skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Very cool. I did something similar (but much less advanced) in math class where I generated something like a height map by "randomly" (I'd really just pick numbers that seemed good) assigning values to a grid and then subdividing the grid and linearly interpolating between points plus another "random" offset with a range that gets divided with each subdivision. It was a good way to pass time for someone who would rather have been playing dwarf fortress but only slightly understood the math behind perlin noise.
How about let your members keep missing their emails. If they really want them, encourage them to sort out the problem with their email provider which is apparently failing to do its job? Since the recipients are the ones who choose to receive it, then they're also the ones to be upset when something goes wrong - especially since it's caused by their choice of an unreliable email provider.

I use email for a slightly more spammy purpose (double opt in but mainly to promote sales to existing users) so I wouldn't be able to make this claim if it happened to me - my recipients won't notice if they don't get my email and many won't care. I have to deal with these problems too, usually by manually asking the blacklister to unblacklist me, which they seem to do.
The only way many people can stay mentally coherent to ideological positions is if they don't read dissenting positions too closely. They try to slot opposing opinions into pre-formed straw-man arguments, then they reiterate their pre-fabricated counter-arguments.

It's a pattern you see almost universally in the user comment sections of political journalism. People who want to think find the comment section's tone hostile, because it's filled with ideologues with Pavlovian responses and pre-canned arguments. The ideologues don't need to read what the other side's ideologues have written - they just need a few key words and they're salivating. Political comment sections are a write-only platform.

I don't think this phenomenon is specific to any political ideology, mind. I think it's fairly universal.
besides being given cash they government fees that people below a certain threshold of income need to be adjusted. There are far too many such fees which hammer the income of those least able to afford it.
>I don't know why so many people give the state the benefit of the doubt when they mistrust corporations so much. I'm inclined to mistrust both, but at least a corporation has to compete to survive.

They're both competing to survive, it's just that the incentive structures are slightly different. Corporations are trying to make as much profit as possible, and political parties are trying to get a majority of votes.

In theory, a democratic government should be more trusted to satisfy the desires of the people, because it doesn't weight those desires based on wealth. In practice, many democracies are dysfunctional which vastly weakens the incentive structure.
Would you get a money from a VC/angel who tweets bad things about your religion?
Did you saw people get funded just because of their ethnicity? How you can find VC/angels who are respectful to their selfs? How YC handles this?
Any alternatives that you are beware of?
> I think most of the FUD about public perception of consumer drones actually comes from the RC model aircraft community

Can you clarify this? What is the RCMA community contrubuting to FUD?
If storage is the sender's responsibility, then not only can they potentially get some of your attention, but also your location, what kind of device(s) you use to get email, when you're active, and precisely what kind of content is enticing you to click and what isn't.

A very tight feedback loop for generating content that will trick you, and hosting it for just long enough to see if it works.
Yep I did, my bad. Sorry about that.
It is a fairly unusual situation, but yeah, I would expect someone else to have seen this by now.

I might have to try this myself to see if I can replicate it.
Those other options would probably be more legal but less likely to "propagate" to the leak.
The EU's data protection laws have exemptions for the prevention, detection and prosecution of criminal offenses as well as national security and defense. I don't see why law enforcement in Europe couldn't do the exact same thing as was done here.
The World According to a Facebook User
I live in Australia, here stair climbing wheelchairs are obviated by wheelchair ramps in to every public use building and commercial building. Wheelchair bound people are also given subsidies to have ramps installed at their homes too.

Additionally, I'd hazard a guess that price effects consumer uptake. If the the stair climbing feature costs, probably at least(?), $5,000 to $10,000 dollars extra fewer people are likely interest.

edit: a word and a space
Pecunia non olet.
It's generally harder to build a car than a drone, so the analogy really doesn't hold. But yes, car registration is still stupid.
Oh man, I didn't hear about this until today. Tragic -- and inexcusable.
There is nothing about aviation GPS's that make them high accuracy. In fact they're mostly inferior to consumer GPS equipment.

What drives up the cost is certification of the equipment.
Then by that same logic, can't the LPs just leak slightly modified number so they're not identified?
Do perfectly rational highly intelligent agents argue or is it our imperfection that needs such a tool? If yes then can people really change their minds after discussing like this?

(I do think its a great platform)
Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know.

Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous.

Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.
They just need to make these drones kit only and harder to fly. I've been flying RC with my dad since the early 90s. You would spend a month building these gas powered planes or helis. Only way to learn to fly was through other people or crashing a lot. It def kept irresponsible people out of the hobby. Plus you have to have skill to fly a 6 channel collective pitch heli. These things are not toys.
I saw the question at Quora within
the last few days, thought of my
answer then, then seeing the question
here, although just in the title,
typed in my answer here
just from reading the title
here and not the essay.
Sorry 'bout that!

This question had to be the
easiest question on the fastest
algorithm ever!

Some of the other questions
at Quora were more challenging.

In my answer, I improved on the
question by assuming also, that,
even though the array was "unsorted",
really, we needed to assume more,
i.e., that we knew no more about
the array. E.g., the array might
be unsorted but, still, in, say,
as happens with some versions of
the fast Fourier transform,
in bit reversed order. Then
there is a faster answer!

The essay has a good point but
is not fully correct.

BTW, I prefer sequential search
to linear search.

That point aside, actually the
essay overstates its case.
E.g., in my startup I
need to look at, say, 100
million numbers one at a time,
where I know nothing about the order, and
end up with the, say, 50 largest.

So, how to do that? My solution:
allocate an array x of, say,
50 components. So assume
we have array components x(i) for
i = 1, 2, ..., 50.

Regard the array as a descending
heap, that is, a heap as in heap
sort and descending in the sense
that x(1) is the smallest component
of the array x. Of course the heap
means that x(i/2) <= x(i), i = 2, 3,
..., 50. Here, of course, the i/2
is the usual result of division
with integers, that is, the i/2 is
the largest integer <= the fully
accurate version of i/2.

Sure, the 50 was
just for definiteness; say
the number of components in the
array is positive integer m.

And, let y be an array
with y(j) for j = 1, 2, ..., p
where p is, say, 100 million or so.

Initially, just put y(j) in the
heap in x for j = 1, 2, ..., m.

Then in a loop for j = m + 1, m + 2,..., p,
compare y(j) with x(1).
If y(j) <= then x(1), then y(j) is
not among the 50 largest, and we
f'get about y(j). Otherwise
we assign y(j) to x(1) and
do a sift operation to
return array x to a heap.

So, when m is more than a few
but not in the billions,
that looks like a
reasonably fast algorithm.

Note that when the elements
of y are just any random
permutation, fairly soon
the heap in array x will
have relatively large
components so that
inserts into the heap
will become relatively rare
and, really, the comparison
with x(1) will be all the
effort needed.

So, we are using the heap
algorithm to build, say,
a priority queue. There
are other important uses
in reality!
Metamorphosis and Millimeters
It's all good until you fall down an elevator shaft.
Interesting idea although there are a lot of technical issues that would make what you describe more challenging. A simpler approach is positive enforcement. Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft.

Model aircraft have existed for a long time and there's been a good relationship with the FAA and few incidents. The challenge is that technology has advanced to the point that these modern "drones" are almost too easy to fly. Any idiot can watch some YouTube videos and then they think they're a pilot. Given that, to the extent possible the aviation regulations should be enforced at the device level to make these things as idiot proof in terms of busting airspace regs as they are idiot proof to fly.
Society agrees to let individuals have exclusive access to particular resources based on a system of rules.

That's close, but you're missing an essential point. To the extent that we can speak about "society" in an general sense, it would be more accurate to say that "society agrees to help you defend your property rights if you play by their rules". That doesn't mean that property is a fiction that requires government or society. And by the same token, there's no reason you couldn't construct a system where everybody helps everybody else defend their property simply in terms of "mutual aid". Taxation is not an inherent property of all systems for defending property. In fact, I will continue to argue that taxation is inherently inimical to the idea of property.
The John Stewart/John Boehner example is particularly apt, because it's not even uncommon for progressives to perpetuate this, even when they're trying to fight it. To wit, it used to be that there were negative gay stereotypes. In an ideal world we would stop stereotyping particular people as gay or having "gay" behavior. But instead we've just taken some of the negative gay stereotypes and recast them as positive. I have progressive friends that never, _ever_ fail to characterize male intimacy or physical closeness as "gay" for the purposes of showing how OK they are with it. Example, Olympics "gay bobsled": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iAwO7FN15E People loved this stupid video.
Anything short of full-auto or under 0.50 bore (more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even then, certain categories (SBRs, AOWs) can be legally owned after paperwork and filing for a tax stamp ($5 for AOWs transfers, $200 for SBRs and supressors).

This is why you see AR15 "80% Complete Lowers" being sold. You buy what is basically a chunk of metal, finish the machining (can be done with a special jig and a drill press), and you can have a functional AR15 that nobody but you has any knowledge of.

