search. Some of the stuff is outdated though (eg the kernel includes a lot of the patches now), and it's targetted at Arch, but most instructions should apply to any distro.

Another key point is, you need VT-d/IOMMU support on your motherboard and CPU, which isn't universal (only in the last few generations of intel CPUs, with some excptions that don't support it. And motherboard support can vary between OEMs). Check https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aryg5nO-kBebdFo... to see if others have had any luck with your hardware, or before making any purchases.
Seconding the combo of uBlock Origin and Ghostery, but I use the built-in plugin blocking in Chrome. Does Flashcontrol offer anything over that?
It is a distributed systems problem.

First in an order book you have many different orders for many different prices and quantities on both the buy and sell side. At any given price, at any given time, in an order book you can have more buyers at a price than sellers (or vice versa). How do you decide tie breakers? One common way is to do FIFO matching, this means that the participant that had an order in the longest gets filled before someone who had one in a shorter amount of time. The higher your time resolution the less viable this gets.

Second, there is also a desire to get OUT of the market. So as you process new information you realize that your current orders are riskier than you anticipated, so you want to cancel them. The longer it takes you to cancel them the more risk you are exposed to. In the case of market makers this risk will get passed on to their customers in the form of higher spreads and less liquidity.

Third, there is no 1 place where trading happens. Trading happens in hundreds of venues around the world in just as many jurisdictions. They would all need to do distributed clock/queue sync for higher timescales to feasibly change anything. Global distributed clock/queue sync is a Hard Problem TM.

In short, it is much harder to do non-continuous time trading than the alternatives without obvious benefit and with lots of potential unintended consequences.
You realize things keep happening while your volatility interrupt is in force right? Everything else in the world keeps trading. There is no guarantee when it starts trading again that it won't open 20% down. If you don't want a stop loss to trigger, don't place one.

Imagine you have a stop loss, which doesn't trigger, then the market vol interrupts, then the price opens 10% below your stop loss.

Oops, you'd be moaning about that instead.
Which was traded for Japanese civilians though, no?
Tesla with ‘Insane Mode’ Busts Curve on Consumer Reports Ratings
Yeah OS X has this for a while as well and you don't realize how awesome it is until you've had it for a while and then gone back to Windows for something.
This is cooler than I thought at first, as I thought it was a relay. The diagram at the outset really helped show what makes it special.

And there's a link to the quine-relay; did you know the QR is up to 100 languages?!
Two different nvidia cards should work, but I don't think it's possible to do it with two cards of the same model.

You can't switch a GPU between host and VM without rebooting, you have to assign one GPU to the VM through kernel boot options, which will hide it from the host.

A lot of people also just use a dedicated (Nvidia/AMD) GPU for the windows VM for gaming and heavy duty things, and only use their onboard Intel GPU for the linux host, which is sufficient for normal usage if you're doing all your gaming through the VM anyway.

See my post above for some links with more info.
I did for about 6 months. By far one of the most humbling experiences I'd ever had. I just wasn't a fan of the people at that gym.
I actually wrote a JSON parser for fun and profit 2 weeks ago. It's mind blowing to me how his code is similar to mine. I wrote mine completely from scratch. I even called my routine `parseValue`. Once one has a look at the JSON grammar, writing a parser for it is trivial.
I only had that experience with projects that use autoconf for build configuration, usually these are tied very closely to UNIX-like platforms. Most libs that use cmake to setup the build files can be integrated well on Windows (most likely because the author choose cmake exactly for this reason to be easily usable across platforms). But that's more of a problem of Linux isolationism than Windows' fault (basically the modern version of the bad old days when everyone was on Windows and all you got to build a project from source was a bunch of Visual Studio project files).
Yeah, you're right, I edited that "part of the job description" stuff out again. Sorry for making you respond to something that was only in my comment for 3 minutes.

All that said, I'm not judging any actions, I'm not sure where you got that from. The GP said that the remarks made by the pilot were "unassailable". I just pointed out that that's nonsense because while it's a sane argument, there's also a sane argument against it. It's been many years and there's been no US bashing in this thread up until now, but absolute statements on the morality of what happened, in either direction, just don't seem to make sense anymore.
An example would be your market maker knowing all stops.

When price drops from 100 to 90, there may be a few people that have stops at 89.90. Someone with firepower could go short at 90 (which is not so risky if you know the order book), go down the 10 ct, trigger the stops and cover your short when you see the orders are getting filled.

