skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Fair point. It's not necesarily the case that you'd see extensively P2P nodes. But again, a distributed protocol based system would allow for local supernodes, competently administered, to exist.

There's also the issue that client nodes, under any model, also require security updates and practices. The universal P2P model really isn't far from that, and certain auto-updating models seem arguably preferable to present offerings.
Geeksn0w+jailbreakiOS+Jailbreak+Tools+and+Jailbreak+Guide
In case of large scale catastrophic events, insurance companies cover shit, though. It only works if you are the rare case and if you meet all the criteria marked in the fine prints that the insurance agent is careful never to explain.
A average person is lucky to get 100W sustained for an hour.
100 Whr can probably run a tablet for 24 hrs
While I would agree that the current IP licensing environment could be vastly improved, I am not sure I consider putting out phones with whacky features "innovation" in the technical sense.

This is, however, a natural outcome of the Shanzhai culture. For the life of me I cannot find it now, but there is a fascinating article (by a well-known sci-fi author, I think... William Gibson? Neal Stephenson?) about Shanzhai, aspects of which TFA alludes to. It gives very good insights into the pros and cons of the culture of sharing that underlies today's Chinese tech industry. While one of the pros was the dizzying array of remixes it produces, one of the cons was that it essentially removes the incentive to invest in expensive R&D. While China is very good at the former, the West is still where the latter happens, and I tend to attribute this to the different cultural attitudes regarding IP.

Regarding the references to fair use and reverse engineering, there may be a lot of FUD out there and TFA helps in dispelling some of that, but there is no shortage of reversing in industry today. Companies regularly reverse their competitors' products, either to ferret out technical secrets or to detect infringement of their own IP. IANAL, but with few exceptions (like those clauses in the DMCA regarding DRM-related mechanisms), IP laws do not forbid prevent reverse engineering per se. Generally it's only when you leverage the knowledge gained from reversing in a commercial product that you can get into trouble.
Not really. What will have to happen is a readjustment for recognizing that poorly designed models just don't work very well.
Not having looked at the internals of systemd, I'll take your word for it. The question is, is it possible to offer a similar feature set with a simpler model?
Dihydrogen Monoxide. The potential uses of this material are vast, but it is one of the most hazardous substances on the planet, and is responsible for a tremendous loss of human life every year.
I agree, it's merely bravado since Apple is now building a car concept. ( I suspect Apple may buy a car company or perhaps write a $50-billion check for VW with their $200-billion in cash reserve. Idea inspired by this article: http://rosskaplan.com/2015/09/four-reasons-why-apple-should-... )
Lots of engineers from China working in those Western companies. Lots of people doing original research in Western universities come from China.
I always assume that if a person want to do much better in ML, he will try to learn stuffs he didn't know before, like statistics, math, etc. Everyone's knowledge is limited, but that doesn't limit what people can do, just need to learn more, I guess.
That's not the article's point at all.

What the article talks about is that these technologies are forkable in China. The author wanted to do no more than what is already possible. And it leads to an interesting discussion about IP law and practice between the West and China. As well as a very interesting technical discussion about a specific technology that was investigated.
Locked Out of the Sixth Amendment by Proprietary Forensic Software
Ah, thank you. We missed that earlier.

This submission turns out to be a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8807651.

Url changed from http://gizmodo.com/why-its-easier-to-innovate-in-china-than-..., which points to this, and 2014 added.
It moves the industry forward? Also having the empathy to recognize that if you've built your success on top of free tools then it bodes well to contribute back to that same community that enabled your success. Think of it like an Alumni network.
The “high-level CPU” challenge (2008)
There's been a flood of these types of tools recently, Origami being one of the early ones. I found this handy comparison chart:

http://www.cooper.com/prototyping-tools
China joined WTO in 2000. So in a way they have a delayed start. By 2025-2030 time frame they are going to be #1 economy in absolute terms, so I would take the article very seriously esp. in conjunction with stifling IP laws of West. You are being dismissive and I understand where you are coming from, but in 2035 when you are walking the streets of Europe you my friend will see lot of Chinese brands. I am not that bullish on China, but the world center of finance is already shifting to East at a rapid pace. Taunt at your own peril.
Well, if those are the facts that you have gathered, I have nothing more to say but to suggest you to travel to China, and experience it for yourself instead of absorbing news from your preferred media channels.
They may not be able to inject HTTPS, but they can offer an API that will map IPaddress:port to identity (as one mentioned here[1]), for only a bit more overhead than tampering with HTTP headers and without breaking TLS.

