skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
every rental in the city would be renting for at least $3000 per bedroom per month

No, because there aren't enough people who are willing to pay $3000. Rent controls push the average rent down temporarily (until supply drops to regain equilibrium), but it pushes the clearing price up because it means that instead of 1000 people chasing 900 units there's 150 people chasing 50 units.
Might want to say "side-on" instead, I rotated the elephant around the wrong axis and was confused for a moment.
I've never had a problem with NULL as a "value". Null is the absence of content, a container that is truly empty, and that is frequently useful. As an example it allows you to differentiate between a numerical field that was never populated vs. one specifically set to Zero. This is often an important distinction.
We now offer $79/year and $499/year plans, which would fit perfectly the model you describe. We only started offering them a few days ago due to demand.
Yeah, I certainly understand the drive to provide the "best X, Y, and Z" for kids, but I'm pretty satisfied with reducing expenses and providing "good enough X, Y, and Z" for my son in exchange for not being stressed out and being able to spend more high-quality time with him.
I was wondering, why not use ARC, as in C++ and Obj-C?
>you're forcing someone else to pick up your tab

Circumstantial scarcity of housing aside, unless the landlord is paying more in building maintenance and property taxes, the assumed loss of revenue due to inflated land costs is not actually "costing" anything.

If instead of rent control the federal government forced cities to build an ample supply of housing for the local population within commutable distance, causing the price of investment land / buildings to drop, the cost of maintaining that land remains the same.
I'm really surprised this is so new. I'm only beginning to enter the field and falling asleep the other night one of my thoughts was 'why doesn't the GC happen piecemeal?' AKA 'who said we have to collect everything, just unload 2 bins worth'. Mainly WRT use in Android, where it causes perceivable hitching
Also it assumes that only one program is running on a machine and it's ok to use all the machine's resources. In practice that isn't true - if your web application uses twice as much server memory then you're going to be paying nearly twice as much for your cluster of servers. That makes a big difference.
First of all, how often you're correct doesn't matter; say the tails option wasn't "you'll be woken up a million times", but instead "you'll be asked the same stupid question a million times" (and have to answer as if you'd forgotten the previous answer). Of course you'll be wrong more often in the tails situation.

Second, the experiment isn't run 10 times. It's run once. A single coin flip. With a multitude of flips, you've got no idea where you are in the sequence so it pushes your averages toward the 1:1000000. But a single coin flip is a single coin flip, 50/50.
Байкал+-+Реестр+населённых+пунктов+Новосибирской+области++҉01+сен+2015+10:12
> potentially dangerous worldview

those tools are the same freaks that make Chrome take 150MB-200MB per Tab and ruined my perfectly usable 8GB-RAM system in a matter of 2 years.
Thanks - I remember seeing that when looking through the docs, but I don't really like that either, unfortunately. I'm using Uglify right now, and I was thinking of adding a pre-minify step that walks the AST for a JSDoc-style annotation on either the properties themselves or a containing object, and pulls out the list of property names to preserve that way.
Because despite pointing out exactly why I thought it was true and explaining Obj-C's various dispatch optimization tricks and how they still left an optimizing compiler/runtime with a far greater challenge, the response was generally, "you have no idea what you are talking about".

Thanks to Dunning-Kruger, it's quite difficult to be sure if they just can't be bothered to explain what I don't understand (maybe performance differences arise elsewhere... maybe there were far more sophisticated tricks in the modern message dispatch code than I'd come to understand... though it seemed unlikely they'd be so significant) or its the other way around.

Empirical evidence would seem to point strongly in my favour, but you'd think that'd give people some pause before making such statements.
Even though you're a troll, I will point out that the Metro design language was released before Material Design, so it can't be a response.
So, if the new people to the community do stay around enough of years, do they become the lucky "been there a while" people, and get the subsidy that they paid for earlier back in reduced rents?
I am not worried about the lack of extra ethernet ports, or internal storage as most content is moving to the cloud and off-site backup and video security is a best practice.

What do I find to be missing is a backup WAN, ideally 3G/LTE cellular modem via USB. This is important if you are setting, say, Dropcams for security while away from home -- in addition of backup power.

That's one thing I do like about Peplink/Pepwave routers, such as the Balance One or Pepwave SoHo -- I am curious to hear anyone's opinion on these devices. Granted, Peplink goes a level further with extra WANs to increase bandwidth and allow business continuity.

I assume Google may actually add this functionality on the USB port, and I think this would be more important than storage.
The only reasonable argument I've heard is performance modifications => moving tables/columns/indexes around to take advantage of the shape of the data.

