skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I never said that it was easy or that it took a little math.
I said that it has been done before and that we are here to learn.

I also can't figure out why I get all kinds of "it's really hard" and "be very afraid" comments on HN.
Apple plans major AirPlay overhaul for iOS 9 and new Apple TV
And yet, many more philosophers, thinkers, politicians, religious people, and even activists have said that "change first comes within".

I'm for the combination of both: tweaking the incoming data affects how you act and change the external world (obviously you need to have an idea before acting), and at the same time, being active the external world tweaks and improves your interpretation of the incoming data (experience).

So you need both. And since drugs helps with the first, that's cool. Part of the revolution of the sixties was fulled by drug experimentation (not the "hippy-lifestyle" thing people today mock -- the whole shift in attitudes towards politics, sex, fun, religion, arts, science etc, which people have inherited and respect today).
Last semester for a compiler course I was taking we had to implement a compiler for a subset of Go (called GoLite), with free reign over language choices. I chose to implement a compiler[0] using Haskell and LLVM, this article helped a _lot_ when I was writing codegen, especially since it was my first real Haskell project.

However, some of the most interesting and important issues are left out of it. Some examples are implementing exceptions, threading, imports, garbage collection, closures , etc.. I would love a more advanced version of this article that discusses how to implement a more advanced compiler with more modern features (specifically in LLVM).

[0] github.com/xldenis/mgc
C++: The power of unpack
So let me get this straight. The whole of Eurasia was already inhabited by human-like creatures as early as 650,000 years ago, but homo sapiens didn't leave Africa until about 100,000 years ago?
Cancer is hard for lots of reasons, but the main reason we have not made the progress we should have is the way we are going about looking for new treatments. Our animal models don't reflect natural human disease, we use the wrong way of classifying cancers (by tissue of origin rather than sensitivity), and we require that all new treatment provide a rapid response in terminal patients (stage I/II trials). If you made me cancer dictator with an NIH sized budget and an ability to set the rules I could provide very rapid progress.

Edit. I normally don't care about being down voted, but on a serious topic like this it really does everyone a disservice. If you disagree with something I have written then please reply rather than mindless reaching for the down arrow.
Could Public-Private Impact Investing Repair/renew America's Infrastructure?
One idea: if you have a biomarker you can track via CTCs or ctDNA, then you could watch the rate at which that marker's availability increases.

The PSA doubling time for indolent prostate cancers can often be measured in years, whereas CA 19-9 doubling time for pancreatic cancer is more often measured in days or months.
>This stands in contrast to the scholarship of, for example, Terence McKenna, who suggested that certain plants and mushrooms actually delivered novel content via the presence of (and ratios between) various psychoactive compounds.

It's not really in constrast though.

Gibson means: better tweak what you produce or how you act, instead of merely tweaking how your isolated self experiences reality.

That's the same whether it's a "slight tweak of incoming data" or something that can be seen as novel content (a full tweak).
Those are classic success stories mainly because they were the low-hanging fruit for targeted cancer treatment. For blood-cell cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, treatment has come a long way due to advances like the ones you mentioned.

For "solid" tumor cancers like breast, pancreatic, prostate, and skin cancer, we're still struggling to make a dent in the death rate.
nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Humans are natural. Human artifacts are not.
Understood. Working on it now.
Taig+jailbreak+iOS+8.4.1+download+iOS+Jailbreak+Tools+and+Jailbreak+Guide
Digital Savings and Blockchain in Impact Investing
/dev/random, not /dev/urandom, if I'm not mistaken.
Moanbox.us
This comic is a pretty great summation: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162
If you have seen the documentary about the work of Dr Burzynski, then you already know why there is not yet an official cure for cancer. In a nutshell: the industry and the US cancer foundation are corrupt. I am sure that many do not believe what I say because "it cannot be true". But read http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/ and watch the documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBUGVkmmwbk and decide for yourself.

And there are many "alternative" treatments that cure cancer. One of the oldest and most famous is the Gerson Therapy.
Practice of Remote Code Execution Using CPU BUGs [pdf]
Depends on what you're looking for. If you want to hear some of the more improvisational pieces, I like these two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUMGnUAVDeE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDsjQvt2g6o. In my opinion, finding live recordings of concerts gets you a lot of the playful and melodic aspects of the tradition. It's also helpful to listen to the same raga by multiple artists across songs to develop a feel for the emotion in the raga.

If you want to go for structured, sometimes more religious, songs, you can find good stuff on Spotify and YouTube. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqsAvDRjJ04) is one I like, sung by the same artist who performed Pi's Lullaby in Life Of Pi.
Well, as the article pointed out, some part of what the US is spending money on is subsidizing those other countries. How much? That would be interesting to know. There's also the small problem that "health care" doesn't have a UPC code; what people in those countries get and what people in the US get are not the same thing (which doesn't mean that the US standard of care is better, only that they're different). So it's pretty hard to look at what people are spending in two different places for two different things, with a probably large subsidy involved, and conclude that a theory about supply and demand for identical goods in a free market is wrong.

