skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you have time to browse HN you're not poor enough to justify pirating over a $6 rental.

I'm not advocating for piracy and don't think it's generally justifiable in most situations, but I don't think it's really fair for you to claim that people that browse a specific website are at some certain level of status or economic-well-being.

Maybe everyone you know irl who reads HN is a hot-shot rock-star developer, but I assure you the people you know who read HN is not representative of everyone who reads HN.
Before gaming on iOS and Apple TV, there was Pippin
The movie (and television) industry hasn't really faced anything that made piracy easier than paying before. This is their Napster moment. One can argue that Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc are easy, but those are different sites/app with different user interfaces. Popcorn Time is one program that has all of their content and more.

Popcorn Time might hurt Netflix a little in the short-term with lost users, but long-term (5+ years) I think it could help. Some of the big players in the movie industry haven't wanted Netflix to become what Apple became for the music industry. If the alternative is piracy (i.e. no money), then their hand may be forced to give Netflix more content on better terms.
Ask the doctors if the Guardant 360 test could help. https://www.guardanthealth.com/guardant360/

It is a blood test that can determine genetic mutations in the tumor that may help identify it.
My interpretation of his "insert" comment, was that of 1). My response to that was to preempt the common refrain of HFT defenders who universally trot out the "liquidity" defense.

As for the criticisms focusing on volatility vs liquidity, to me they are linked, because in those instances of flash crashes that are the target of the recent criticisms, the issue has been that volatity increases due to HFT algorithms withdrawing from the market (i.e. reducing liquidity).

Also, there are other criticisms of HFT's beyond those three, including the "coincidence" that HFT firms seem to be responsible for most of the major order spoofing. Regulators have been VERY slow and uneven about enforcing HFT spoofing, but are finally catching on, albeit with slaps on the wrist (excluding Citadel being banned in China).
I assume by technical labor you mean programming effort. It is hard to communicate the effort required to produce software to a non-programmer. But it can be done. You have to understand the nature of the problem.

"How long will it take for you to do X?" "It will take me about a month." "Really? It doesn't look like it's that much work." This is not an information gap, it is a perspective gap. You are looking at it from the angle of completing the task, and he is looking at it from the angle of cutting costs. You say, "X is harder than you think because of Y and Z," and he says, "Then just leave out Y and Z for now and do only X." You say, "It takes Google two months to do X," and he says, "That's why we're going to beat them to it." You say, "Many smart people have tried to do X and failed," and he says, "Then do it right this time." There's no end to these conversations.

Just give the best guess you can on estimates, and don't budge. Don't feel like you have to justify it by revealing personal details about your life, like cost of living. It's not like you're building snowboarding trips into your estimate. This is your professional opinion. Just tell him, if you want rushed software that's gonna fail in 6 months, I can deliver it whenever you want, but I'm trying to build something you can use.

Sometimes it's even a trust issue. If the level of trust is not established, then he will doubt you no matter what you say. So you might have to roll up your sleeves and itemize the crap out of every task until he understands that you aren't just pulling his leg.
Probably your best bet at this point is to use the NodeSource repos to keep up to date with the latest (stable) versions: https://github.com/nodesource/distributions
Your blog post doesn't make a very strong argument, honestly.
Is "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" code word for "CIA guy #2 who actually detonated the bomb from his black backpack"? If you're asking yourself "what CIA guy?" the answer is "either of the two that the police afterwards told everyone to dismiss while helping find the perpetrator".

Also, how quickly are we, the public, supposed to forget that "THIS IS A DRILL, THIS IS A DRILL" was yelled 3 seconds before the explosion?

And what about Boston Globe's tweet one minute before the explosion? "There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities."

And why is Paul Craig Roberts convinced D.T. was a patsy?

Many questions, not enough answers.
Yup, agreed on the Bridge Nine comment. Makes sense too when you think that Wes Eisold was one of the guys mentioned in the article - there's even a picture on the bridge near fenway with him in it.
Glad to hear it!

For those that are curious we have a $300 free trial for 60 days, as well as a $100,000 startups program for those that qualify (https://cloud.google.com/developers/startups/)
They did, 5 days ago if you check /jobs
I have already read that last year.

Blizzard really screwed themselves( and the players ) with the Auction House.
Wheels are the most effective way to transport things on land. So of course it's in our best interests to keep improving that wheel.

Certainly, language is useful when hashing out a problem on paper (be it pseudocode or math equation or whatever). The abstraction is convenient. But programming languages are not a requirement for computers to do their work. Languages exist for our benefit, not the machine's. One can use software to do work on a computing architecture, or that same algorithm can be implemented in hardware and run a hell of a lot faster.

