skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I should have phrased my point on smarts differently. You definitely have to be bright to make money trading; there is a baseline and it's pretty high. Beyond that, the most valuable things are attention to detail, working well under uncertainty where the best answer isn't obvious or even knowable, and simple hard work.

Aside from systematic errors like Knight, market-makers rarely blow up due to competition or a bad model, they just fade away. They make or lose money pretty slowly, they just do it consistently over time.

Aside from the most basic strategies there isn't one "right" way to price a market. It's an engineering problem like any other. How much risk do I accumulate? How should I manage this risk? How far apart should I set my bid and offer? Do I use a simplistic model with lower latency or a more complex one that's slower? Is it better to be more accurate and avoid bad trades or less accurate and build up priority in the order book by staying on a price longer?

A market-maker's objective function is to maximize total profit (turnover * average gain/$ traded) while controlling risk (volatility of P&L over time). Usually changing your answer to questions like the ones above will shift turnover one way and profit per trade & risk in the opposite direction. For example, if you quote your bid and offer very close together, you'll trade large market share and have less risk exposure since you get in and out of positions very quickly, but your profit per trade will be low (if traders arrive randomly, at best you will make the small spread between your bid and offer, in reality a fraction of that since they usually have a reason to trade against you). If you set your quotes wider, you'll make more per trade on large dislocations, but do less volume and hold more risk.

There are a lot of efficient points along this continuum and traders play to their strengths. Someone with little capital/risk tolerance, top-tier infrastructure, and forecasting models for the next price tick should play very differently than someone with a lot of capital, average infrastructure, and models that can forecast the next 10 minutes.

And you are right regarding bonuses, but all team efforts have this problem. Who creates value and deserves the best compensation in a SaSS startup? Is it the salespeople who get clients? The engineers who build the software? The Ops team that keeps it running reliably? I actually find trading to be a bit more meritocratic than other tech jobs: either you make money or you don't, and teams are smaller so it's easier to assign reward (or blame).
I was leaning that way, but when I tried to the plain English way, I defaulted to "Five threes" not the backwards "take five and copy it out three times".

Once he made the tie back to programming he was able to change my mind that this was important enough. Although it does seem unfair for the individual child.
The steps ought to be a bridge to understanding the arithmetic as an abstraction.

Teaching and requiring that a commutative operation be ordered doesn't seem like it is going to contribute to that.
If this takes off, I can see this being a way for frontier-edge research being scooped. I'm not sure I see the new value-add beyond that.

What does this offer over arXiv?
7 tools in every data scientist’s toolbox
"Common Core Math problem" - yes, it does look like a special kind of math. Marking that answer wrong is the equivalent of "you are not allowed to think about this just yet". I sure hope that teacher at least sat him down to explain how multiplication is commutative.

Does anyone have a more sane explanation of what the goal is? I can't think of any way this is going to be helpful to the student.
This whole thing is hilariously polarizing. People seem to project so much stuff on to what's actually shown on the paper that the arguments don't even make sense a lot of the time - either way. Some things I can get only looking at the paper:

The student got a grade of 4/6. There is no evidence from what can be seen on the photo if there are more than two questions or not - however it appears that after #2 there are instructions about showing work, etc. So it's entirely within reason to think that there were only two questions, yet many many people seem to accuse the teacher of being awful for not assigning partial credit. The evidence present on the page is not enough to conclude either way - there are solid arguments and inferences in each direction, yet everyone seems to argue from a "the answer was all right" or "the answer was all wrong" perspective.

Similarly - everyone is focusing just on the "learning to multiply whole numbers" aspect of this. But I presume this assignment was given in the course of a broader teaching curriculum. Perhaps the goal is to get the kids to arrange things in a certain way, because it provides a bit of foundational knowledge for next steps. Some next steps where pushing the "3+3+3+3+3" version of this is a "better" representation:

* algebraic concepts: 2x becomes x+x, etc. I don't know a way to write 2x in terms of 2+...

* fractions: (this is basically the same as above) 4 * 1/2 is 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2, but again I don't know how to write it in terms of 4+ without requiring a bigger transform of first doing the multiplication then switching the sign.

* Matricies - here is a case of multiplication that isn't commutative

Point being - when teaching sometimes things are left out at first, for the sake of a simple consistent framework to built more concepts upon. Later - those concepts can help to understand additional properties or adjustments to the original facts. It's not required to teach the rules of commutative and associative and so on immediately.