Let's put it another way: it seems that you must disagree with at least one of the following statements:

(a) Higher demand, ceteris paribus, means higher prices.

(b) A single-payer system implemented in the US would likely cover more treatments than the system that exists in the US today.

(c) Covering more treatments means more demand for treatments.

(d) A single-payer system would not shift the supply curve for treatments.

With which do you disagree? It seems like most of the interesting arguments here are around (d), but there doesn't seem to be any evidence against it. Of course, again, there is some seriously massive distortion going on here, so it's hard to be sure.
I meant to reply here but replied to the wrong comment. This -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208989 is meant to be here.
This works particularly well for cancers with recurring mutational patterns (like KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer), since that lets you affordably do ultra-deep sequencing of small regions of the genome. If you had to deep (>5000x coverage) sequencing of many megabases then (with currently available platforms) the diagnostic wouldn't be affordable.
Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the BiCameral Mind
Any chance you could withhold comments that provide no value to the discussion?
That's somewhat debatable: http://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/ But really either will be way better than anything you could homebrew.
Well I'm not surprised you can't see any reason to write anything other than Go when you've never used a language with a decent type system! If you're ever standardizing the language for a whole team I hope you'll take the time to evaluate a decently typed language first - OCaml or Haskell or F# or Scala (or I guess Rust if you absolutely need to avoid GC)
Are you saying there is no story here?
(EDIT: I reread this and it sounds like I'm ranting at you. Sorry, I'm not, even though it does read like that.)

This is why cryptography is doomed to fail.

This /dev/random vs /dev/urandom (blocking vs non-blocking and whether it matters) is discussed frequently on HN, usually with very long threads, and yet it still comes up.

If I want to remember whether there's an apostrophe in possessive its there's a cartoon to tell me. We need a good, accurate, fact-checked cartoon for urandom vs random.

(It's one of the things I'd do if I had FU money.)
So you're agreeing at least in part with my original assertion, then. Namely, that we probably need to be less willing to pay high prices for drugs (and by extension other treatments) because in many cases they are of much less value than other things we could buy instead. Right? I mean, overtreatment has negative value, so it's hard not to imagine that what was paid for it couldn't have been better spent on something else. Anything else. Throwing the money into a fire would have provided more value.
The Salary After Attending seems really really surprising. Take https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?degree=b&major=engin... this. After 10 years, median for 10 years is only $91,600 for MIT. Cornell & Columbia are already on the second page aabout 72,000. I can't even find where UCBerkely is. In fact, this is the median for all programs. The filter is merely to filter out schools that may not offer Engineering program, and that's a poor user experience and is giving false impression.

Also, does government make Computer Science in the Engineering category, or the Computer & Information Science?

The rating cards could be useful for really really poor institutions.
Okay, let me rephrase.

Does this new service provide any value which isn't already being provided by a large number of private organisations?
looks cool, downloaded bork amd64, could not run it inside virtualbox, with xorg fatal errors.
May I suggest that limitless economic growth is a debatable premise to start from? Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth . From 1972, but still worth a look.
Maybe it's a bit off-topic, but am I the only one who has no idea what ETF nor Vanguard are? I found the webpage for Vanguard, and they apparently want me to call them if I'm new to the system. I also have no idea what investment funds, stock exchanges and commodities are.

Whenever it comes to investing advice, I understand how my family must feel when their computers break.
>If you made me cancer dictator with an NIH budget and an ability to set the rules I could provide very rapid progress.

What would you change?
> upside is effectively infinite

Shambling about like some lonely museum piece come to life sounds pretty worthless to me, personally. The value of a human life is in its context of family and society.
Spelling 'disease' correctly would add a lot of credibility to your arguments.
Making the underlying data available for others to use might be the best thing to come out of this. It's not like there's only one way to build a ranking system.
We can't forget:

"adding programmers to a late project makes it
later"

Right, Brooks.

And his solution was the chief programmer
team.
>Rust gets memory safety without a hit in performance

Interesting. How does rust statically verify that array accesses are in bounds?
Lets distinguish between diagnosis and treatment. Many cancers can be identified by the over-expression of genes or other genetic material. This knowledge is immediately useful to clinical staff. Although its hard to use this information to target specific cells, it hints at mechanisms that are of interest to academic research.
The authors Big Bang licence is a bit crazy. Why not just monetise Books in exactly the same way they monetise Video in YouTube?

Surely the copyright law is quite similar.
Plus, of course, they SHOULDN'T have assumed anything before verifying.
New tool uses S3 to reap AWS cost savings
Should kids really be saying such stuff
BUILD+UP+TO+WW3+-+YouTube
Right. You saved me from
making this outstanding correction.

