skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Alphas of that age were great servers. It's not really surprising that they used an AlphaServer for the indexer, and just one of them. Clustering was still pretty exotic technology at the time (although IIRC VMS already had it). At this time (which was the time I started using altavista, because it was "fast") our machine room had a few alphaservers in it, and the managers and I were always arguing over whether Intel boxes would replace Alphas (and HP, and IBM, and SGI) as high performance computing servers.

When Google came along I proudly add their web search form to my home page with the note "They use linux" because I felt it validated my belief that Linux would become the server platform of choice.
Free speech doesn't cover fraud. These reviews are generally just lies with the intent of deceiving others for profit.
An approach more along the lines of machine learning would be to use what word2vec originated from at Berkeley Lab https://www.kaggle.com/c/word2vec-nlp-tutorial/forums/t/1234...
Maybe like this: http://en.arguman.org/we-need-a-need-more-evidence-for-this-...
> However, what is wrong is when a business can demonstrate that it is not engaged in such practices, yet the third-party provider still refuses to cease penalizing them.

They don't have any responsibility to help you do business. Comcast and your recipients are not required to accept your email. It's in their interest to do so, of course, because that's what their customers are paying them to do so... but their customers are also paying them not to accept email, because most email is spam, and they don't want to receive that.

Email is not a common carrier medium. You can't demand people accept your traffic. It just doesn't work like that.

> The ads I referenced are occasional sponsorships by businesses[...]

...which means, unfortunately, that people are paying you to send advertisements by email, which means that you're in the email advertising business. Which means that people will automatically assume you're malicious. Which sucks, but...
thanks, so you don't have to go there, just to pay 50 euros.
What I mean is passively let them take up the problem themselves if they want your newsletters. Since it's something they expect and want, they might choose to pressure their email provider into solving it.

Of course if they don't really want it or just half-heartedly signed up because it seemed like it might be useful at the time then they're not going to make the effort. And I guess that's the situation almost everybody is in when they find they're not receiving emails due to false positive spam filtering. So it's basically a terrible situation for everyone :(

At least we have these magic solutions like MailChip or MailJet (what I use because the free plan fits my usage pattern) so you could turn to something like that if you really had no luck chasing the spam list company.
Really? Food and housing is fairly easy to solve. Canvas or wood housing and green houses and we could do it with today's technology. Even education is getting way more environmentally friendly with advances in online education resources.

The problem isn't feeding and housing people, it's flying them to Greece for a weekend vacation, buying an endless supply of electronic and motorized consumer products, and a race-to-the-bottom attitude with power generation in the developing world.
I don't think you can blame the theorom for the confusion. It's the trade-offs that are murky and complicated, CAP just tells us that there's a need to care about the dirty details.

Anyway being able to use CAP to beat down the developer who wants to use the new webscale shiny that doesn't even begin to discuss or document tradeoffs is a net win in my opinion.
Yep, my problem solving skills have taken a hit in the past few months. The progress is slow. I haven't been able to put enough hard work, it just seems pointless. I hope it gets better. Thanks
Well, it's a bit of an irrelevance whether or not they state 'as permitted by law', since everything in any license is restricted by the law. Nothing changes.

My point is that Apple (and every other company) makes no attempt to define what their software is meant to be able to do. The license tries to wash their hands of everything that they can.

If I buy a camera and it can't take photos, it's not fit for purpose and I can return it. If I buy a computer to be able to (say) Facetime chat with my relatives, and it doesn't do that due to a bug or incompatibility, it's a murky legal quagmire whether or not I could get a refund.
My question is why do we need more people or want to encourage or allow it to occur?

My immodest proposal is to introduce a natural decline in human populations to more easily sustainable levels via the introduction of a reproductive "right": every individual when born is entitled to one child.

A couple, then, could have a family with two children. Those who aren't interested in having children could sell their "right" off on a market to people who want to have more than their one child individually, so a couple could buy the rights to more children and a larger family from those who don't want to have children. The market could even fractionalize/derivatize those rights so that individuals could sell "half" a childbirth right and two of those individuals could have a family with one child.

The best part is, at two children per two parents, it's lower than the replacement rate of "2.1" which means population levels would humanely decrease with no need for wars or murder.