Another funny thing about this is everyone just assumes that the paper as shown represents the totality of output from the teacher. It's entirely possible that after the quiz or assignment, the teacher gave a lesson on why this (perhaps common) 'mistake' is wrong.

I guess I'm rambling off my original point - but I don't really understand how this entire thing is causing so much vitriol and hate and unfounded speculation - other than a bunch of people projecting their own frustrations with some shitty teachers they had in the past.
Hasn't "a great offense is always the best defense"
always been the name of the game?

An air offence against an airfield can put a billion dollars worth of planes out of operation permanently.

There's no cyberattack equivalent of that - it's not like bricking a few $1000 PCs would disable foreign cyberattack capabilities.
Not really relevant where (1) they're generally not targeting specific individuals, and (2) once you pay the ransom one time, you can mitigate your future risk with backups and other measures.
A student that sees a multiplication sign and reads it as "sets of" is not better off than one who reads it as multiplication.
The person who marked that answer wrong doesn't understand either.
“You grant Snapchat a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license to host, store, use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, publish, create derivative works from, publicly perform, broadcast, distribute, syndicate, promote, exhibit, and publicly display that content in any form and in any and all media or distribution methods”

This exact language shows up in almost every ToS, and every six months or so a dumb news story blows up because someone who isn't a lawyer reads it and gets angry.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm going to try to translate it anyway:

"You grant Snapchat a world-wide, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license" - you agree that when you upload something to Snapchat you can't turn round later and claim they owe you money for doing so.

"to host, store, use, display, reproduce" = to store the data that you upload and show it back to you (or to other people, presumably based on the semantics of how sharing works within the application)

"modify, adapt, edit, publish, create derivative works from" = create thumbnails. Provide you with an editing interface. Update records in a database relating to the content you uploaded. Build features akin to retweeting on Twitter or resharing or tools that let you add mustaches to your photos or whatever.

"publicly perform, broadcast, distribute, syndicate, promote, exhibit and publicly display that content" = show your content to other people (again, based on the semantics of how those features work in the app).

"in any form and in any and all media or distribution methods" = again, thumbnails, format conversions etc. If someone invents a new media or distribution method, Snapchat should be allowed to build it into their applications without getting you to re-approve the ToS.

I think the fundamental problem here is that ToS need to be written to be as generic as possible. If Snapchat wrote a ToS that legally bound them to the exact way that their app works today, they would have to get a lawyer involved with literally every feature change they make (or feature experiment they run) in the future.
Exactly. And this is why we use math operators rather than English terms for math operations. If you want to specifically mean 5 times a group of 3, define a new operator for it, like 5 ○ 3. Don't 'overload' the x operator with your own arbitrary meaning.
Show HN: DevLab – Docker Containerization for Local Development
This post just made my BS-meter explode. How can this make the front page of HN? I don't even know where to start.

It’s more important than ever for students to understand the difference between equal as a result and equivalence in meaning from a young age because it is a fundamental computer science concept (...) Equivalent means not only are they equal, they are also of the same data type. In other words, they mean the same thing.

Except that this point is totally misguided because 5+5+5 and 3+3+3+3+3 are, in fact, the same thing. A member of the set of natural numbers, commonly known as 15, and that you can write as S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(S(0))))))))))))))) if you have the patience to do so.

In fact, the author uses the == and === operators in JavaScript to illustrate his point, but of course, 5+5+5 === 3+3+3+3+3 resolves to true in Javascript, and in any language under the sun that compares stuff by value.

And then, if you compare by reference, the result of == or similar operators doesn't depend at all on whether you made your integer by adding up three fives or five threes: in Java,

Integer i1 = new Integer(5+5+5);
Integer i2 = new Integer(3+3+3+3+3);
Integer i3 = new Integer(3+3+3+3+3);
System.out.println(i1==i2 + " and " + i2==i3);

prints false and false, while using equals instead of == would print true and true.

So I don't see how this nonsense would teach kids anything useful about computer science. The only thing it can do is confuse them.

equivalent is defined as, “equal in value, amount, function, or meaning.”
In the above problem 5 x 3 is equal to 5 + 5 + 5, but they’re not necessarily equivalent. Equivalence relates to meaning, so it depends on the meaning of multiplication, as the directions indicate.

First of all, the sign in the exam statement is an equal sign, not an equivalence sign. So if 15 is equal to 5x3, what the student wrote is perfectly fine. Also, "solving" a multiplication means finding out its value, which is what he did.

Secondly, you know what also is a fundamental computer science concept? The logical operation "or". The definition of "equivalent" in the blog is reported as “equal in value, amount, function, or meaning.” "Or", not "and". So the definition doesn't say anything about equality in meaning (however you define it) being a necessary condition for equivalence.

