skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's a pretty interesting solution to a pretty interesting problem. This happens all the time in the physical commodities markets - you insert or remove a document required to make payment on a letter of credit, shorten the time windows for payment, try to get the counterparty to pay for external costs (insurance, port agents, bunkers, fines, and an entire department just for this type of thing as it concerns demurrage), and so on.

So the problem is obviously there, and believe it or not, even among the least tech-savvy everybody is aware of this problem, how it's done, and current methods to minimize it. It's very important. For example, look at Vitol, the biggest energy trading house in the world (followed by Glencore and Trafigura, both split from the same company). This doesn't include metals or ags. Vitol has $300 billion or so in revenue per year. Strictly looking at their trading business, and considering minimum wholesale volumes around 25,000 barrel lots (barge sizes in the Gulf Coast), so wholesale crude and products trades in blocks worth between $1.5 and $2 million at today's prices. While this is an extremely simplified, ballpark analysis, assuming their trading business has a 2% net margin, they're selling $300 billion that they bought for $294 billion. Roughly, that's about 300,000 transactions for separate, physical movements of petroleum and products. Saving even a few days on payment terms across the board would mean they have to borrow money for a few less days, which would add up to millions of dollars in cash savings that begin to accrue immediately and continue to daily over time.

So, again, the problem is there, and various groups have attempted to build software (which actually did work, technically). The big problem is that implementation of these tools has been tried in areas such as Letters of Credit (negotiation between counterparties and banks for each one if doing transactional trade finance) and the rest of trade finance. The problem isn't the tools, it's that the companies kind of like to play this game, because if you see yourself as on the more sophisticated end of the market then this benefits you, and this system is tried and true, whereas the new system could be prone to errors or other unknown unknowns, where they don't know how to protect themselves.

edit: By the way, much of the above (especially as it concerns the individual specifications of each order, either physical variables in the commodities markets or financial variables in the bond and derivatives markets) is exactly the reason implementation of more streamlined alternatives for clearing and settlement have been so slow. It's not that the technology for actually doing it isn't there, it's that the bottlenecks leading up to that are still there. So if you have a good way for traders to automatically decide which fees and costs apply when and to who, please do tell, but then you've effectively automated the traders, as much of what they do is negotiating those terms.
The article didn't answered the how part. All but last two paragraphs are the things every programmer takes for granted, second last sounds like an ad and last stats.

But these sites do know how to get people to click their sites.
So you said this:

> Duckduckgo makes a good case for non-targeted ads while still being profitable.

For what reason exactly? So they debunked a myth that is moot anyway because the very premise of the myth is unwelcome.
That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect. I could argue that 1+1=2 because when I looked directly into the sun today both my eyes closed. The reasoning is wrong, but the conclusion is true.

Similarly here, you could argue that the popularity argument is stronger because the tools are relatively easy to switch between and people are constantly re-evaluating this choice as new projects are created. Lock in and other switching costs bolster the concern of relying on popularity, but those don't come into play very strongly here.
> requires users to have a different tab open for each project they want to be involved in

This isn't true, down the left side bar you can select other teams if you've signed into more than one.

I'm not suggesting we should only use slack, but at least they do make it fairly easy to navigate.
English Wikipedia surpasses five million articles
Indeed, a user could likewise load only the HTML and ignore all images, scripts, CSS and suchlike. The user is in control, and that's how it should be. I am not obligated to view ads any more than I'm obligated to view any other part of a website.
As far as the sexuality bit, it's basic professionalism. The entire Code of Conduct would be much better if it was just "Be professional". Yes, there'd be many more judgement calls involved, but that's a much better plan than foisting responsibility for making judgement calls onto these kinds of rules.

>As soon as anybody talks to you, just tell them you "take issue with it" and they have to shut up or be shunned.

The rules lawyer in me wants to prove a point by harassing people through deliberately taking issue with what a particular person says. It'd be coordinated, and best if it was ironically directed at the people who wanted to bring in the CoC.
More Apple Car Thoughts: Software Culture
> The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion.

Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.
A contract is not enforceable if it was not read by both parties accepting it. If banks don't read what they sign...fuck'em.
I wouldn't say that I ignored the benefit or a more accurate price, since I explicitly mentioned this benefit twice. But I wasn't clear enough of the implications. To clarify: insider trading has both benefits and costs, and there is no simple argument that shows which is greater. I was primarily addressing people (like in the article I referenced) who say that insider trading is clearly and unambiguously good.
We received the following email from someone at Slack:

"I’m writing to inform you that we've disabled the ability to add more users to the Reactiflux Slack team. We're happy that you've found Slack to be a great platform for your community but from both an administrative and performance perspective this is proving to be unsustainable.