I read about much more sophisticated variants out there, e.g., the market maker selling order book information for high prices or selling high-speed access to this information but I'd have to search for it.
Gosh, I'd love to see other people's opinions on this article!
Apparently Virtu (only HF to claim to have made money on monday) and their HFT setup.

Check this: http://i.imgur.com/4VWtko0.png
Almost as bad as making solitare a subscription game....
My issue with that is the users no longer know what to check - having two types of certificates is confusing.

I'd be happy if you used domain-validated SSL but browsers didn't make any claims about the security of connections without the EV cert though. For me this means no padlock icon whatsoever. After all - from the perspective of an ordinary user who cannot verify your domain, it is insecure.

Edit: how about "No claims about security to be presented to the user without EV certificates"?
Go enjoy Python3
Agreed, they're sticking to their core strength, and I feel are executing their vision quite well. It's depressing to see snide comments about both the company and the amount of money they're making.

Some people have a completely unrealistic view of how much money is needed to run a company outside of SV/how much money is needed to live more or less worry free. Considering the revenue, and living outside of bubbly salary areas (John O'Nolan lives in Egypt for example), they're all living a comfortable life on their current paychecks, and as the revenue continues to grow, it's only going to get better. They aren't beholden to anyone, run a successful open source business and are growing nicely every month. If that's not a great story, I don't know what is.

As a reality check for SV folk, according to their report on how they spent their Kickstarter money (http://blog.ghost.org/year-2/), their gross starting salaries were 4500 $ per person (18k for 4 people). Warm word of advice, spend time in other cultures :).
Which happened to me Monday morning, although not down 50%, and I had just two days before put that stop in place because earlier in the year I had lost a ton of $ on two different stocks by not having one. I think people like me are easy pickings for HFT algorithms.
This makes me wonder what people working in advertisement are thinking of their jobs.

Isn't that the entire point of the article, more or less?
Pardon me, I'm confused. Who is "they" in your statement? Is it the mass "you"? Is it referring to my statement and mburns's statement? If it is, then can you provide a first-hand citation that supports mburns's statement?

AIUI, the GRSec folks don't gain anything by keeping their patches out of tree. If they could merge them in, they should.
But that doesn't justify the massacre itself.
The Internet loves a particular kind of history
C++....
Be careful with GPU passthrough in general; you are giving Windows in that VM direct memory access. [1] In the last year or so, a group was able to overwrite Xen (in order to get additional privileges outside the VM) by merely being given GPU passthrough. [2] Even if you aren't using Xen, PCI passthrough necessarily entails the in-VM OS getting direct memory access which more or less spoils any security separation between the in-VM OS and the host OS.

To be clear, I don't think very many people are likely to have to deal with this as a security problem. I just think its appropriate to be aware of the power/danger inherent in the seemingly benign nature of GPU/PCI passthrough.

[1] = "you can use PCI passthrough to assign a PCI device (NIC, disk controller, HBA, USB controller, firewire controller, soundcard, etc) to a virtual machine guest, giving it full and direct access to the PCI device" (http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/XenPCIpassthrough)
[2] Sorry, I can't find a link.
Further reading on this (really interesting piece)

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
Very valid and am glad am not the only one who thinks on similar lines. Again, no intention of trolling but I'll be happy if an AI system understood a narrow question "I want to eat at the nearest available Lebanese restaurant" and gave some options.

Bassed on my understanding of semantics and Knowledge engineering, this is doable.
From my anecdata, the acquiring company is using the earn-out as more of a test that what you are saying at acquisition time is true. It augments due-diligence.

Meaning, if you are right about the business, these milestones are trivial to hit. If you don't accept the earn-out, it's a signal that something you are saying is either wrong or being misinterpreted.
> You'll rarely ever see factories, managers, private variables, explicit inheritance, or any other flagship OO mechanisms in pseudocode.

