skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
She meant the initial state of the site with seems to fill the whole screen with "not the article".
seL4 is really cool; I was just looking at and the other L4 family / derivatives for µkernel ideas and trends.

More links:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_microkernel_family#High_ass...

- seL4: Formal Verification of an OS Kernel (2009) [pdf paper] http://www.sigops.org/sosp/sosp09/papers/klein-sosp09.pdf

- l4v (seL4 proofs git repo) https://github.com/seL4/l4v
A UI is basically a trade tongue. We don't speak machine and machines don't speak human.

A UI is a least common denominator that everyone can learn quickly. But it's nowhere near native quality. You can't get much more than simple one liners in trade talk. Good enough for negotiating a chest of cloves, but you'd be hard pressed to explain the difference between marxist-leninist and labour socialist perspectives on international commerce in a trade tongue.

When people hear "voice interface" what they think is a machine that can understand human so we can stop speaking goddamned pidgin all day. That is essentially a turing test, or some subspecies thereof.

I'm somewhat skeptical about this kind of thing. I'm confident that mechanical issues like translating sounds to sentences can be solved (the voice part). The translation of human to machine code… That's a different challenge.

It's an interesting case though, to have out in the wild. Siri and whatnot. An application (as opposed to an average starship computer) has a limited raison d'être, therefor a much tighter search space.

Meanwhile, we have been making consistent progress on turning our clunky pidgins into nice creoles, more elegant and powerful. Machines can understand higher level programming languages that people can get more fluent in. Average humans are generally becoming more computer literate (or fluent in UI, to keep my analogy straight). UIs are getting more intuitive, which basically means closer to human language. The common ground is expanding from just common ground and a wider language is being developed that accommodates us both better.

The question to answer is what part of that common ground is voice is open, I guess. But, I would wager that the common ground we find will not be human sounding anytime soon. It will be a UI metaphor, like the desktop. We will need to learn it.
Show HN: Giga.gg – Share what you #love with your friends
Microsoft+launches+a+Linux+powered+operating+system
The writers of the code do own it. Clearly, a team was formed for the purposes of submitting an entry into a competition. Since they intentionally commingled their efforts, they own it as a partnership rather than as individuals.

Each one of them owns the whole code. If they want to do anything with it outside the existing nine, they need all nine signatures on the agreement. For practical purposes, that means Billy does not have much leverage. He needs to get all 8 of his partners to cooperate, and none of them need him in the slightest.

If he chose to block any partnership agreement, they could just reconvene as a partnership-of-8, and spend another weekend re-creating a better codebase from scratch. He would be left with nothing. The reasons they would not do that are because the idea itself is rather lame and unoriginal, they could probably come up with something better on their own, and having proved themselves as a team, they might want to try something new anyway.
Here are my thoughts from the ad industry side:

http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/ad-blocking-will...

I think there is a chance to make it better, ad blocking is not yet maintsteam and I think there is a room for a blockers that will only block "bad" ads.
> (If you happen to be depressed, I can guarantee it gets better as you age, or with time.

This is a dangerous myth.

Suicide is a leading cause of death. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men aged between 20 and 49 in the UK. 12 men die by suicide each day in the UK (and about 3 or 4 women); one person dies by suicide every 12 minutes in the US.

> Hang in there.

Unfortunate phrasing, when "hanging, strangling, and suffocation" is the leading method of death by suicide, followed closely by poisoning.
Yeah, evolution is definitely a cycle, but it can also be a state (mankind's current state of evolution). Maybe I could have been more clear about that.
> If Billy didn't create the codebase, and never contributed to it, does he still have partial ownership of it?

I would say so yes, but only insofar as him being a part of the team. Some members of that team wrote code for that team's goals, not on their own in private hours for their own goals. Therefore the code is owned by the team which Billy is a part of.

That also means that all the sales contracts Billy landed or they pitch they did, is also owned by the devs.

That would indeed suggest however that Billy going off on his own creating a 50/50 with someone else, using the team's work, is like Eric Schmidt (supposing hypothetically for a moment he was a business-oriented member of the pre-Google team on day 1) taking page rank and starting a new company, i.e. total bs that wouldn't hold up in court.

The whole 0.4% thing muddies the waters. It may be interpreted to say that whoever uses the produce of the team's weekend work, must give 0.4% of their venture to the rest as a reward, and having given that reward, no other remuneration is necessary to use whatever the team came up with that weekend. That makes sense in the context of a single startup arising out of this deal, or even competing ventures who both use the software and each award each member 0.4% in their respective ventures, it starts to fall apart when you look at the non-software stuff, i.e. who can appropriate the sales contracts, the logo etc which can't simply be used by two companies. It's a muddy deal that could probably go either way in the courts, which is why Billy's move is so asshole-y and why Bobby probably wanted to wipe his hands of it right away, forfeiting a 0.4% for real other reason other than wanting to disassociate and taking his $200 in the prize share he has a right to regardless.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer so what makes legal sense to me is pretty meaningless :)
National Parks in the US have to meet four specific criteria to be granted the designation:

1) It is an outstanding example of a particular type of resource.