The "upper receiver" and barrel, trigger parts kit, bolt assembly, and other bits are just pieces parts and pipe, as far as UPS and anyone else is concerned. When I built my AR15 (out of a locally purchased fully complete lower), I bought the upper receiver assembly online and UPS delivered it to my front door.

Plus, not all states require registration of "normal" firearms. In Texas, the only "registration" is the ATF Form 4473 that is filled out at time of purchase, and those are held by the seller, not the government.

http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591
There should be a wikipedia for these. Argupedia.
I just found a tiny little drone on my backyard.

Poor little thing crashed and now it's mine! :)
It probably won't be a problem because people sometimes walk like that one stairs too (at least I do!). For walking the loads would be higher because they're concentrated on one foot on one edge of one step. The failure mode of the carpet pulling away is interesting though! A walking person might just fall onto the next step while this wheelchair looks like it could keep popping the carpet out step by step as it falls all the way down.
I think that the answer to the first part of your question is 'yes'. Just imagine two (perfectly rational and highly intelligent) mathematicians debating the truth of an unknown result—say, the Riemann hypothesis. I suppose if you add the caveat 'omniscient', then the need to argue goes away.
That would mean that market dynamics are used to plan but not administer the benefits. Distributing can lets market dynamics take care of everything.
Who knows what revenue numbers Pinterest will hit. Lucky for them their competition is nil.
Except you get oversight and influence from your VC.
>Look at Craigslist's revenues. Look at what the newspaper classifieds' revenue was before Craigslist came along. We're talking orders of magnitude difference... they're not using their cut to subsidize journalism...

If you want to support a middleman business model, that's your prerogative. If I want to support a direct-to-customer-as-much-as-possible one, then that's mine. I don't want to support a label, I want to support myself.
Xena is right to note that this simple state-transformation function, f(event old-state) -> [actions new-state], is the obvious and eternal way to build a server. It's also worth noting that it's basically Haskell's State monad.

Whatever you call it, it's a design pattern, not a system service. Urbit on the outside, as an "operating function," is defined by the "universal design." But since it's a pattern rather than a service, it will tend to reappear at each layer of a layered system. Urbit on the outside uses this pattern and so do Urbit applications, but these are very different layers of Urbit.

At the application layer, a command to an IRC daemon is a great example. There still seems to be a good deal of boilerplate in the Lua code presented here. The attraction of the "universal design" is the goal of eliminating all, or almost all, boilerplate code in a network server daemon.

How would one go about that? First, be a single-level store, so the daemon is automatically a database. Second, make application messages are transactions with end-to-end acknowledgment, no return value, and exactly-once delivery. The message is automatically deserialized and validated, and passed to the application as a simple typed argument. If there's a problem with the operation, just crash; the result is delivered as a transaction failure with an annotated stack trace. Also, messages should be sent over an encrypted P2P network and authenticated by scarce, memorable identities...

On the other hand, I'm sure the Lua daemon is a lot faster!
Show HN: Download any Instagram(Full Size HD Image) bypassing save filters
If you have a potential investor that did that, I would politely let him know your religion, and ask him if that's going to be a problem. Better than having support withdrawn later.
Fish drives his own little electric car around the room
Instagram is pretty close to be their competitor.
After assessing the lib, I still prefer schema. I find that it's always more convenient that you can separate the schema and the data itself.
I have a bit of experience with running email servers. I can't really say that I had similar encounters.

In my experience if you get blocked by big mail providers it's almost always due to some reason. What's tricky is that it may be hard to tell what exactly is wrong, because they won't necessarily tell you (or not in an easy way).

Some advice what I'd do to try to find out what's going on:

1. Take a sent example mail that is like the blocked one (but obviously one that reached its target destination) with all headers and run it through spamassassin. Don't just look if it hit the spam score (then you did something terribly wrong), look at each individual rule that spamassassin hit. They might give you a clue. A proper mail usually shouldn't hit any or very few positive spamassassin rules.

2. Check your IP at a service like valli where you can query multiple DNS black lists. If it is on any blacklist try to find out how you can be delisted. There are some rogue blacklists that make it impossible to be delisted at all, you may ignore them (google for them, their behavior is well documented), but these shouldn't be more than 1 or 2. As already said by other commenters, don't forget IPv6.

3. Read whatever error message you can get your hands on. If you're blocked on the SMTP level read the error message. If your message got sorted into a spam folder look at all the headers. If the provider blocking you has some online docs about their spam filtering read that. If they have some sort of service for mail ISPs where you can sign up to get warnings sign up there.