The problem is that, while we can come up with all kinds of algorithms, we can't seem to agree on what programming language to use when implementing those algorithms. I guess I'm arguing that the languages are getting in the way of the algorithm, and it would be nice if there were a way to achieve something closer to a 1:1 relationship between algorithm and implementation. We're always going to be inventing new programming languages because we can't reach a consensus on what is the 'best' abstraction. It's become ridiculous at this point.

Algorithms are currently expressed by programming languages because they have to run on general purpose, programmable von Neumann architectures. I mean, yeah we could skip the language and just input machine code, but that would of course be ridiculous. That's why we use compilers.

If there were an easy way to implement algorithms directly in hardware, why would we bother with programming languages?

Take, for example, a supercomputer. If the kinds of work a supercomputer does could be implemented directly in hardware, I think it would be safe to assume that researchers would be all over that. The gains would be enormous.

If there were a hardware-only 'Travelling Salesman' algorithm that showed astronomical gains in efficiency compared to the conventional software implementation, don't you think that would be important and useful?
I am curious about what career you chose.
The new class syntax and arrow functions are huge, I'm in love.
About half the time, adjusting my Nest goes like this:

1. Wonder what the thermostat is currently set to.

2. Approach thermostat hoping to trigger the proximity detection.

3. Stand in front of thermostat like idiot for 2.4 seconds to see if proximity sensor activates.

4. Decide proximity sensor won't activate.

5. Turn bezel by smallest possible amount to wake thermostat without changing setting.

6. Overshoot and change setting anyway.

7. Realize original setting was acceptable. Put it back.

Being always on would be nice. You can work around not having it be so (I'm sure the Nest's implementation can be improved) but the ideal would just be to have it always be visible.

Of course, half the time I'm doing this, it's dark enough that I couldn't read an e-ink display....
How to Create a Tiny Docker Image for Your Ruby App
Talent vs. Hard Work and Why Being a Loser Isn’t a Legitimate Excuse
From what I've briefly read in this paper, it looks like they use the word "meditation" broadly enough that CBT would be included in it's definition.
Andrew “bunnie” Huang has a series of articles about getting a product built in China at http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=7.

The Dangerous Prototype guys have a Surviving Shenzhen boot camp if you ever get really serious at http://dangerousprototypes.com/2014/08/07/hacker-camp-shenzh....
I'd start with something like this: http://www.amazon.com/CBT-Toolbox-Workbook-Clients-Clinician...

I started with Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy, by Burns, and it's really good but an overwhelming amount of information.

That being said, I do have an appreciation from mindfulness meditation as well as CBT. They complement each other very well. I'd recommend the audiobook Mindfulness: An Eight-Week Plan for Finding Peace in a Frantic World. It's a really easy way to get started and you'll definitely feel like your life has improved by the time the 8 weeks is up.
In terms of usability and compatibility, you get the worst of both worlds. And if we take it as given that current QSE implementations are weak, it's not going to add much security.
Being openminded isn't much of a start though. How do you narrow down which seemingly-normal things are really facades for something? How do you privilege the hypothesis[1]?

If you were, in this case, claiming it was because the CI was looking for Russian ships - what evidence do you have? Given enough conspiracy theories, at least one will be right. But that one right one shouldn't be accorded any point if there was no reason to believe it over other ideas.

1: http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/
A computer scientist is writing a book about programming for babies
How do you mean? All this post is saying is that “const” in JavaScript is the same as “final” in Java—it lets you make immutable references, but not immutable objects. In C terms, you can express this:

T *const x = ...; // Immutable pointer to mutable T.

But not this:

T const *x = ...; // Mutable pointer to immutable T.

Even so, I don’t agree with the author’s argument that “const” is to be avoided. It does offer some protection against minor errors, which is not nothing.
I took that class several years ago and it was definitely not about machine learning, mostly mapping/localization and route planning. It was a good class but the claim: "Learn how to program all the major systems of a robotic car" is vastly overblown. That would only be true if things like traffic sign recognition and pedestrian detection are not considered major systems of a robotic car.
The 5 Myths of the Indiepocalypse
I don't suppose this will be live-streamed?
>> No scripting language can ever integrate with the host system quite as well as shell scripts can.

> What is the basis for this? Shell script is a scripting language (more precisely, a set of scripting languages with similar features.) The difference between shell scripting languages and other scripting languages is that the former are optimized around the need to scale down to a convenient line-by-line way to work with the system in a REPL; while the others may support work in a REPL it is not what they are optimized for.

Disagree. The defining characteristic of shell scripting languages is that they are a shell that can be scripted. What's a shell? It's a program designed to be a layer around the OS, exposing all of the capabilities of the OS to the user in a convenient form.