2) It possesses exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the natural or cultural themes of our Nation's heritage.

3) It offers superlative opportunities for recreation, for public use and enjoyment, or for scientific study.

4) It retains a high degree of integrity as a true, accurate, and relatively unspoiled example of the resource.

In the whole USA there are 59 such sites. But there are also national forests, national monuments, national seashores, national reserves, national historic sites, national historic landmarks, and other similar designations.

Our state forests system sound similar to what you mentioned from Australia. We had a couple of pretty huge ones near where I grew up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothrock_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle_State_Forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sproul_State_Forest

Reference for National Park requirements, I only found an old link: http://web.archive.org/web/20000301003832/http://www.nps.gov...)
An idea I just thought of:

If you're working on a hack project like this then insist on all copyright notices in the code and site being assigned to a made up organisation with all the names in it. So put

@copyright SmithJonesZuckerbergOrg

in all the source files and html.

Those files would be a record of the interaction and activity on the hack weekend and would allow for a neat place for lawyers to start in negotiating a smooth buyout in this situation. Because I would rather accept $1K than work with that type of individual.
I went to lookup EAL in Wikipedia and discovered something interesting: The exact same information as above on the EAL page (with a little on the Integrity OS page).

Either the info above is from Wikipedia, or perhaps the commenter above also wrote those sections of the Wikipedia pages, or the commenter read something else that was based on those Wikipedia pages. The web is an interesting place.
Until I can have a conversation with a machine–like I would a person–then I feel like voice interfaces will languish in the uncanny valley of HCI. I notice the problem the most when listening to voice commands from a GPS; there are times when the computer gives me an instruction, and I really want to say , "That's not going to happen."

It would be nice if it could pre-emptively start to recompute–like a person navigator would–rather than wait until the GPS detects that I'm not on the course that it thinks I'm going to be on to make a correction that will essentially go the same way. But we can't have a _conversation_; just an exchange of commands. The machine tells the meatbag to do something, the meatbag tells the machine to do something.

Tangentially, I don't _really_ want voice interfaces like in Star Trek/Jarvis; I want a digital doppelgänger. Something that can act on my behalf and convincingly sound/act/respond like I would. I don't want to talk to a machines more, I want to talk to other humans less.
It's not just you, there's a massive header above the article. You'll have to scroll down to actually read anything.
If I was a responsible advertiser over the last 20 years, I had absolutely no chance to prevent irresponsible people from becoming member of the group you refer to as "advertisers" -- and, at least in the US, if I tried I would probably run afoul of anti-trust or other laws -- so it does not make much sense to say that I "had my chance".

There are good arguments for ad blockers, but treating a collection of independent market participants as if they were a single person or a coherent group able to enforce norms on its members is not one.

I guess you could argue that Google and Facebook controlled enough of the market that if they acted in concert, they could have prevented the current situation, but they certainly would have faced strident accusations from advertisers of anti-competitive behavior and would have attracted the interest of regulators. (And if that is your argument, you should say so.)

ADDED. Over the 20 years since the start of advertising on the internet, the actors with the best chance to have headed off the current situation were the maintainers of the popular web browsers, but saying that they had their chance does not help shift the moral high ground from responsible advertisers to users of ad blockers.
i am not saying it's not a problem, nor that it's always easy to fix. but it is fixable. banks will keep double records, and solutions will be found for corner cases (in the end, even write-offs). but it's simply a very different mode of failure. a corrupt database will typically fail to work, or? a system may fail due to this. this definitely costs money and nerves of all involved.

but yes, the response here is bad.
I always wondered if I could just go into massive debt, then open my own debt collection company, and buy back my own debt for pennies on the dollar? Then write-off the rest as a loss??
At the bottom of each digest is a button: "Hide stories older than the above"

If you press it, you will only see newer stories when you visit again.
That's why we need reform of the Fair Labor Standards Act to do a number of things including, but not limited to the following:

1. Abolish "At-will" employment and replace it with "Just Cause". This will bring the US in line with the rest of the developed world.

2. Implement working time restrictions similar to the European Working Time Directive for both exempt, and non-exempt employees.