So, Knuth did TeX, METAFONT,
Web, Weave, and Tangle for
literate programming,
and published the literate
version of the code. Essentially
just one guy.
Are those actual doctors or frauds?

If they can't tell a person that DOES have these things (bank job, BMW) from a dellusional person, then can they really treat dellusional people?
Canarytokens.org – Quick, Free, Detection for the Masses
How ignorant are you?

Generations of rich and powerful people have been dying for quite some time.
I don't believe that's the right question.

The question is: Can the government provide this service more effectively (better, cheaper, faster, without bias) than private organizations. I'd argue the answer to that is "yes", very similarly to how the Obama administration cut private banks out of student loan funding [+].

Where you see the possibility of failure, I see opportunity for both success in the mission and more transparency. I can FOIA a federal government entity; I cannot do the same for a corporation.

[+] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/education/11educ.html
Concurrency kit – Concurrency primitives and non-blocking data structures in C
ISOBuster Pro 3.5 Activator [License Key and Crack] Full Download
not one bug? lets be real.
Screencastify – Desktop and Web Screen Video Recorder
Thank you for illustrating in one fell swoop how disconnected the transhumanists are.

Even Greg Egan took a whole short story to do it.

http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/

“You know what they say the modern version of Pascal’s Wager is? Sucking up to as many Transhumanists as possible, just in case one of them turns into God. Perhaps your motto should be ‘Treat every chatterbot kindly, it might turn out to be the deity’s uncle’.”

edit: and when I scroll down I see I've been beaten to the Greg Egan punch. Great minds, I suppose...
I just made it so that it uses the first 4 bytes it gets from /dev/random, if it can't open /dev/random, it falls back to what we had before. --nunzio
No, you need more data than that. You can watch this. Start at 11 minutes.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_simons_a_rare_interview_with_t...
Brilliant use of napkin.js.
There is a distinct difference between ideas for "apps" and ideas for startups. An app is not a startup and a startup isn't just an app. It's project vs product.

Yes, I agree, within the context you think of ideas, then ideas are cheap.
I'm skeptical. I use the bus system at State at least four or five times per week and most people seem fine with it. I'm not sure if this will ever be implemented, although it is kind of cool to think about.
That's why Intel devotes large part of the CPU to the embedded GPU -- it doesn't have much else to do with it.

I don't quite understand your point here, but if you were intending to refute my point regarding GPU computing, I think you are not understanding the nature of the CPU to GPU shift. GPGPU computing is a way to increase effective computing power without advancements in semiconductor technology. GPUs have a fundamentally different architecture that allows them to get much more processing power from the same silicon. They work differently to CPUs (amortizing memory access latency across many hardware threads instead of trying to minimize it, sharing control flow across many cores to minimize that cost, and requiring manual control of memory locality) but on many domains including training neural networks, they are much more powerful.

So GPUs are certainly not a diversion CPU makers get into when they can't make progress on CPUs.
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads®_investing_start-u...
> Since the application layer in a typical n-tier architecture is replaced with a generic, application-neutral layer, the back-end business logic is, of necessity, all moved into the database

Yes! Just like a typical desktop app! What we've done here is just simplify the web architecture down to a typical desktop architecture.

> This isn't the first time this type of thing has been proposed, and its not necessarily a bad idea,

All us desktop application developers agree. This isn't new at all. We use it every day. MS Access, .NET, Borland, Filemaker and many other tools used the exact same architecture for many many years.

> but there are a number of concerns associated with it (particularly, that scaling out a typical middle-tier is often easier than scaling out Postgres, so this approach may limit scalability of the resulting apps.)

Hmmm. I am not a middle tier scale person so I can't speak to comparison. I will point out you could easily have one Envelope serving out to ten PostgreSQL databases before you need to introduce another Envelope instance. Meanwile, Envelope is a microservice so scaling is just a simple NGINX config change. This looks relevent: http://spin.atomicobject.com/2012/02/28/load-balancing-and-r...
I always find it really interesting how thin the evidence is, in many cases, when some of these paleontological discoveries are announced. Somebody digs up a partial skeleton, or even sometimes a single, fractured bone, and bam, it's a new, previously undiscovered species. Then we get artists renderings and theories about how this long-dead animal lived. There are some great examples from dinosaur studies - Brontosaurus vs Apatosaurus (which it seems are not the same thing anymore, haha), or the initial discoveries of the Igaunodon.