So the only way a non-shell scripting language can become that powerful is to become a shell scripting language.
This may be a simple question. Can you take "snapshots" of AI and then load multiple robots with the same robot model learned in a classroom like this?

I.E. Do the training with a prototype robot, then send the learned behavior to a factory where they can send out pre-taught robots with what the prototype learned?

I can't see a reason this wouldn't work, but maybe I'm missing something.
I believe a $60 used OLPC has the same screen tech, but the keyboard is squishy.

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Display#Screen
Here is a timeline diagram showing how the LTS and Stable branches will work:

https://nodesource.com/assets/blog/essential-steps-lts/nodej...

From this NodeSource post:

https://nodesource.com/blog/essential-steps-long-term-suppor...
It depends on how you define a 'fair share'. In my mind, it's defined as everyone making the same amount of sacrifice.

Equal sacrifice does not mean an equal amount of money; $1K is much more of a sacrifice for someone with $10K than for someone with $10 million. It does not mean the same percentage of tax; again, 20% of your income is a much larger sacrifice if you make $10K than if you make $10 million.

> The rich people already pay their share ...

I'm not sure we can say that without first defining their share? Maybe they are paying less or more than their share.

> public education that they don't benefit from

I disagree strongly. The wealthy have benefitted much more from public services than everyone else, including from education. Could you imagine a country without education? Without public education who would be their employees? Who would be their customers? Their vendors? Who would provide the endless network of services on which our economy and their wealth is built, from banking to research to roads to the political and legal systems to security to technology ... Even the wealthiest have built only a tiny edifice on a massive foundation built by our predecessors, and are wholly dependant on our contemporaries.
So many versions of this story as all the other comments under this one show.
Given the severity (significant), and speed (relatively slow), I'd get a second opinion from a (different?) top-tier medical facility.

Sometimes doctors just don't know what they need to know in order to best treat a condition, and they're not good at polling the competition (though many try). It's up to the motivated patient to fill that gap, though it's probably a long shot.

The aorta moves, constantly, making any kind of characterization or manipulation nearly impossible without stopping it, running the risk that it may not start up again. No doctor in their right mind would risk killing their patient for test results that aren't urgently needed. The patient staying alive is the goal.

Some tumors stop growing all on their own, and there may be decades of functionality left in spite of the growth.

When the heart ends up limping along from occluded flow, running a bypass would seem like a commonly-performed procedure. That may not be applicable but the death rate for a coronary bypass for a patient under 65 (presumably like your baby mama) is under 1 percent. Maybe things aren't as dire as they seem.
Looks like an interesting idea, but if the first one includes Mac-related stuff, but is from 2007, then it's way out of date.
I also would have no problem figuring out what to do with my time. I would pretty much do the same thing I do today, both at work and for my hobbies. My hobbies of the last several years have ranged from triathlons, auto racing, ballroom dancing, yoga and cooking. But not everyone is like you or I. There are people who would choose to do something less constructive. The problem comes when people choose to do something destructive. This is potentially a real problem. I wish I had references related to this topic but I don't.

I also wouldn't have a problem with people taking their basic income but not contributing to society. I don't worry that everyone would be lazy. I agree we would still have startups and companies and advancement of knowledge.

The idea of basic income sounds good but would it really work in practice? This is what needs to be discussed. I am try to raise a potential problem as to why it might not work. (I am not the only one who has suggested this problem.)

From a more practical point of view, there is also the issue of how such a program could ever be adopted. This is the unfortunate reality of American politics. The idea of workfare could be something that the conservative half of the country also supports.

I am in agreement with you about wanting people to have a fulfilling life outside of work. The definition of "work" would have to allow for people to live a fulfilling life and not be slaves.
Post this when it's updated for Skylake.
Since it's the first and only release so far in 4.x.y, I got away with `nvm install 4`. ;)
This marks a big day for Node - one which I and many others have been patiently waiting for, and one which still hasn't quite hit me yet :)

Big thanks to all those who made this possible!!
> If Harvard were taxed, would it still provide better education?

To fewer people, and in particular to fewer non-wealthy people, most likely. That money has to come from somewhere.

> Which is why I see this as a policy question - is it better to have one person with a "better" education at a private school, or use the same money to have two people receive a college education at a public school?

Sure, it's a policy question. That does not automatically make it government business; that policy has already been made by the people who decided to donate their funds to a private university rather than to some other cause. I don't favor the Darth Vader approach to government policymaking ("I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further").