Maybe teachers are "experts on child education" but that doesn't exempt them from knowing something about maths if they are supposed to teach them.
These types of procedures are exploding, but there's a lot of turf wars between vascular surgery, cardiac surgery and interventionalists (e.g. interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and interventional neurologists).

For vessels in the brain there are fellowships that accept neurologists, radiologists, and/or neurosurgeons:

http://radiology.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=120

It's kinda unique to have that kind of diversity in a fellowship applicant pool. I'm interested in interventional radiology, but their big problem is that they don't oversee the patient's floor management. This will hopefully change with the new IR residency for medical students starting next year:

http://www.sirweb.org/fellows-residents-students/
Teaching necessarily forces a rigor not seen in most actual usage. This is because there is a need to build concepts on top of one another. So while 3x5 and 5x3 are the same in practical usage, it this method helps in later steps like algebra:

5x = x + x + x + x, i can't rearrange that into terms of 5+ without involving even more concepts (like recursion etc)
Hacker reproduces 3D Touch on Android device
Let's Encrypt on the CA's Role in Fighting Phishing and Malware
Snapchat's promotional material even encourages screenshotting etc

"You choose what to keep" is their selling point
American government agencies put one thing above all else: Self preservation. If a duty to society involves risk which could make them be seen in a bad light, they will avoid it,
or try to state it isn't their problem.
These are Instagram's goriest, bloodiest accounts
How to Transform Your Food Photos from Good to Bloody Beautiful
The Word “Million” Didn’t Exist Until We Needed It
Jason from Elastic here. It wasn't the same release as there were critical changes[1] between the RC and the GA, and the RC release will receive no support.

[1] https://www.elastic.co/downloads/past-releases/elasticsearch...
Coinspotting: An HN-Styled Website for Cryptocuurencies
That's true from a societal perspective, but from the perspective of the victim of ransomware, "just pay the ransom" is even worse advice. Once you have paid the ransom, what incentive does the hacker have to fulfill their end of the bargain? If, for example, a hacker encrypts your hard drive and demands bitcoins as payment, paying the hacker means you're likely out a few bitcoins AND your hard drive is still encrypted.
Finding new worlds with a play of light and shadow
Samsung unveils 18.4-inch Galaxy View so big it has a handle built in
No - college students got deferments: my older brother managed to avoid the draft by remaining in grad school till he was over 26. I had a deferment until I tore my draft card up and mailed it back to the draft board. The '60s backlash against Vietnam had many causes: left-wing agitators, a really stupid war supporting corrupt regimes, lots of college students who were a little too late for the civil rights movement.
> (2) once you pay the ransom one time, you can mitigate your future risk with backups and other measures.

This is assuming they bother to give back your data.
The WordPress Time Machine
There's a Lot We Don't Know About Ebola
IANAL, but that seems like it should fall under 'Constructive Dismissal'.
Well... there's that...

but there's also the fact that society was just plain disorderly prior to 1960. Not only were there outlaw villains like the James gang, there were also outlaw CITIES and settlements. The O.K. Corral was not the ONLY location of brazen shootouts. Shootouts happened regularly throughout the US. Then the century turned... and even more dangerous weapons got into the hands of what proved to be a demonstratively immoral citizenry. Criminally inclined immigrants began arriving from Europe. Prostitution was commonplace. Husbands locked their wives away in asylums because it was cheaper than divorce. Don't even get me started on the level of graft in government at every level at that time. The "moral" era he's talking about is the same one that saw vets beaten to death on the National Mall. And Union organizers slaughtered.

Naturally, all of that developed and culminated in respectably named organizations of thugs like "The Commission", or "La Cosa Nostra". Back then, the per capita crime rates of Chicago and New York make today's crime rates look tame. (Heck... the crime rates from 20 years ago make today's crime rates look tame!)

In short... the "good old days"... were not always good... and tomorrow is never as bad as it seems.
You could be right (or wrong). But, if the point is to understand the market microstructure and dynamics (rather than endorse their philosophy), in my humble opinion, these articles do a good job there.
Battle Heats Up Over Exports of Surveillance Technology
How Uber and its peers turned us into horrible bosses
I had some issues with the heart rate monitor on the first band. I accept that it was likely user error (my fault) but a few times during a normal exercise routine it reported heart rate values well outside the where my heart rate was (or should be)
I did not see where this will be indexed and archived. Without it, it won't take off. I have many old data sets that did not really fit into a nice story and have been sleeping on my harddrive. I would love to have an easy way to dump those figures out on the internet.
He had been working there for five years before his burnout, so I'd say he got along well overall.
24/7 broadcast of Y Combinator videos
Ugh. I'm not going to defend that. But I'd like to give some background to the attitude.