I think the DNA work is interesting and somewhat more credible than purely physiological bone work, but I'd be skeptical to read into it too much. The article says they retrieved "1 to 2 million base pairs of ancient nuclear DNA" from fragments as small as 25-40 basepairs. Wikipedia tells me that humans have over 3 billion base pairs in their genome. Assuming the Sima hominid genome is somewhere within the same order of magnitude, they found less than 1% of the total genome. I'm not a geneticist, so I have no idea how they figured out how to piece those tiny fragments of 1% of the genome together in the right order, but it seems a thin branch to go out on to draw serious conclusions.
Scalability can certainly be a problem but the approach proposed here can be very useful for small internal apps which frequently have, at best, a handfull of users.
Unless the therapy you envision requires simply isolation of unchanged DNA and injection of that DNA back into a person without any modification whatsoever, it's likely that you could obtain a patent on a novel therapy.
I think that maths at school it still too focused on creating engineers (the non software kind) and much of the material is aimed at producing people who can do calculus.

I'd prefer for there to be more focus on proofs, logic, geometry, number theory, graph theory, and cryptography etc. I think these concepts would give people a more rounded understanding of mathematics and prevent their experience of mathematics being one of pain.
The OP is referring to white box systems where the programmer thoroughly understands everything. The economy may be artificial, but its' immense complexity makes it a black box.
This is really deserving of a blog post/essay, but the main thing to get right is the discovery process. We have millions of pre-existing drugs (the NIH has looked at millions on its own), the problem is the way we go about selecting possible treatments from them. In brief what I would do is:

1. Demand we use animal models that reflect actual human disease (natural occurrence in old age). No more sticking human cancers cell lines into SCID mice.

2. Genome sequence all human cancers so that we classify them by genetic defects. We should not care which tissue a cancer arose in, but by which drugs it is selectively sensitive to.

3. Test new treatments in patients that reflect actual patients - ie newly diagnosed patients, not patients that are weeks away from dying and who have failed everything else.

4. Go all out on the immune approach with an emphasis on developing treatments with minimal side-effects that can be given to healthy people as a preventative treatment. We need to think about cancer as something we prevent rather than cure.
The huge advantage of making reusable code, even if you never reuse it, is that it's clean and decoupled from the other parts of your application.
Thus it'll be easier to understand and to deal with - you won't have to look over what dependencies might cause unwanted effects here or there or what might be able to go wrong in case X. With decoupled code you only need to make sure it does it's "one" (main) function properly.

It also prevents code from turning into spaghetti when adding "special" cases
> folks coming from Python and Ruby, looking for something that has better perf and concurrency

Long-time Ruby developer here, relunctant Go developer. Absolutely.

I want performance, concurrency, efficient memory usage, and static typing. Ruby is lacking in all these areas. Go is mildly better, but is regressive in many other respects.

For me, Go is a step back in terms of productivity, but a step forward in creating stable, fault-tolerant code. It's a compromise. Go feels like a stopgap solution until something better comes along.

For example, I've learned to design the internals of my code around a functional style that makes code composable and the data flow simple. Go doesn't support that style, not really. Go promotes simplicity, but a lot of stuff that should be simple in Go isn't "simple". Like mapping and reducing an array.

What's interesting is that working in Go reminds me a lot of using Borland's ObjectPascal back in the mid-1990s: A small, natively compiled (and super fast to compile), not-functional language with built-in reflection and a stupidly strict, cumbersome type system. Go makes very few innovations over ObjectPascal, and inherits many of its problems; Go's notorious lack of generics, for example, caused exactly the same issues back then. And nobody should be surprised about that.

Currently, the language that looks closest to my ideal is Nimrod. Unfortuantely, it has almost zero mind share, and has a surprising amount of odd, off-putting warts for such a young language (perhaps not too surprising when you realize that for many years it was just one guy hacking away at it, TempleOS-style), disappointing since many design choices just feel just right, like someone has read my mind. Currently I'm on the fence with Nimrod. Jonathan Blow's jai also looks promising.
Is "secondary math" university mathematics? How can anyone think he's "learned" that?
So does your mom.

Pretty sure this will get flagged, and I hate myself for it, but it will make sense when you review that post again.
When it is able to offer search suggestions or corrections to your search, I think some of that was based on machine learning on a massive corpus of text.
maybe i am missing something, but isn't a 'good ol' interface' and a traditional OO approach also able to solve this problem, and with much less machinery?

there is an advantage of knowing things at compile time with the template, but i'm not sure that performance benefit is going to be worth very much here.

there is also the advantage that you don't need an instanced class with a vtable, but can use something with no inheritance or even with completely static member functions and data as a dependency as well... this might be more useful.
Is the startup world afraid of sexuality? Is it too disruptive?
It seems that sexuality is often too touchy a subject. I'm curious to know how people truly feel.
One of the biggest problems now is the lack of the Windows support for Opam[1].

I hope that will be solved in the near future. Because currently Microsoft trying to take the niche with their F#.

[1] https://github.com/ocaml/opam/issues/246