If they want to make some possibly non-standard protocol adjustments they mutually understand, they should be able to inject it, too. Researching the protocols/crypto to understand that more and trying to produce a POC are side-projects on my list, maybe some day.

The root of the issue is that your ISP often knows who you are, every site you connect to knows who your ISP is, and they have incentives to trade notes on you and few reasons not to.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10357583
Not really. What will have to happen is a readjustment for realizing that many models, especially made by people with little experience and training, will be wrong.

Right now it's the glory days of ML when nobody much has the ability to judge success. Unlike software engineering broadly, where these glory days just keep going, ML is all about measuring success. People will detect failures.

The real risk is when people systematically underestimate the risk like the copula thing occurring with the subprime market. That was anything bug untrained people using models—they would not have been as dangerous as they were if they weren't so damn good to begin with. This is a robustness failure, not a poorly trained workforce failure.
In India I'd probably want to turn up the air con.
Or, to put it another way, the US GDP is over 6 times that of the UK or France, so a 1% difference in GDP amounts to spending almost 10 times as much money. By comparison, China, the #2 spender by $ spends a smaller percentage of their GDP than either France or the UK. Further, the countries which tend to spend the largest percentages of their GDP on military spending tend to be countries with low stability, high chances of conflict with neighboring countries, and a large reliance on outside involvement to maintain some semblance of stability.

Entitlements, by definition, are paid for by the recipients in some way, and are often capped by how much the individual paid into the system. At times when the entitlements are especially needed, these limits are sometimes waived or modified, which is one source of entitlement problems. Another source of entitlement problems comes when there is less need for those entitlements and government is attracted by the large amounts of money going into those entitlements. The US (and much of the west) happens to be in a long period when there has been great need which also happens to have followed a very long period when there was very little need. So, most of the money was stolen to pay the bills for everything else in the 90s and the early years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then anything left in the markets was destroyed by the economic situations which followed, and eventually the entitlement systems will no longer be able to meet the demands placed upon them. Add the Baby Boomers to the Social Security system with a heavier reliance on it for retirement income (thanks to the near elimination of corporate retirement when they decided the massive amounts of cash on their books waiting for Baby Boomers to start collecting looked bad for their bottom line), and I'm sure the outlook is just wonderful for my chances of ever collecting the money I've put into any number of entitlements, unless I find myself in the most miserable situation of my life before the government finds a way to cut every last remnant of the safety net.
"Venture capital or a bank loan in china for your biz requires guangxi galore"

What makes you think that?
The original filesystem hierarchy was designed when 1MB was a large amount of space.

If you want to have a separate read-only partition for system programs (and require going into single-user mode to modify that), go for it. But the rest of the /bin /etc /usr /usr/local nonsense is just because it's easier than changing to something better for most people.
The standard low-tech approach for gold mining: 1) mix crushed ore with mercury; 2) let sit for a while; 3) boil off mercury over a fire; 4) sell gold. Maybe you try to condense some of the mercury. But mercury is cheap compared to gold, so why bother?

Also, we burn lots of coal. And coal contains mercury.

Anyway see this cool EPA page: http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/mercury-emissi...
On the other hand, anyone wanting to buy it for a fair price wouldn't get it: our patent system (maybe others) is too rigged for owners for that even ignoring its broken aspects. One measure said a smartphone might be covered by 250,000 patents with multiple claims. How does a small business with little to no investment legally determine who they'd owe, how much, and pay just that? They can't even if they want to. And they'll be hit by trolls as well.

Wanting to treat it like software and market economy in such a situation makes sense. I'm for limiting the effect of patents to the lifecycle their functionality represents. For instance, an improvement for version 12 is protected until version 13 is released. Maybe add some time. Long-term stuff, like fundamental techs, get more protection. Current system just kills innovation by every measure I've seen or locks it into oligopolies. There's exceptions here and there that are small players making it. Mostly just anti-competitive.

" What he means by "innovate" is "add some tiny feature to someone else's thing.""

That's most innovation: rehashes of and improvements on existing stuff. Theirs sounds like straight up using something but even inventing it yourself is a violation if a patent maybe covers it. Still need heavy-hitting lawyers or consult tons of patents per commit/algorithm. Seems impossible. Even big boys don't bother to do that: they just collect their own patents and use them as leverage for potential countersuits. Whole model is broken for startups in such industries if not looking to be sued or acquired.

So, for crap like this, I tell them to copy away because that's what the pro-patent competition are doing too. Out of necessity. Pay what you have to, esp what's justified (real innovation). Otherwise, don't give a shit and stay out of U.S. if extra worried. I've known many in HW business (esp ASIC's) that do that.
So, if you are a designer or a product manager, you cannot use Linux.
I wish that Facebook, with all its money, could have supported cross platform design frameworks.
I have high hopes that practically free energy leads us to post scarcity.
Working on it!