Of course also the obvious stuff. If you do anything that is mass mailing you are in extra danger. Make sure that you allow people to unsubscribe easily, don't ignore manual attempts by them to unsubscribe ("I want to get off this mailing list") and delete invalid mail addresses.
come to boston. you don't have to be homeless here.
No, it can actually offer the guarantees of static typing within statically typed functions.

function match_books(bids::Array{Bid,1}, asks::Array{Ask,1})
...
end

I have static guarantees on the type of bids, asks, and anything else inside `match_books`.

Outside, you might attempt to pass nonsense in and get a runtime error. But inside, I can rely on static guarantees and so can the compiler (this is why Julia is fast).
Yeah, that's exactly right. I usually say "normalization."
Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to its owner and ticket (else impound). Physical serial number for legacy drones.
Just how accurate is this 2000$ GPS supposed to be? Because my 40$ Ublox M8N GNSS modules on several copters produce a solid lock with constant HDOP<1.5 under normal conditions, averaging around ~1.5m horizontal position deviation, and altitude is locked in via barometer down to several cm. To get more position accuracy, you really need DGPS, which AFAIK planes don't normally use either... and do those couple meters really matter?
What about YC?
Ocean currents and swells are also how ancient Polynesians navigated the ocean so precisely over such huge distances. They developed the ability to read them like maps. Unfortunately, these skills are almost totally extinct. I believe there's only one Hawaiian "master navigator" in the old ways left alive. That intelligent animals could also survive by using this information is not at all unbelievable. Very cool and interesting to think about.
To be slightly clearer, the values here are Urbit "nouns."

A noun is an atom or a cell. An atom is an unsigned integer of any size. A cell is an ordered pair of nouns.

I am fairly confident that many useful sets can be specified as the fixpoint set of a function in this space.
>...but all quadcopters are drones.

Well, not all of them.

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

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAh...
Blogger Blogspot Tutorials, Tips and Tricks
But the point is a botnet could, instead of mining bitcoins for example, stream content of which the rights are owned by the botnet operator.
You have to get over the fact that not everyone is going to agree with your religion or beliefs. You have to get over the facts that laws are passed and Supreme Court decisions are made that conflict with your religious beliefs.

In fact you might have found yourself doing the same to someone of different beliefs or religion or even atheists.

But because of diversity you have to work with people with different religion, beliefs, atheism, whatever and you can't force your religion and beliefs on them.

Christianity has been spoken out against because of the beliefs on marriage, abortion, etc. You see all kinds of activists attack Christianity because it doesn't believe in abortions, same sex marriage, etc in general, and while there are some versions of Christianity that do believe in those things, social media and news media attacks Christians based on the views of the Fundamentalists.

If we learned from Brandon Eich and Mozilla, his Christian beliefs to fight gay marriage by donating to a charity for Proposition 8 is what had caused him to resign due to bad PR when his name was released as donating money to it. Laws can quickly change, society can quickly change, you have to think ahead and think how what you do and say will be viewed in the future when things change. You can't always have your way and you have to work with people who don't like your religion but like your product and work ethic.

In IT I learned that having a thin skin and letting things get to you is not the right way to handle things professionally. You will have others attack you because of your religion or beliefs, and you have to work with them. A simple question like are you putting up a Christmas tree will tell them that you are a Christian, and then that is where the rants against Christianity come in, and you have to take it without fighting back and develop a thick skin because you need to get along with people who hold different views and beliefs than you do, and work as a team. You will find that many people are abusive to IT staff when their computer develops a problem and will use swear words and verbally abuse you until it is fixed. In IT one has to develop a thick skin and not let this abuse get to them.

I couldn't handle the abuse and got stressed out because I couldn't manage stress and got sick. I was often attacked because of my religion, even people taking the Lord's name in vain to try and trigger me, making all kinds of degrading comments about Jesus, and all I did was turn the other cheek, and not fight back. If I fought back, I'd be sure to be fired and written up. If I reported them, well management was on their side anyway, and I'd be in trouble.

I don't push my religion or beliefs on others, and I try not to do the same to them that they do to me, I follow the law and keep my mouth shut unless it is about business or IT. I believe in turning the other cheek on issues like this as Jesus taught.
What kind of bandwith usage do you see? I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to try this anyway, but one thing I worry about is exceeding bandwith quotas and ending up with a large bill.

Also, do you just have one server or a backup as well?
Thank you, I have looked into it before and will continue to do so. However, the articles you linked were studies done in mice and those undergoing chemotherapy treatment. I am hesitant to extrapolate that up my myself.