Although we do simple chat and file-sharing very well, Slack simply isn’t designed for communities of thousands of users to chat. Slack's ideally designed for teams of coworkers who collaborate closely and frequently to get work done. That said, looking into ways to better support communities like yours in the future is something that has been suggested many times! The idea is under consideration, and if changes are implemented to make this easier in the future, we'll be sure to get the word out.

I’m not sure how you’re sending out your invites, because if you’re using the web interface it should tell you that your maximum user limit was reached. If you’re using the undocumented API, we’re returning a user_limit_reached error that you'll run into soon.

If you do want to continue to use Slack to manage this community, I'd recommend you spin up multiple smaller teams and cap each one around no more than 1,000 users. Once one team fills up, stop inviting people to that team and start a new one for the next group of people who want to join your community. That's the best way to ensure that your teams remain manageable and that the service stays nice and snappy for you.

Thanks so much for your understanding. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop us a line!"
An addition to that is that getting things right sometimes takes multiple attempts, at least for me.

I've seen that in that work I attempted to do for the Linux Kernel TCP stack and also in prior and later work related projects. Large sweeping changes may require familiarization with a large body of code and the impacts of any single change to the overall system behavior. This may be well intentioned and a good direction but the details may prove a pitfall if a slightly bad turn is taken. At that point you need to backtrack and that backtracking takes a while to conclude it is needed and to find a different approach that will work.

Sometimes it takes time to realize that a direction is incorrect and a backtrack is needed and then some more time to clear your head off and find the right approach.
..especially for open source. Increasing the time barrier/complexity just to chat is a big turn off. I already use Slack for work, so adding FOSS projects would be easy. But if I have to fiddle with chat, that's time I could be coding or doing something more productive.

This whole discussion is similar to that Ogg vs MP3 file nonsense on Wikipedia; the victory of philosophical purity over practicality and usability. I still can't just click a Wikipedia sound file on my iPhone and have it just work. Victory for ideological purity big fail for the 98% of the world that doesn't give a s--t about file formats or Jimmy Wales's religion.
So what magical system did you have in mind that would suffer none of your potential problems? Even a publicly funded service is still as vulnerable. Services you run yourself still cost money and have their unique set of problems. The cost benefit to using APIs is that you're outsourcing that complexity to someone else in exchange for money so you can concentrate on your core business. It's why AWS is so popular. Yes, they could shut down, but the risk is worth it. Doing it all in house is the other risk... maybe your programmers can't develop the solution needed and your company tanks because you wasted a bunch of time and money building your own address verification service for fear the external API might shut down.

The USPS (which is quasi-private, I'll admit) offers address verification, but their service hasn't been reliable, which is why we have competitors now. Your fallacy is that because something isn't flawless that the whole system is a failure. And throwing around the word 'profit' as some pejorative, dirty word is an emotional manipulation. How else would people hire or expand if not for profit? The service I'm using (Smartystreets) now offers international address verification; I'm not sure how they would have paid for that if it weren't for profit. That extra money you bring home from your job after taxes and other expenses... that's profit. Your employer is living on borrowed time from the services you provide. What happens when you quit, change your rate, or become bored with your job? I guess it's worth the risk to them.
Have been running a behemoth of a web application on AWS for 3 years on multiple regions, using ec2, s3, elastic beanstalk, elastic transcoder, sqs, dynamodb, cloudfront and rds. Have been pretty happy with both performance and cost effectiveness.

That said. I have deployed some newer / smaller stuff on Google Container Engine. Used Cloud SQL and Storage services along with it. I think Google has a solid offering right now. Performance is great and tooling / management interfaces are, IMHO, better than AWS's. I think it has a bright future as well.
For everyone who's sympatetic to Agarkov, imagine someone doing this to you. Agarkov wanted to deceive the bank and took advantage of some bank's clerk not validating the user input.

So imagine someone doing this to you. Smuggling some really mean clause into the fine print which you probably won't read. How that would sound?

Oh, you read all the fine print? Really? I don't. Last time I've bought a travel insurance for around 10 Euro a year, it came with a 65-page PDF in language which you need to be a specialist to understand. It would have been incredibly easy for them to write in there that I have to sacrifice my first-born to them, or whatever.