Our current societies are predicated on larger youth populations than parent populations to support us in our old ages, but this strategy combined with robotic technology for the elderly and post-scarcity economics would free us from that pyramid scheme. This helps support a basic-income type scenario for those people who assume that everyone (or 'THOSE PEOPLE') living in our society will just have tons of kids due to boredom. Like the fears trotted out about "welfare queens" having tons of kids because they supposedly get "free stuff."
24:08 Minutes in

https://github.com/robconery/pg_docs_api

references:

http://rob.conery.io/2015/08/20/designing-a-postgresql-docum...

related:

http://rob.conery.io/2015/03/13/bringing-the-power-of-postgr...

https://github.com/robconery/massive-js
According to Swedish professor Hans Rosling the fast population growth is coming to an end and the population size is expected to stabilize at 11 billion people by the end of this century. His statistics and predictions are based on data from the UN Population Division.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-p...

http://www.gapminder.org/news/world-peak-number-of-children-...
In focus-blurred images, the blur spreads the information about certain pixels throughout a region of the image. (Objects appear larger and fainter because of this when they are blurred. It's why you can shoot through a mesh-wire fence with a wide lens aperture, for example, and not see the fence.) This 'spread out' information is being used to reconstruct an approximation of the original image.

However, when images are downscaled, all the information from 'subpixels' is kept within the reduced-resolution-image-pixel, and all replaced with a single RGB value. There is no 'spread out' information from those pixels. The 'blur' only applies to a region with sharp edges that exactly coincide with the unit of information. So, none of the data from the sub-pixels remain. To reconstruct the pixels that were within you have to essentially guess based on the context of the surrounding pixels.
You always have a risk from kids or outsiders who don't know about you, but it's certainly a lot safer being part of a community than an outsider - which is what you're seen as if you start literally putting up walls between yourself and your customers.
Ok, talking with colleagues the outcome is: if the username is reused and used as something personal, than it's a personal data. I do bet that if you google my username it's not that difficult to find out who I am. Then is personal, which make sense in the end. The problem is how to deal with the data since for a Data Processor the datum is meaningless. That's why we created our startup in EU.
Yikes. I didn't realize the population density in Mumbai was near 53k people per sq. mile. Apparently Manila is nearly twice that at 111k.[1]

Still, it surprises me overpopulation fears are so commonly expressed. Seems like a greatly overblown meme that will end up doing more harm than good. Much like Malthus opposing projects to feed the poor and hungry, I sometimes hear people going as far as saying we (meaning relatively wealthy, white Americans) should just "let them die" when it comes to impoverished people all over the world. Despite the fact that, if energy consumption and environmental damage is the fear, people in industrialized countries use as many resources as dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of lives in the "developing" world.

The world could likely support orders of magnitude more people than we give it credit for. We haven't even started harnessing materials from space industry, space-based solar power, or using the oceans and seabed as living space. There's another 70% of the Earth's surface that hasn't even been touched yet, and that percentage grows even more when you consider the vertical spaces available within it. The overpopulation meme seems more dangerous to global welfare than actual overpopulation has ever been thus far.

Kevin Kelly's edge.org response is a good read on the entire overpopulation issue: http://edge.org/response-detail/23722

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...
Absolutely. Terms and conditions are not laws. I'd date say they are not even proper contracts.
These people profited from damaging one of amazon's biggest competitive advantages. Amazon is going to go throw the book at them and rightly so.
So the rich have large families, and the poor have forced sterilization?
> Usefulness of the definition: Aircraft which are the size of a van and shooting rockets at brown people in the middle east are also called drone. Since capabilities, dangers and use case

And yet, in that very argument you used the word "aircraft" to refer to military UAVs. That word "aircraft" is also used to describe vehicles of vastly different designs, sizes, and capabilities, but I don't think there's much confusion caused by this term.

It's okay to have words that describe large groups of things, along with words which describe more specific subsets of groups of things.
> I gotta follow all my local laws while I’m using it. (!) (Really? Whereever I live?)

Where I live, a lot of those rules conflict with local law.
I apologize if I'm a little slow but I still have no idea what I'm supposed to infer. Could you come out and just say clearly what you're trying to convey?
Code complete and mythical man month stand up very well. As does K and R as a lesson in concise documentation even if it's a little outdated technically.
But migration and the normal population growth are qualitatively different - normal population growth is an exponential phenomenon given a constant growth rate, migration is a linear phenomenon given a constant migration rate. And at least in developed countries I see now real issues controlling both forms of growth, limiting the number of immigrants as well as establishing a two children policy if required.
Try opening a bank account in the UK, if you think it's hard in Estonia. Unlike Estonia, you CAN NOT just come to the UK from a foreign country and open a bank account. Even if you've lived here for a while, it's still an unbelievably ridiculous, frustrating and wasteful process.