We have been in a race to the bottom with regard to labor law over the last 30 years.
Uber sues St. Louis Taxicab Commission, launches service without approval
I like to think of a marathon as one AU.

If the start line of the marathon happens at the center of the Sun, and the finish line is at the center of the Earth...

You run for 213 yards to get out of the sun.

You make it to the surface of the Earth at 5 feet, 10 inches from the finish line.

(If the moon was eclipsing the sun, you would have run over it 122 yards from the finish line, and it would have a diameter of 3 feet, 2 inches.)

And Pluto's orbit? Well, it's 859 miles from the start line.

If the marathon had been in New York? It's kind of like running to Chicago. (It's a tad further than that.)

Oh, and on this scale, how fast is light travelling? 188 miles per hour. The world record human marathon speed was 13 miles per hour. So, 7% of the speed of light.
Corruption is read by the database people as: "Your data is unreadable"; Inconsistency as: "Your data is wrong".

The article implies that inconsistent is better than corrupt, and that mixing up the terms paints a worse picture. The assumption is flawed. Inconsistent is as bad or worse than corrupted. It is a silent failure, and silent failures are worse than visible ones.
Fantastic video. Thank you for sharing.
So where are the definitions of those terms, actually? The article merely complains that Tkachenko's personal definitions of those two terms do not match Aphyr's, but that's merely a personal opinion.

I'd argue that "corrupted" is usually used in cases when the data get messed up due to external circumstances (say, disk error corrupting a page of data) or because of a clear bug (say, writing to incorrect place), while "consistency" is usually used for data violating some invariants (foreign keys, check constraints, unique constraints, or global constraints like "total sum of money is X").

But in the end this is utterly irrelevant because the database failed to provide correct data (to the extend implied by the advertised guarantees like isolation level, for example). For the user the end result is pretty much the same.

And actually, corrupted data tend to be detected much sooner, because when you can't read the disk pace you know there's an error and can address it. The inconsistency is often creepy and takes very long until someone spots that.
I don't get this criticism either. Maybe that's because it works just like an iDrive controller. Plus, it's not really pushing on the screen, it's moving the entire device.
Ethical adblocking = Blocking all ads
>If the ad guys spend a few years ensuring that advertisting is safe, lightweight, unobtrusive, non-creepy, and fast,...

Isn't that the point Gruber was making his Deck ads? Or do you not think those qualify?

There is no monolithic "ad industry" ... it's a bunch of people and companies with different methods and objectives and values.
Combining Druid and Spark: Interactive and Flexible Analytics at Scale
Five top iOS 9 tips you can't live without
I always thought the increased suicide risk from antidepressants was because it gives patients the energy and confidence to finally go through with it.
The need for such a protocol is to promote interoperable serviecs. Websockets just sends data around, but with protocols like WAMP it's possible to build routers like Crossbar.io[1], where a bunch of backend services can talk to a front-end box that communicates with clients; it's the Vulcand (a HTTP message router) of WAMP world.

And that's the thing... websockets is terribly un-web: it doesn't talk about resources, with addresses, it's a glaringly ambiguous pipe that could have anything. Forming a websocket does do a content-negotiation pass, but there's nearly no concensus for what to expect. And this is an early contendor trying to give Websockets well known content forms to talk. Not just well known, but resourceful, addressed content too. Whereas with HTTP, we've had a long long history of creating interactable public APIs, this is something WAMP has to create, because Websockets is anti-web.

[1] https://github.com/crossbario/crossbar
His facebook username is "billy.giordano"

Looks like a grade-a tool
Not OP but if you can't tell how vindictive that sounds, I guess we just come from different worlds. I certainly wouldn't trust someone who said that in a position of power over others in the slightest.
For me, inconsistent tends to imply a silent error, and corruption tends to imply one that is immediately noticed.

I know that isn't accurate, but the tendency for it to be true, actually makes the word inconsistent upset me more than corruption. I know how to fix bad data, trying to track down a soft error that is hard to reproduce is the subject of my nightmares.
Worth noting that "antidepressant" is used rather loosely as a synonym for "SSRI". There are non-SSRI antidepressants on the market and this paper does not appear to cover those.
> Bobby has the right to 0.4%.

I thought they never actually signed anything with regard to that.
You are taking the xkcd strip very literally instead of understanding the central concept on it.

You comment reminds me of this: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi879.htm
To me the most fun thing about this project is that it looks like a terrific tool for learning and understanding how to write (this particular) assembly language.
I really don't get this moral argument at all. Websites don't have the right to use 5x my already severely limited mobile bandwidth on pure crap that I don't need. They have the right to put trackers and crap ads on their page, sure - but I also have the right to block them.