It all works happily locally, but once applied to the (large) production data set, the optimisations don't help. So the rollback script is useful.
Not saying it will make a HUGE change in and of itself but it does compound
> People who won't see it don't but if you are at all open to it it's easy to reproduce.

So, have someone who is "open" to it go and view something that they haven't otherwise had a chance to perceive in person, then when they wake up tell the experimenter what it was. If it's easy to reproduce, then they should be able to do that, and it should be easy to verify that they had an out of the body experience.

Instead, you just get anecdotes, of people repeating past experiences with no controls to blind it. Human memory is surprisingly faulty, people can fill in details later on in their memory, and so on. So it's very easy to think that you had a dream in which you saw something for the first time, and then later recognize it while you're awake; but it's also possible that you brain just filled in the memory when you saw it later. Or maybe you had seen it in the past but didn't have conscious recollection. And so on.

Simply hearing people say that they had OOB experiences in which they saw things that they never saw in person is not particularly credible.
"To create a garbage collector for the next decade, we turned to an algorithm from decades ago. Go's new garbage collector is a concurrent, tri-color, mark-sweep collector, an idea first proposed by Dijkstra in 1978."

So, the best GC for the next decade was proposed in 1978. Whatever computer scientists have proposed since then apparently hasn't been as good.... so they can all just pack it up and go home?

I'd be really really curious to hear from some academic computer scientists if the best that can be done was first proposed back then, and they've all just failed to find anything better since. Cause this is just downright depressing otherwise (If you actually want to believe that we're making progress).
Well I'll be damned... though it looks like it might be tough to get one :D
Perhaps "Betteridge" could be one of the pseudonymous Economist columnists?
Neither, the cool kids are using Radium https://github.com/FormidableLabs/radium
:-J
There's a similar mechanism in place for owners in California, 1978 California "Prop 13" [0]. Among other things, this limits the amount that the "assessed value" of a property can increase to 2% per year, unless the property changes hands, in which case it can reset to "market" value.

It has contributed to people staying in their houses a lot longer than they'd otherwise be able to. This increases the amount of NIMBYism as older people don't vote (in general) for things which change the "character" of the places they've lived in for 40 years.

Proponents will say that it increases stability of communities, taking as an article of faith that community stability is something that should be optimized for.

Among other things such as lack of effective regional public transit, I consider Prop 13 to be a sizeable disadvantage to the bay area's continued viability as a tech hub over the next 20 years, as it even further constrains the amount of housing available, "affordable" or not.

Anyway, this is of course probably old news to you if you have ever considered buying property here, but for people who are not from around here, it bears mentioning. Are there such controls elsewhere in the world?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
It should be roughly as hard as cracking a hash of 1024 bits, i.e. very hard.
It would be really nice. The closest we have, so far I know, is Cygwin (I don't what it's like now, I used it a long time ago)
> But what if the car adjusts its fuel efficiency dynamically?

And your body does just that. That's why you continually re-evaluate what your calorie needs are and adjust your intake accordingly. Weight Watchers does this every single week. See how much you weigh, figure out what your "maintenance" calories are, and make sure you eat 200-300 less than that.

Then, yes, your body changes, adapts and becomes more efficient, because you're changing things, and it's getting lighter so be definition it needs less calories. So then check-in again a week later repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

> If certain levels of caloric deficit can cause physiological changes that affect rate of weight loss

I wouldn't go there. I mean, if you want to change the rate of weight loss, just eat absolutely zero calories for 6 months. I grantee you'll lose a massive amount of weight. Is that a good idea? absolutely not. There is an amount that's sensible and works well. It's something like 200-300 less calories than your maintenance requires.

> * Why not maximize efficiency of weight loss*

It's interesting to me you're still viewing this as "weight loss", and something to be maximized and made more efficient, and something with an end date. What hasn't dawned on you yet (and usually takes most weight watchers people a very long time to get) is that, at some point in the future, you will weigh your goal weight. When you get there, your calorie requirements to maintain that are going to be massively lower than they are now. Actually, they're going to be right around what you were eating the week before you got to your goal weight. Guess what? That's now what you're going to eat for the rest of your life.

You can't really maximize the efficiency of the rest of your life. So just start working towards it, today.
Nominate a Great Product Person Today #prodmgmt
But you probably want to store the descriptions of the instances and what runs on them in a git repository. It doesn't matter whether you use env variables or something else. At some point you will have a git repository which stores the CM for your whole infrastructure.
There's all kinds of math on techniques for being able to audit the vote without exposing individual voting behaviour. It is possible to prove to yourself that your vote was counted without exposing what your vote was to others, and also providing assurances that the result represents the aggregate of everyone's "votes". I don't think there is much about the important aspects of this design that require there be massive privacy issues. There are some variants around "honest verifiers" that work even more simply. Most of the homomorphic encryption excitement stems from some of the more sophisticated variants of that approach.
The test in the article was extremely easy for me, I guess I can visualize better than most people (I had no idea some people have trouble with that). It's funny, because I've considered myself to be an "auditory" person.