Let's start with having to call the bank weeks or months in advance for an appointment, like everything else in the UK. Even though your appointment is for a specific hour, once you arrive on time, be prepared to wait hours before someone sees you. You will then need two different proofs of address, alongside endless other documents. For a business account, you need all partners to be present at said appointment and you will be asked endless questions about the nature of your business and your expected cashflow. If for some reason your conversational English happens to be not so good, be prepared to be flat-out refused a bank account, without much explanation. All of this is usually justified by Know-Your-Customer and anti money lanundering procedures, which is a bit ironic, considering that HSBC are the ones doing all the money laundering to begin with.
But Amazon is put in the position of legally proving that they are lies- tricky.

This sounds like grounds for banishment from the site, not legal action.
There's another possibility: Front for money laundering.
I think that "you are just loaning our software" will become (or is) defacto standard, say Apple discontinues iTunes, they can just remove it and no one can sue them because the lost their MP3 library because they were just loaning the content in the first place.

Another company that does the same is Valve with Steam, you do not own any of the games you have in your library, you just have momentary right to play them and if, say, Valve goes bankrupt and Steam just vanishes from the Internet you have no right to complain that you can't play your games anymore.

It's just to cover their asses so some nutjob doesn't find a loophole and milk them for half their worth.
The world probably could support lots more people than it has now. The question is, why? If we believe 30 billion people is possible, should it be a goal? What's better about 30 billion than 6?
>, how can one prevent spammers to create million of such "trusted" accounts

Notice what you did there? You characterized spam accounts as "trusted" even though you didn't specify why or how they'd get trusted in the first place. There's still a gap in your thinking of how the origination of real (not fake) trust happens.

It's like a 1970s email user asking, "how does the system prevent a 'trusted' Nigerian money scammer from spamming everybody?" Well, why would Department of Defense hire a Nigerian scammer? Would a UniversityOfWhatever hire a Nigerian scammer? No. In that scenario, the trust begins with the institution. For the Nigerian scammer to be trusted, somebody authoritative has to "bless" him.

>Could you give an example how trust could be used to control abuse ?

Well, we're still using trust right now to help control abuse. Today, reputable corporations and also millions of honest users (that's us) "trust" Google Inc, Microsoft, Yahoo, FastMail, etc. Spam on a massive scale does not originate from gmail/hotmail/etc because those corporations shut them down.

The issue is that it's centralized trust concentrated in a few big players instead of de-centralized trust. That's the thorny problem that's very hard to solve. All the clever decentralized proposals (sender pays for storage, outbound payment bonds, cpu-proof-of-work, etc) are basically roundabout proxies for recreating "trust" on a bigger scale. I don't know what the final answer will be. I just know that trust/reputation is an unavoidable part of a new solution.
You don’t have the choice.
Any information which programming languages and server software they used?
In Chrome, the minute hand didn't move anywhere near 10 minutes worth over 10 minutes of watching the mechanism. Are the gear mechanisms designed to accurately reproduce a real hour/minute clock, or is it just intended to be an example of the kind of mechanism used?
Why is lower or stable population of such an imperative that such a totalitarian invasion of natural rights needs be imposed? There are plenty of advantages to larger populations - more people to take part in the creative processes of production, for one.

The disadvantage is the dubious assumption of inevitable resource scarcity. If resource scarcity has yet to become a major problem, and may not in the foreseeable future, why impose population limits?
> Why would you want to raise child after child if two and a half are enough to sustain the population?

Simple: because you believe your (religion, parenting skills, values, heritable traits) are the best. Having a dozen kids per family is a leading way to innundate society with whatever you think is awesome.
I assume they're aiming more to discourage people from offering the service than actually win. The occasional $5 isn't worth the risk of being sued, even if you expect to win.

I'd have thought the case would fall down on other grounds as well: it's pretty difficult to sustain an argument that credibility of reviews is intrinsic to Amazon's business model when the company doesn't make the minimum effort to remove well-publicised joke reviews. And it's going to be tough if they want to prove loss of earnings since if anything paid positive reviews probably increase sales revenues.
Thanks, added your blog post to favorites. I lived in Melbourne for 12 years, still consider Australia my home.
I have involved in several news media attempts to go into digital and worked on the launch of two paper newspapers that tried to make it in the early 2000's both failed spectacularly.

One of them a high quality, amazing journalists high ambitions for quality content newspaper.

The other a free omnibus newspaper to be delivered to almost the entire country (Denmark)

I learned something very different from both of them but I draw the same conclusion.

News is the reporting of events. Newspapers whether digital or print is in the business of using these events to sell newspapers so they can sell adds.

But there are several problems with omnibus news media.

- Most traditional news media simply have too many employees.

- So called "Quality Journalism" isn't going to save any newspapers.