Like most others, I've seen burnout. Both personally and in others. This happens to a lot of people in life, maybe most, try to recognize the situation early and to have economic margins to take a year off.

I wasn't as bad as some cases I've seen, but I was not a nice person myself then.

Let me give an example about what I learned about practical psychology:

When you're really stressed and don't realize you're physically sick, then you project that pain; whatever is a problem becomes bigger. The mental logic seems to be "You feel bad. So the things that are stressful must be really bad." Afterwards you realize you've been a person you can't stand.

I really hope I won't experience something as bad again, but it taught me a lot. If nothing else, compassion.

(This example might not be relevant for the article, since that guy seems to have broken not from being sick but because of a too large work load after a bunch of years.)
The objective and obvious difference between the 5 and the 3 is that the 5 is first and the 3 is second. The point is that because the 5 is first, as everyone can see, it has a specific job in the repeated addition technique. (The bananas and bundles just illustrates an example for why, in another context, being first or second would be important. But on the test, 5 is still first.)

On the other hand, you are invoking a "repeated addition" that the student was never taught. Your repeated addition strategy is "add <one of numbers> together <the other number> times". The taught repeated addition strategy was "add <the second number> together <the first number> times".
Because all one needs is to bullshit one's boss or sponsor. I gave an example of a religion for a reason. And bullshitting is much more efficient strategy than actual modeling and rigorous research. Group thinking is much easier and cheaper than proper science, especially when even the best economists are full of doubts.

I took Yale's financial markets courses, so I know what ideas they might have. This is the Nobel laureate's course.
That is my understanding as well. That it will be Scala "Don Giovanni", which I believe will be Scala 2.14, or maybe they will bump it to 3.0 at that point.
> Unfortunately, for the individual victim, paying is usually the best of a set of bad options

Is it?

From the perspective of the hacker, the hacker's best move is to take the money and simply demand more. There's zero incentive for the hacker to return the victim's data.

This becomes a probablistic situation: the approach I'd take if I were a victim would be to borrow an analogy from poker for the problem of deciding whether to call in order to possibly win a pot. First, I'd determine how much the data is worth to me, and use that to determine my "pot odds":

pot_odds = ransom / value_of_data

I'd then try to figure out how often hackers actually return the data on a ransom:

odds_of_data_being_returned ~= times_data_has_been_returned_after_ransom_paid / times_ransom_has_been_paid

At this point, we can decide whether it's a rational choice to pay the ransom:

if pot_odds < odds_of_data_being_returned:
pay_the_ransom()

Areas for research: this is a pretty unsophisticated way of determining the odds of the data being returned. I don't have data on how often hackers return data upon being paid the ransom, but I suspect if we gathered data we could get a better probability. For example, one could use linguistic patterns in the hacker's communication to fingerprint different ransomware hackers, and use that to get a probability for each individual hacker. It's likely that some hackers never return the data, and some hackers always return the data, and each of these probabilities has drastically different effects on the outcome of our decision algorithm.
How very not Black of you.
Improving your code readability with namedtuples
This seems like a far-fetched justification. What's more likely?

1. The teacher understands (and is expecting 9 year olds to learn) the pedantic difference between equivalence and equality. Keep in mind, this being elementary school, the teacher likely is a generalist and also teaches reading, science, and social studies.

OR

2. The teacher has a very rigid grading guide that specifies how much credit is given for any given answer/technique, and is simply blowing through 50+ tests at 1AM, applying this standard grading. Ironically, in this scenario, the teacher is just as pointlessly constrained to "following the rules" as the students. He/she may even agree that it's ridiculous to deduct a point.
They want you to reinforce the ransomware creator's behaviour, but if you hunt them down and physically punish them yourselves, you'll go to jail. Why does a democratic government exist, and why do I pay taxes to support it?
In my opinion, the FBI is the slacker here. We are paying taxes to the government for services which should include hunting down and making examples of the perps so that they think twice about ever writing ransomware again.
Only a billion? This is the USA in 2015 we are talking about. A single F-35C costs a third of a billion dollars. So you are talking about 3 planes.
If "He/she may even agree that it's ridiculous to deduct a point", then don't deduct it.
Meteor Style Guide