Because they are implementation details that have no place in pseudocode. Their absence there does not say anything about their usefulness in general. You can't point at some observation about pseudocode and say "See, they don't use it so it must be rubbish." Exceptions, handling of error variables, monads, unsigned ints are also absent from typical pseudocode (unless the context is about those concepts). Does that make them useless concepts aswell?
That message was posted by Bill Sorenson, so not sure if it's the message you were intending to link to. However it's still a good read even if it wasn't the intended mail.
The Working Dead
Definitely. In general, though -all other things being equal- if I have to decide who dies, I will decide they won't be people fighting on my side.
While the upfront cost is high Macs hold their value better than any other computer I've ever used and are SUPER easy to resale. So while you pay more you will be able to sell it for way more than a windows computer.
Unassailable? That short-sited philosophy essentially legitimizes the use of any weapon if the goal in using it is to finish a war faster. The goal of each side in a war is to dominate and win as fast as possible, but there are degrees of immorality, and to stoop to deplorable means (gas, nukes, biological) to bring about a quicker end is to lose the high ground and very likely inspire surrounding nations to unite against you. Thankfully, our leaders have realized this, otherwise we'd have kept on using nukes when in conflicts since dropping them on Japan.
Simple solution: don't set up a stop loss. Accept that the best you personally can do is track the market, and if the market crashes so will your portfolio.
I changed my first name on LinkedIn to my full name and my last name to "." so that while my name still reads correctly to humans, bulk messages start with Hello <full name> and I can bin them accordingly.
I can. It scrolls one pixel per mousewheel click.
It makes sense in the context of WWII, where conventional bombing campaigns killed people at a slower rate that atomic. Also, it just took a localized atomic campaign to cause that war to cease everywhere, whereas increased conventional bombing in all theaters would have not ended the war so quickly.

There might be a modern analogy to be drawn: "It's more moral to torturously murder a few enemies on internet video, such that the rest of your enemies are sufficiently scared to engage, than it is to try to engage them all in battle."
They needed to demonstrate not only the awesome and terrible power of the bomb, but also that it could be accurately targeted (hence, two bombs).
I think his argument is based on the premise that the atomic bomb meant the war could be ended without protracted ground invasion and thousands of additional conventional bombing runs.

You can still dispute that premise -- and while I don't, many people do. But if you accept that premise, then yeah, it's a war. End (win) it as soon as you possibly can.

I also think that in a war, unless you think you are on the wrong side or perpetrating immoral aggression towards an underserving enemy, you should optimize for more deaths on the opposing side than on yours.

Also, I live in Tokyo (though I am American) -- and the sustained, conventional firebombing of Tokyo produced more devastation and casualties (though perhaps not horror) than Hiroshima or Nagasaki[1].

Of course dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populations is a terrible thing to do, but to me the key point of Beser's lecture is that he reminds you that it was done in the context of a completely fucking horrific world war. Which really does radically change the equation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
I went on a tour with my son's robotics club to a company that makes robotic arms and such for factories.

At the end the CEO said if their is one thing he can recommend to all kids (I was ready for him to say take STEM classes), is for them to take public speaking. He said it's so critical for them to be able to properly share your ideas and listen to people. Quite interesting.
Didn't we just have a story on HN claiming that introverts make the best something-or-other? I'm not even trying to keep up with things like this anymore.
"China sells to China"
And if you believe that this is what protects managers from getting fired, you don't have enough experience.

Managers have all sorts of ridiculous beliefs, but the root cause of management incompetence is this: that managers believe that a manager can manage anything. Running a store, developing a phone, building a house, designing a rocket to go to the moon, it's all the same thing according to them. Getting info, negotiate, motivate a team, giving speeches, running projects, ... Some go further in this, and some hold up the idea that something like "management science" exists.

This directly leads to the second ridiculous belief, which causes a feedback loop : that they can hire other managers anywhere, absolutely no concern for what they did before, as long as they had slightly less "reports" (so they are "promoted" into their new position), for any management function.

Then, of course the second belief leads to negotiation, to trading business efforts for jobs. If you make my department look good (internally "hire" us as consultants because your financial performance is down the crapper anyway and we'll hire you next quarter after your division gets nixed). Nothing is so damaging to companies, as the main thing being traded is making disasters far worse in trade for personal exits, but the people who'd have to do something about it are of course managers, who have negotiated for jobs and have further negotiation in place for moving up.