Front-end is gorgeous. Using it to try out some ideas re: email encryption.
Memebox (YC W14) Is Hiring for Engineering (iOS, Front-End) and Design
In a follow-up message, he noted that changing the LSB to be, essentially, "whatever Debian as well as all other actors in the FLOSS world are _actually _doing" might make the standard—and the effort to support it in Debian—more valuable.

I think this strategy worked remarkably well for HTML5. Standards is a two-way conversation with the community.
The sysadmins I work with all much prefer systemd...
DuPont just lost a significant case regarding Teflon [1]. These companies, decades later are being sought for significant damages.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2015/10/08/dupont-found-liable-in-c...
Random number scalability
This is overly pedantic. The code is doing machine learning. In order to write and understand the code you have to understand the machine learning algorithms. Before you even choose a model and tune the parameters you have to know how the parameters interact and how different models work.
I haven't been paying attention to the streets of Europe or America or Japan, but I sure see a lot of Chinese names on papers heralding scientific advances from Western labs.
AT&T was a legal monopoly that did not allow competition in service or allow any one else's devices on its network.

So it forced you to use both its service and phones. Or go without.
Gotcha, so if three users have write access then when a PR is opened by one of them, one of the other 2 users has to approve it?

If your scenario only has two users (you and one other person) then this flow can already be accomplished (the two are both reviewers, and you set approval required by "everyone" -- so you approve your own PR and then the other user has to also). If you've got more than two users, that's something we'll have to add but it sounds like it's worth doing!
VW has just demonstrated that they're very bad at engineering, resorting to cheating in order to create a marketable product. That is the antithesis of Apple. Buying VW would be a terrible move.
Niche market is niche?
DCHQ Dogfooding Its Own Java-Based Application Deployment Platform
I mean, I'm obviously biased because of my age, but walk into any college lecture hall and it's all $1000+ MacBooks. Only a small minority of those same students will ever buy a dSLR.
Reminds me of that episode of Rick and Morty. The one with Colbert.
There are definitely clinics that give cash patients a 50% discount; I've been to several. The reason is obvious: they get real money rather than a several-month back-and-forth with various unhelpful assholes at an insurance company. That's why the prices are so high to start with. I think that if such a provider isn't careful it can get into trouble with its PPOs, because their contracts require that they get the "best" prices. However, it seems that if a provider is careful it can just say that it has a discount for the uninsured poor.
No, you just move. Not your problem. And I doubt that the lease would stand in court.
I think the more interesting thing about the Scandium Triflouride is that it appears not to undergo a phase transition even at extreme temperatures.

Water changes density and I believe size also when it undergoes the phase transition from liquid to solid but I think the within the phases it behaves like most regular materials. I could be wrong about that.
newspapers existed for centuries without comment sections, i think the mode of propagation will survive
GraphQL in Python made simple
Ha, yeah me too. Wouldn't want to power it by pedaling though.
You're actually both right. China is among the biggest I.P. thieves, esp stealing from U.S. Funny thing is that the advantage of cheap, skilled labor means most companies can't help but take advantage of it. It can be a necessity for firms with little capital. The overall trend seems to be using American tools and high-level design with RTL + manufacturing done by Asians. No real surprise there.
Yep, was alway a treat when a thermometer broke, you'd get to play with the Mercury. Coating copper pennies with it was especially fun! Little did we know.
One thing that appears to be happening is that some companies are selling information about which users are going to medical sites like WebMD and what they're viewing. I'm concerned that my insurance rates will change because I looked up an obscure disease. I can't prove that that the data is being used that way, yet, but it concerns me.
Why is that sad?

What makerbot, and Bre Pettis, did was truly awful. That was an absolute betrayal of trust to everybody who had been working on that project.

Good that makerbot is doing poorly.
One thing that's amazing about China is the size of the market makes it a perfect test bed for new product and business strategies.

Look at what Tencent did with QQ and WeChat, the kind of feature experiment they run on a monthly basis alone is mind boggling.

Look at what Kuaidi and Didi did to work WITH the taxi industry and be profitable, instead of fighting against the taxi industry head on like Uber is trying to do.

These kind of "soft" innovations are just as important as "hard" innovations such as a new processor design. In fact these kind of innovations are more interesting to me because they are very often not predictable and nobody has a solid "roadmap for business model", unless hard, tech roadmaps.
Just curious: On what grounds are they filing the motion? What agreement/understanding are they claiming that you're violating by building your product?
Currently, no fail-over of any kind is implemented in Cryptomove.