Something I tried to visualize recently, and found quite challenging, was trying to remember this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yW--eQaA2I

I watched it a couple of years ago, and last night I replayed it in my head, but with great difficulty.
Hopefully not anymore.

The uniqueness of my left-handedness turns out to be great as an adult as its something sometimes people use as a conversation starter.

The other advantage of left-handness is that I learnt that people who were left-handness had a a more active right brain, which means I am extra creative !
Reference counting generally suffers from the cyclic reference problem, e.g. if you lose a reference to a doubly-linked-list, the entire data structure leaks and won't get freed. In Obj-C, this problem is tackled via manually annotating some pointers as "weak", explicitly (and you have to be extra careful with them).

There are less fundamental issues as well, like high contention on the reference count in highly parallel environments, and more memory fragmentation compared to a compacting garbage collector. Also, memory allocation tends to be faster on a compacting garbage collected heap (simply increment the heap pointer instead of searching for a large enough available block). Additionally, freeing memory when things run out of scope cause challenges when optimizing code, like making it more difficult to optimize function invocations that otherwise would have been eliminated as tail calls with a garbage collector. In practice, in some cases, the cost of a tracing garbage collector might be well worth when you amortize it over the lifetime of the program, compared to keeping track of reference counts at runtime.
I don't know much about chemistry, but how would they know if an interesting polymer arose of the interaction of the simple chemicals they put in there, versus the breakdown of a bacterial membrane at 85C interacting with the things already there?
but there has to be a justifiable reason why the individual cannot be hired.

I feel like "we will lose our business license" is probably going to qualify.
The Oz Tech Startup Industry Is in Flames
Sure, but this problem already exists with representative democracy.

This system can dampen other problems like Election Cycle Effect, high barriers of entry for becoming a candidate, voters focusing on superficial aspects of the candidate etc
In theory yes. In practice you're talking about a massive cryptographic break, to the extent that it's not worth worrying about if you're going to be using those random numbers for anything that involves real-world cryptography. If you can't trust your CSPRNG to be secure when your attacker gets ahold of 1024 bits of output then you can't trust anything you're going to do with the output of your random number generator anyway.
I'll bet some of those SF voters would approve new developments if they didn't have rent control keeping THEIR prices down.
the point is to have one set of laws that applies logically to all situations and to all people equally.

This is already the case. Codifying laws into some sort of PL is a complete diversion and redundant.
Google Votes is a 20% project that myself and several other Googlers run. Currently, the app is only available internal to Google and we haven't open sourced it. The paper is (obviously) public as well as two Tech Talks on YouTube.
http://goo.gl/KLBxv0
http://goo.gl/7yRSP1

Steve Hardt
Sure. The people have the legal right to do a whole lot of things they shouldn't do.
Your argument is flawed, because regulating a market isn't the same as picking up someone else's tab.

To see an analogy for why take something (unrelated) like a theoretical "monopoly" - currently illegal to establish one - , that becomes a monopoly, starts charging monopoly prices, and buys any new competitors while they're still tiny, for 100x earnings, so that it can retain a monopoly, including paying commpetitors not to enter the field at all. This happens, and happened.

They then charge based more on intrinsic utility rather than the competitive commodity price, and do all sorts of lock-in stuff to retain their monopoly advantage.

Now, let's say I want to run a monopoly like that. Are you forcing me to "pick up your tab" by supporting the law that makes my plan to set up that monopoly illegal? In other words, by supporting laws that make this business plan illegal, are you forcing me the businessman to pick up your tab as a consumer?

Remember, trusts and monopolies (a historical fact) happened through other simple, pure private contracts and normal market behavior.

If you're okay with regulating this (and unless you want to start paying 5x more for many of your everyday items, then you are), then I don't see why you shouldn't be okay with regulating the housing market: the natural market prices aren't somehow automatically morally afforded. Society gets to choose different priorities at times.