According to Russian media, Agarkov scanned and altered the original document with an intention to deceive. There's a Russian word "подлог", roughly translated as "forgery", "alteration", "fabrication" into English. So what Agarkov did is exactly "подлог", this is an absolute match if you read the definition in Wikipedia.

There is a number of articles in Russian criminal codex concerning this action. The closes to this case is probably nr. 187 about falsification of credit cards or payment documents. Not an exact fit, but close.
> I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads.

Sure, but the adblocking was pretty specific. Popup blockers followed popup ads and they were far more popular than any software that blocked ads outright. Adblocking isn't new, it's that it's iron-fisted and gaining in popularity that's the problem.
just to name few things - ability to create custom forms or templates, different note lookup mechanics via tags and tag tree traversal, ability to assign "logic" to tags and forms. Ide is to be more data centric than keep is!
"Please do not publicly discuss this" is very worrying from a process standpoint. There's a very important thing that directly messaging the authors doesn't do - it makes people aware that other people find it unreasonable.

For instance, it'd be somewhat straightforward to imply that there aren't many people with issues with the CoC.
Please see the FAQ. It doesn't count as a duplicate until the story has had significant attention on HN. If we didn't have this rule, many good stories would go unnoticed because there's so much randomness in what gets liftoff from /newest.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Edit: One side-effect of our recent experiments in resuscitating solid articles is that it increases the number of reposts in the story stream. Given the number of comments we've seen about that, it seems users don't like this, so we've begun working on an alternative approach.
The tricky challenge of making machines that see
You're right. And addressing issues like poverty is one of the many better things we could be doing than trying to figure out how Buzzfeed can get paid to tell us about 35 Things Only Parapalegic Law School Students from Cincinatti Will Understand.
After several years of wanting to play an instrument, and wanting to draw, I'm sitting down and actually doing both of those. It's been a bit liberating, doing something so different from my day job, yet it's helping me look at programming in a new light.
Panzer is just the German generic term for tank (or more literally, "armor".) Everything from the tiny, machine-gun armed Panzer I, to the Panzer VI Tiger.

The standard, 75mm Sherman was roughly equal to the long-barreled Panzer IV (~6000 built).
Indeed, in the same time period I think Freenode actually grew.
I am surprised nobody mentions Jabber, it is better alternative to Slack than IRC
Data sharing agreements would make self-hosting ads irrelevant. You would have to either not support organizations that would share your data with (or without) your consent, or better/stronger laws would have to be enacted to make it a regulatory issue.
What test? We're talking about computing the minimum of what before-the-fact EV should be (based on what set of information?) here, not computing what the mean EV should be (for which you can add up the outcomes and divide by N).
>That the reasoning is fallacious doesn't make the conclusion incorrect.

This is trivially true by the [material implication, modus ponens, modus tollens, other name, etc] truth table. However, if you study the truth table a bit longer, you will realize that you should stop reading any text which contains fallacious or self-contradictory logic. While the conclusion may be "correct", it is correct despite all of the other text you read (so, go find a logical argument [instead of relying on known bad information]). The text you read can tell you nothing about whether the conclusion is true.

Fallacious reasoning needs to be identified, targeted, and destroyed.

Edit: I've been rate-limited, so any fallacious (or non) arguments posted in response will need to wait a while for a proper response (some have already been typed up).
Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks, and Deep Learning
Should judges be able to trade on the information about companies be is about to deliver judgements for? Should city planners be allowed to trade on the information on approvals / denials before they're announced?
converting political order into set theory http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html
They might but how would they correlate me on abc.com and me on xyz.com if they don't have some form of cookie?

Browser fingerprinting is the only way I can think of, and between the phasing out of flash, java and silverlight, and having javascript disabled by default, browser fingerprinting is pretty much toothless.
When avoiding US Services it's not about the whole company. At least 4 DAX companies research departments I know about enforce GPG Crypted mail transport since Snowden. Everything else bounces. The same companies asked us to exclude the US and the UK out of sensible data routes. I know that's not gonna do it, and there's a lot more to do but... I know that you know why I can't go into further details.
Learning to solve more twisty puzzles. I recently learnt the Megaminx, and it was awesome.
With all due respect, advertising networks have been tracking people for far longer than there have been ad blockers and privacy guards. This category of programs was literally created in response to the existence of such networks. Tracking companies will do as they please, regardless of any steps I take to defend my data and my privacy.

The burden is on the shoulders of website operators to present meaningful alternatives to intrusive tracking as their core monetization strategy. It is obvious that those who do not will wither and die. Such is the way of capitalism.