If one or more servers go down, all parts that currently reside on those servers obviously remain there. When a down server comes back again, it restarts the movement of all parts that used to reside there before the failure.

This may hamper delivery of data parts upon restore request in case some parts reside on the down server. However, the parts of the saved file is always duplicated on the client before they are directed to the servers. Thus, if enough servers are still up, the restore request may still fetch copies that are still on the up servers, and which path back to the base also goes through the up servers.

Again, currently copies of the same data part travel independently and randomly. In the worst case scenario it may happen that all of them end up on the down server, or that for all of them the path back to their base server has a down server. This however, seems unlikely if there is enough copies and up servers.

Also, when a server decides to push a data part onto another server, it only does it onto a server that is up. All servers maintain keep-alive heartbeats with the members of their clusters, so they know which cluster servers are up and which are down. Of course, it may happen a server goes down in the middle of a data piece transmission. In this case, if it is the source server, it will restart transmission upon its own restart. If it is the target server, the source server will receive a timeout or an exception, and will re-transmit the same part later to an online server (might even be the same target server that went down in case it had come back again).
Also, although it's not proof, the simple "follow the money" principle should hint at the truth here. I can't see what 2 engineers would gain from putting so much time and effort into independently creating "defeat devices". In comparison, VW had a lot to gain from fudging the figures (if they hadn't been caught).

If I were an engineer at VW I'd be hunting for a new job right now. The company seems to have no problems pinning systemic failure on individual scapegoats, and I wouldn't want to hang around to be caught in the next round of ritual sacrifice.
horse carriages existed for centuries without the engines, i think the mode of transportation will survive.
> Yeha, I'm a bit dumbfounded about the calling of the fire dept, the reaction and so on. I would have just figured out where it was coming from and cleaned it up myself with some gloves and a dustpan.

This is probably why you don't clean up mercury for a living. You don't know the complications until you're taught them.
>I'm wondering, when they say prices are now near parity, is that pure prices, or does it still consider the "cost of externalities" factor?

I think it just counts externalities that are already priced in via taxes/subsidies.

It's not really possible to price global warming or clean air anyway.

Plus, remember the story about primary school parents who were fined for being late to pick up their kids?

The effect of trying to price global warming or clean air is harmful in and of itself. We shouldn't be trying to accurately assess the cost of destroying our environment to determine the exact tax to levy on the fossil fuel companies. We should be taxing them into oblivion now that we have alternatives.
Instagram's top five accounts are all women
Just because we had sex and had my offspring doesn't mean that i owe you shit. I may owe the child but not the woman. This just shows how hypagamous women are. This woman is just another woman scorned who probably wanted Jobs to love her forever.
I personally have a number of specific gripes, but more importantly it seems odd the committee hasn't added anything to the standard since '08 (especially since good portable software generally needs more functionality now).

As an easy example, multiprocessing has become more important between now and then. Why are things like processor affinities still not defined?
Actually, I deleted them. Dang didn't delete anything. I'm not going to comment further on systemd, evidently it touched a raw nerve for myself as I've read all the commentary and found I strongly disagreed with the technical reasons behind systemd hate: I guess I was too overly aggressive as I'm going through a rough time right now (depression and suicidal thoughts), so I thought it best to bow out entirely as I wasn't helping the discussion and caused more heat than light.

P.S. Interesting insights though, you make a few fair points. When I'm feeling better I might ponder some more on them. Peace.
You might also like this documentary about the CEO of Five-hour Energy, Manoj Bhargava.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=49&v=YY7f1t9y9a0

It details a lot more about his philosophy towards philanthropy and the inventions he's currently interested in. Interestingly enough, the result is something quite similar to YC Research in a way so I guess you could say YC Research is already market-validated.

Things like this give me a lot of hope for the future of humanity (though we're still honestly depressingly behind in funding for space exploration which I hope can still be fixed.)
> No, because you're paying for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that your worst-case scenario has been mitigated, on the off-chance it happens.

The irony is that the peace of mind I end up with when dealing with insurance companies of any sort is the dead certainty that they are going to screw me over just as hard as they possibly can, should I ever actually need the service they pretend to be in the business of selling, so I'd better give them as little as I can legally get away with and expect to handle the unlikely disaster on my own.
There's pirating, innovation, and both. For instance, the ShinWei processors seem like Alpha rip-offs that got improved way beyond what Alpha did in last models. That's their usual way of doing things: pirate for headstart, then innovate based on labor at least.