Edit: Boy do you guys not get an analogy :) (This is at -1.) I've made it a bit more explicit. First of all, to the respondent who said that is not how trusts/monopolies work, please look up the history of monopolies. They were by private contracts and transactions that are not illegal by themselves, but deprive everyone of a competitive market. Secondly, this is an analogy - because by regulating monopolies, you are removing someone's right to simply set a market price, or agree to a bundle deal with another company, or purchase certain other companies, and similar normal, everyday, market behaviors, that any company can do unless they happen to have shored up a monopoly position. The poster who called my characterization "mustache-twirling" is exactly right: this mustache-twirling behavior is precisely what is allowed if you think it is morally wrong to regulate markets.
Now India probes Google, threatens $1bn fine over 'biased' search
some questions on IQ tests depict rotated images of figures, and ask things like:

> can the two figures in each set be made identical by rotating them in space? [0]

this isn't my domain, so without knowing any better i would kind of expect the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire and its abridged version to ask similar questions. but if they didn't, and you wanted to create another test, here's where i'd start:

1. devise a test with a bunch of similar questions (to the one in the above example) of varying difficulty. use these hypotheses:

H_{0}: there will be no difference in performance for people with aphantasia

H_{1}: people with aphantasia will perform worse.

2. find some people with aphantasia and test them to get a baseline.

3. test a random sample.

4. compare results. maybe use a one-tailed test.

[0] link to image: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_introduction-to-psycholo...
Well, good to hear that it's possible for two generations to destroy any chance at enjoying their lives they may ever have had to pursue money above all else. We'd better encourage more of that /s.
Honestly the only time I use down migrations in Rails is before I commit and push the migration. So I'll migrate up, experiment, realize I need to change something, migrate down, make my change, then migrate back up.

I'll keep doing that while I work through the problem until the complete migration is ready with the solution I was working on. Once it's actually pushed up, I never expect to use the "down" migration again though.
I think the problem is in the phrasing of the question: When you are awakened, to what degree should you believe that the outcome of the coin toss was Heads?

That's not a precise probability question.

More significantly the question (whatever it might be) is potentially asked more than once.

So, if the question is "what is the probability that the coin-flip was Heads?" (which I think it the most likely interpretation) then it's 1/2

But if the question is "what is the probability that you are being woken up because the coin was Heads" then it's 1/3

Asking me what I "should believe about the outcome" is (intentionally, I suppose) blurring the question so that it disguises the fact that there are actually 2 different questions in play.
Maybe the hidden advantage of Tim Draper's plan to split California into 6 states [0] was reversing rent control.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
> This article is a great read!

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

> The article makes it seem as though once you had a valid theoretical model implementation was actually easy, is that true?

Rust's affine type system is a huge win here. It has a no-surprises approach to handling data, so it's very easy to practically track roots and all.

So yeah; the implementation is not much more complex than the design above (I don't think I skip any nontrivial part of the design in the post, though that is purely by accident -- I intended to give a sketch of the design and the whole design just happened to come out)

> What is the disadvantage of the way you do it now?

Think of manual rooting as akin to Rc or shared_ptr wrt cost; and the llvm thing is Box/unique_ptr.

Just how the compiler inserts deterministic alloc/free calls with Box, the compiler keeps track of stack based gcthings in llvm. All of the dynamic checks above for rooting become unnecessary; instead at mark time you just pick up the roots from the stack frames. (Note: I haven't looked into the llvm feature; I don't know if it works this way).

Tracking roots is something a compiler is good at. Not so much a runtime.

Regarding Java and Go: I don't know; I haven't tried. But the applications are different -- Java is pervasive, and Go is pervasive with value types and escape analysis (also default concurrent). Rust-gc will probably be horrible at pervasive GCing. Besides, the other two have compiler support so have it much easier when they want to track roots. You can statically insert unconditional calls to `roots.push(var)` if you own the compiler, but as a library author you can have to keep track of many things at runtime to determine if something is a root (which is why llvms solution looks promising to me). In rust-gcs case, rooting status is stored by all the other existing gcptrs, and the status is changed conditionally depending on their states and interaction.
Basically he thinks any hypervisor that isn't OpenBSD is not secure.

"x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit." http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=119318909016582

(I see justinsaccount already posted this below.)
Two factors require any GC support to be behind the CPU's MMU:

1) GC itself operates on virtual addresses.

2) If you want concurrent collection you're probably going to need a read barrier, and that will require some GC / MMU interaction.

The Azul Vega had a lot of interesting features to support GC (and other Java constructs), but the most important by far is the HW read barrier.
The exception in 3.2.2.6 is for requests sent to multicast or broadcast addresses, not unicast. Or are you citing some other standard that supersedes this one?
The classic problem: cycles. Either you make the programmer manually deal with cycles via weak references, which can be error prone and allow memory bugs to creep in, or you have a secondary GC to collect cycles. The first one increases programmer complexity and the second one increases implementation complexity, which are, respectively, the first and second things Go attempts to avoid.

There's also the issue that ARC vs. GC is a tradeoff between CPU overhead and memory overhead, and that in the scenarios Go was initially designed for (Google's servers) memory is much cheaper.