The onus is not mine to explain myself for using privacy protection programs. It is theirs to recognize this reality and to pivot, or die.
Thanks a bunch for this. I'm surprised the person helping me didn't know about this (unless it's fairly new) but I should have put more effort into researching it myself.
Like I replied to another comment, should judges be allowed to trade on information about judgements he has yet to deliver?
You completely ignore the benefit of the more accurate price

The gp does a good job of describing how insider trading actually takes money from particular people. Are you saying that a certain number of people should have their money taken in order that prices are closer to predicting otherwise unknown results? Something like "by eminent domain, we are taking your investment profits for the great good of accuracy in stock prices".

Moreover, the other people who benefit from price jumps from invisible sources are those who don't know anything but who are willing to gamble that these price jumps represent a real increase in value. The existence of such gambling would seem like it increases the overall volatility of the market and given that such gamblers would tend to magnify random jumps in the market as well, it seems like society broadly would not experience any benefit.
An effective strategy for generating a minimal amount of musical surprise.
You are right that "harming" someone is not a sufficient reason to ban an action. And as others have pointed out, researching a company carefully causes the same kind of "harm", and certainly shouldn't be banned. My intention was to refute people (like in the article I linked) who argue that all market participants benefit from and insider trader's transaction.

Once we see that this isn't the case, it becomes necessary to do a cost benefit analysis to determine the true effect of allowing insider trading. But as you say, this should be done on a utilitarian basis, not on some imagined "rights" of the counterparty to insider trading. (EDIT: I don't mean to imply that economic analysis from a utilitarian POV can't clarify what we should think of as people's rights, but rather that as you said, causing someone else to have a negative outcome does not prove that someone's rights are being violated)
Your comment gets it mostly right, except:

> Not only did Debian make the decision to support systemd, it voted to NOT support other init systems.

This is incorrect: systemd was merely voted as the default init system, other init systems are explicitly supported, here's the TC decision:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg00...
> "You are scheduled to be deleted on our next cron job. Nothing complex."

Is this serious? What's a cron job have to do with knocking out information from a rdbms?

I imagine a cron job could be useful if there was a script to clear out any static files - but you can also invoke the script manually. "Nothing complex" :)
"Panzer" just means "armor", and was the label used for all German tanks. Everything from the tiny Panzer I to the Panzer VI Tiger. Presumably you're thinking of the Panzer IV? But only about 8000 were built, of which only about 6000 were the long-barreled version which could match the Sherman.
I turned off AdBlock on their site. A clean, attractive site immediately transformed into a supermarket sales flyer, except with animated ads. No thanks.

I don't know what the answer is. Display ads are dead or dying, though. I get a lot more revenue on my websites from Amazon affiliate links than I do from AdSense. Probably it's going to look more like paid reviews and advertising masquerading as content.
I didn't mean to imply it was causal. I implied that the industry is full of people who know about the product comparison and make exactly the opposite value judgement.

Whatever gave you the impression I think this is causal?
Interacting with a home-made hologram
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want it to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com. We're happy to unban people if (but only if) they give us reason to believe they'll follow the rules in the future.
That's awesome. I hope I'm still learning new things when I'm 63 or 77!
There have been changes to be sure. As also happened/is happening in Eastern Europe. But of course these countries have a name, no matter how new, and journalists have no problem using them in those other cases.
Indeed. So if someone doesn't actually make a claim, but then another party begins to rebut said claim as if it were part of a formal argument, that's called a Straw Man Argument or "Burning a straw man" colloquially.

That's what you're doing. We should identify it, target it, and destroy it.

Actually I don't really think that it should be destroyed. It's human nature. We find any post-facto justifications for our gut reactions all the time. If we can't find one, we tend to distort what we saw to create one. It's part of human cognition.
Yeah, the basic block arguments are nice. The one thing that would complicate their use in a low-level IR is that they are awkward in cases where you want to pass different arguments to different successors. If you don't want every control-flow transfer instruction to pass additional per-target args then you have to split edges, but you may have edges that you can't or don't want to split.
reviewing japanese (after living there for 2 years, don't wanna forget it :) )

looking up bitcoin and finding it hard to see what I can do as a developer, it just seems like there's a lot to learn before I can even get through the basics. Reading a cryptography book though, pretty interesting.
It's pedantic, and teaches process instead of outcome. Reality is outcome based. Your nod to the communal nature of multiplication was in the correct vein, the qualifier of , "if the teacher had taught it" goes astray. IMO.