For "some reason" managers never ever start any company. Companies are started by people who actually know what the company is supposed to do. Companies are (were) started by mechanics, by engineers, by traders (ie. shop attendants), by software developers, sometimes by experienced investors, by ... The best companies were started by people who had the skills to do well in 2 different fields. Generally what happens is that at some point a deep and explosive conflict happens between these founders and some employees of their companies, and then someone is brought in to prevent this. In reality, this is normal. Meet enough people, raise the stakes high enough and you will clash very seriously with other people. And the bigger your company gets as a founder, the more is at stake, and the more people you will have to deal with. So a conflict escalating is a matter of time, but it is human nature to compensate : founders will bring in a manager to deal with this sort of thing, and then the job trading begins. As everybody who's held a job at a large company knows, this does not prevent personality clashes, quite the opposite, but once this position trading starts, it is incredibly hard to stop.
I think the dangerous part is taking something biological and trying to make a direct association with something as vaguely defined as emotional intelligence. This kind of thing is extremely dependent on culture. If you take an American with high emotional intelligence and plant them in Finland, they aren't necessarily going to be able to read people the same way. It's hard to imagine a case where this kind of thing isn't a learned ability.

It's like saying men are better at Algebra. Most people are capable of being perfect at Algebra with the right training and focus. It's just a matter of moving numbers around in a very predictable way. Responding to people's emotional cues is similarly something trainable, but because it's cultural and more difficult to define precisely (and what isn't less precise than math?), it tends to acquire a more mystical aura and lends itself to being defined as something gender specific when that might not really be the case at all. Maybe it really is, but we have no hard evidence either way, and any statistics about it have a high probability of being culturally biased.

In the long run, I don't think that training new generations of people to respond to emotions will be any more effective than recording successful interactions and using the data to train computers to do the same thing. With a large enough data set, a good enough algorithm that can vary tone of voice in response to emotional cues is going to be more consistent than a large workforce doing the same thing. With humans, you'll get more exceptional talents, but you'll also get more really awful people, and with the state of the Internet, just one awful customer service experience can go viral and ruin a company's reputation. Even if computers aren't as good as the most exceptional people at responding to emotions, I think the jobs will tend toward the computers there too for the sake of protecting against those few employees who aren't good, don't care, or are just having a bad day and take it out on customers. There will still be high-end services where people care about being served by people, but for commodity customer service, computers will win within a few decades (and this applies to managing employees too, particularly in situations like scheduling, but I think middle management will be slower to switch for cultural reasons, since managers actually have some control over keeping their jobs).
> The sad fact is that most ad companies are not built by top engineers.

This is an interesting thought. Working in a environment close to advertisement (travel recommendation engine), I have a few possible explanations on that.

- First, working in with a product that have no (or close to) added value for end users can be very bothering, and top engineers care about doing useful things.

- Second, to design a fast, simple and honest ad network you must fight your own business/marketing team (because they always want more data, higher click through rate, etc). Since they have most of the power here, they end up hiring more diligent engineers who won't argue about privacy, curated content and other stuff.

- Third, top engineers are working in ad companies, and secretly conspire to make the whole system collapse from the inside.
Windows 10 is just another example of the trend in all operating systems. It came out a little more buggy than what used to be considered acceptable. New features are added that are unpolished and made at the expense of privacy or usability. Even thou people hated Vista, under the hood there was a lot of technical improvements to be happy about. Windows 10 really is just hinging on directx 10.

Sadly this trend is there with Apple as well. No one really uses the family ipad2 anymore since we upgraded to ios8.
For those following along at home

$ echo "yjmxhXUbhB/5MV45chPsXZWAJwIh1S0aD9lFn3XuJMSxJ3/E+UE3hsnH" \
| openssl enc -d -a -aes-128-cfb -iv 01000000FFFFFFFF79C1690B67C1047D \
-K CDC57EAD285F6DE1CE8FCC29B121888E | xxd

0000000: 0d00 fffe 4600 5200 4100 4e00 4b00 4900 ....F.R.A.N.K.I.
0000010: 4500 2000 4a00 4f00 4800 4e00 5300 0000 E. .J.O.H.N.S...
0000020: 0000 0020 6640 d407 0601 ... f@....
I won't insult you by asking "Why would you ever want that?", because we all have our reasons. But, you have to realize, most people don't do this. So, useless to you is still pretty useful for most people.
There's a difference between knowing someone placed an order and using that to front-run, and guessing that someone will place an order and using that to HFT.
Very interesting concept. This might actually be the way to go for autonomous delivery. Especially if drones are banned from flying over houses, as California is trying to do. But all these autonomous delivery methods will lead to a ton of goods being stolen/damaged, there's no question about that.
Early on, the UK also shipped their detritus to the US