* TV channels have the right to put annoying ads in, but I have the right to mute them, look away, change the channel, skip them if previously recorded, etc.

* Movies have the right to insert pre-roll ads and previews, but I have the right to skip them or come to a movie 15 minutes later than listed showtime to ensure I miss them.

* Newspapers and magazines have the right to put ads in, but I have the right to cut them out or fold the page over so I don't have to look at them while reading the article.

No amount of these shaky moral arguments are going to make me change my mind about intrusive advertising and tracking. There is no contract or promise between me and the website that I am visiting that I will be captive to their ads or behavior tracking, implied or otherwise - just like in any other other media format. People absolutely have the right to block them, and they absolutely have the right to install software that helps improve their privacy.
I can't really speak for him, but I think "by default" is an important part of that dare. That the people who are complaining about ads are mostly not bothered by Deck ads, but Deck ads are blocked by default along with far more obnoxious ads.
If we use your tortuous redefinition of widely understood terms, then the post Bretton-Woods US dollar remains commodity money (some energy and material was used to make it, even though it can't be converted back into that energy and material at a fixed rate) and a bunch of kids trading Magic: The Gathering cards is a government (they might not have any power over anything, but hey... they're people and they've agreed to trade)
Should You Pay Your Employees in Bitcoin?
-> http://www.alltrials.net/

and this topic: http://www.alltrials.net/news/new-research-on-old-data/

-

BMJ Editorials: "Liberated trial data have enduring potential to benefit patients, prevent harm, and correct misleading research" : http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4601

-

BMJ "No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility" http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4629
I still don't get it. Doing exactly what you describe would be much easier if we had a [x, y, z, w] types built into the language. I just don't get the downside of having packed types builtin -- so far it was said that it would be faster to do some operations in scalar. If there is actually some way to express operations in scalar faster than using SIMD operations, then the compiler could probably regognize that as well and express my float32x4 operations in scalar. Like the dot product example from the linked slides.

I see this line of code, and I want to write the comment as code, rather than the code:

__m128 dw = _mm_mul_ps(aw, bw); // dw = aw * bw
There's the problem that with 5 events you can't know if it was a fluke and also the subpopulation that you are sampling from.

I think for instance how the drug Naltrexone seems to work very well for treating alcoholism in Asians and poorly in Blacks. If you don't take this into account whatever result you get is going to indicate that the drug is too effective or not effective enough.
> Bobby picked up the toy. Then he put down the toy.

When we read this sentence, our brains automatically augment additional information based on the verb. However, in this example, my program will fail to answer because my program does not augment any additional information but it can be extended to.

This can be implemented in our program by created a new property for each object called "location". If a verb is location based, we can set the location of the object based on what the verb describes. For example, "the toy"'s location could be "Bobby's hands" after the first sentence based on the verb phrase "pick up". So the program will understand where the toy is and be able to understand queries related to "where".

As you can imagine, implementing this would be very tedious since there are too many cases for all the verbs. My program may not be able to do advanced reading comprehension (reading between lines and augmenting information) but I argue that it can do simple reading comprehension, in that it can understand the relationship between objects. There is still a long way to go before my program is capable of more sophisticated reading comprehension, but in theory, I think my approach seems possible.
Counterpoint: I don't think most people at Startup Weekend attend because of the prizes. I've taken part in many events, and while I certainly tried to win, the prizes have zero influence on my participation. I never go in with the expectation of anything more than a fun weekend and new connections.
In Subversion, I've seen branches created, deleted, and then another branch created with the same name from a different subtree of the repository.

I was also successfully able to export all of this to git with every deleted branch now still in existence.
Climate Change Is the Moonshot of Our Times
Caveat Emptor: I run adblocking.

Ad blocking is not unethical; in most cases there is no agreement from the provider of the website and the consumer to say that the consumer must watch the adverts, it's just not there.

It is not the adblockers fault that the websites business model is dependent on ad revenue that's the provider's decision. If the lose of web content happens because of adblocking it's still not the adblockers responsibility, there was no agreement.
Maybe Banks Manipulated Treasury Bonds, Too
Learning to Fly
> Is Microsoft doing an IBM-like refocusing?

They have no choice. Desktop systems aren't a growth market anymore and, so far, they don't own anywhere else which is.
Apple meets California officials to discuss self-driving car
"Windows wasn't technically superior to OS/2 for example."

Windows required less resources to run and that made it "superior" in mass availability.
Except the ads will come back. There'll be an arms race between ad tech companies and ad blocking companies. The amount of money that ad delivery generates means there will always be people working on new ways to put them in websites, and ad blocking companies will only ever be able to play catch up.
Human Trading Glitches and Coin Flips