- There are too many newspapers and too many other ways to hear about the actual event. The internet is one big news source.

- Making money on advertising require an amount of visitors that are simply not possible for most.

There is still room for news but it has to be either much smaller, focused and specialized or have to be one of a few multinational news-source providers that others can use.

The omnibus paper is dead.
I predict the whole thing will turn more black market and anonymous. Nothing will really change.
Any review which states that the reviewer has purchased the item through Amazon or the 3rd party seller when they have not will be a clear an easy breach of fact.

The review will be attached to an account. The account's purchase record is available to Amazon.
You can! The problem in that case is it's not a convolution (blur) per se. Each pixel is an average of subpixels P(1)=S1(1)+S2(1)+...+Sn(1), P(2)=S1(2)+...+Sn(2) -- but as you can see there are no elements in common between pixels, which is the case with convolution. That is, in the deconvolution case there are as many variables as unknowns, whereas in the upscaling case you're creating unknowns out of a single variable.

To estimate those subpixels then you're going to be forced to make additional assumptions; if you assume they are independent you would simply estimate Sk(j)=P(j). The traditional (easiest) assumption is that the image is somewhat "bandlimited" -- it does not have many variations (frequencies) faster than once per pixel (so no equal or faster than subpixel variation). If this were the case, you could reconstruct the subpixels perfectly [1], save for some noise. But this is not always the case (and fails spectacularly when you have edges), resulting in upscale blur. So simple linear upscaling algorithms by reaching a compromise between blur and edge enhancing.

If you want to do better though, you have to use non-linear kernels and have good underlying models for your image content. A promising approach is to use machine learning/NNs: http://engineering.flipboard.com/2015/05/scaling-convnets/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
That's awesome!
I didn't think this would work but it does. It would be amazing to combine this with a training tracking app. So far the data entry has always been really annoying so only machine exercises could really be captured properly. Really exciting stuff. I think this has a lot of potential for a startup!
There is one. It cannot possibly move as fast as all the individual actors. Standards bodies can provide high quality at slow pace. Participants here want fast pace and only adequate quality.
Your inbox != the internet. The majority of email traffic has been spam for a decade now.
Putting a up a webserver that can be publically reached is not authorization to access it. I really can't say this in any other way - just because you can do something doesn't mean you are allowed to, whether it's online or offline.

We already have an explicit signal called robots.txt which major search engines use. The problem is that there's no way to enforce this and there's just very little enforcement against actions on the web in general which is why people can get away with scraping but please don't mistake it for somehow being OK or allowed by the owner of that content. It's just not that simple.
In the end, it seems kind of irrelevant. Whether ad-blocking is "OK" or "not OK" certainly accounts for a lot of the arguing, but it probably won't play a huge part in determining whether people use ad-blockers or not.

I think the general public can be swayed by ethical arguments, but the threshold is pretty high, and an appeal to the financial well-being of companies almost certainly doesn't make the cut.

[Note that despite the enormous amount of money and effort that has been spent in an attempt to demonize copying of music/movies, the public still doesn't care a whit about those arguments, and copying is still generally considered a perfectly reasonable thing to do as long as you don't get caught.]
> you could definitely learn a filter that would be very precise in reconstructing the image when zoomed

Yes, your result would be a very clear image of one possible license plate. An algorithm may be able to do slightly better than a squinting human, but ultimately you can't retrieve destroyed information.
But if the leader signs conflicting transactions, which wins?
Citing "WORLD POPULATION PROSPECTS: THE 2015 REVISION" page 10:

"Globally, total fertility is expected to fall from 2.5 children per woman in 2010-2015 to 2.25 in
2045-2050 and to 2.0 in 2095-2100 according to the medium-variant projection. However, in
Europe and Northern America, total fertility is projected to increase between 2010-2015 and
2045-5050 from 1.6 to 1.8 children per woman in Europe and from 1.86 to 1.9 children per
woman in Northern America. In Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania,
fertility is expected to fall between 2010-2015 and 2045-2050, with the largest reductions
projected to occur in Africa. Thus, in all major areas of the world, fertility levels are projected to
converge to a level at or just below the replacement level by 2095-2100"

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_W...
The next version of FIX can try, but everyone stopped upgrading FIX versions years ago. Also, once you standardize the liquidity field, you need to think about its values. These expand continuously...it used to be two or three values, now some systems use a dozen or more.

Basically, if you want a protocol for legal documents, you may as well use an existing one, such as PDF, XLS, TeX, etc. Trying to embed more domain knowledge in the protocol will never work at a highly generalized level. It would be like asking HTTP to standardize e-commerce.