We have a set of tax laws about non-profits. If we're going to poke holes in those laws to collect more money, we should not do so while listening to arguments about where the money would be "better" spent, unless it is to be put into a special untouchable budget for only those purposes. Laws that say "we'll collect these funds for this purpose" fall flat when the budget doesn't work that way; the funds spent are not in any way tied to the funds collected, nor are the two kept connected in future laws.

> I don't dismiss your point regarding past evidence. However, I think that's symptomatic of a different structural failure, where the cult of hiring MBAs running something "like a business" has taken over schools, health care, government and other organizations which should not have the high rate of failures seen in businesses.

"like a business" seems to only get used when convenient, and discarded otherwise. When people talk about wanting to keep extra money in the budget when returning it, they talk about running the government like a business, and saving the funds for future expenses. Yet governments people have no problem spending more money than they have, and either raising taxes to cover the difference or simply going into debt.

> Regarding "looking at the contents of someone else's bank account and wishing it was yours" - that's a wealth tax, and it exists in France, Norway, Spain, and several other countries, so it does make sense to some.

Yes, some other governments have an even more entitled attitude over other people's money. That doesn't make it right. The justifications used for wealth taxes are even more tenuous than those used to justify income taxes.

Might does not make right. And getting half of voters to agree to take money from the other half is tantamount to rustling up a mob to take what they feel entitled to, but with more diffusion of responsibility.
Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto Explaining World 1-1
Nicely done! Looking forward to checking it out on github :)
One place I find it useful to start is with the one empirical attempt to actually try basic income, the Canadian Mincome Experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME

The other direction is to look at today's Social Security (basic income for the elderly) and attempt to extrapolate what/how you would expand the program to cover every citizen. For instance, examining the impact of fixed incomes on the elderly versus the cost of living in various parts of the country and how the elderly today are already coping with such issues.

Another direction I've been trying to keep an eye on and follow as best I can is the discussions and work going on in (fringe) economics under the name "Modern Monetary Theory":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
Basic income probably couldn't be adjusted for cost of living differences or else a bunch of perverse incentives would be introduced. One of the things I like about a flat nation-wide basic income is that it would instead incentivize people to move to cheap areas and revitalize them. You could imagine a lot of rural areas and small towns being revitalized with a surge of young people experimenting with co-ops and semi communal living.
Really? I don't think you can draw a broad conclusion on just your group of friends. Also, the nice thing about the automat is that you _do_ customize your meal by composing it from the individual pieces. I wish I could visit one these in my lifetime, to be honest.
deleted (?)
Astronauts Have Read 'The Martian,' Now Can't Wait for Movie
For the iOS version of the Thai-English Dictionary from thai-language.com (https://appsto.re/us/QS7jQ.i), I use a content-less FTS4 index and indeed do not store the actual dictionary content in SQLite at all. In this application, I'd be happy to settle with referring to it as merely an index, and not a database.
I disagree that my point is that the true purpose of our business is to help advertisers manipulate consumers. I clearly state later, "the audience is also responding positively. We have run multiple focus groups that have demonstrated to us that people in our core demographic (18-to-29-year-olds) actually like branded content if it is informative and adds value to them. In some cases, particularly video, they almost expect that high-quality content has been sponsored."

We are not trying to fool our audience, and we have not sacrificed editorial integrity. We have simply made it easier (and better) for our partners to buy what advertisers have always bought: consumer attention. Native content has been around for decades (in the 1950s baseball announcers described home runs as "Ballantine Blasts" after Ballantine beer). We are running a business, and native content is a valuable asset we have to sell.
What about 15 years later? Things in the world have changed. Are they required to stay current with the changes, or do they continue to work using old information?
I'm curious why you think things can never change. Maybe you can't imagine anything different. That's OK, other people will drag you into the future.
Keep in mind that the specific rules of the media chronology legal regime are set through interprofessional agreements. The specific delays for VOD services were added in 2009 and are mostly the result of an attempt by incumbents to protect their market share against internet entrants. The state agency (Conseil National du Cinéma) is actually pushing for a shorter period for subscription VOD (24 months), but only for actors involved in "French artistic creation" (basically all of them except Netflix).

All of this may seem hard to understand from a foreign perspective, but you have to realize that numerous rules apply to cultural industries in France. For example, channels must respect a minimum ratio of French movies and series in their programming. They also have an obligation to invest 3 % of their turnover in funding european and French movies. Thus, these French actors feel that Netflix's foreign status allows it to escape these obligations and they resent what they see as an unfair competition.
You have a point if you ignore that under the "anything goes" regime, vanishingly small amounts of new content were created regularly. Now that we have a legal framework whereby you can potentially get rewarded for your output, we literally have more creative output than any one person can ever even understand. That's a situation many of us would like to see continue, despite the constant attempts to make it seem like the current copyright regime is somehow suppressing artists.