skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And, for those of you who are conspiracy theorists, the link to the Wellcome Images site, item F0002901[1], is to:

"Sanskrit Beta 1469: this image is from a Sanskrit manuscript thought to be dated 1469. This manuscript is from the genre of karmavipaka, meaning “the ripening of karma”. It begins with a salutation to the sage Dhanvantari, the traditional author of the original works on Ayurveda, one of the world’s oldest medical systems. It explains the karmic relationship with a given disaster or disease; listing various sinful acts together with a brief statement of the alleged consequences that follow. For example; killing a cow will cause the killer to go to hell and having sex with a priest’s wife, the wife of another, a widow, or a prostitute, may lead to diseases such as ring-leprosy, bloody bile, or excessive urination. (?)"

which has nothing to do with Pseudo-Cyprianus.

(Just kidding. If you search for "Cyprianus", you'll find the illustrations from the article such as L0036628[2] as well as some text pages. Apparently the author just cut-n-pasted the link from the address bar after initially going to F0002901 and searching---the site doesn't update the address.)

[1] http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/image/F0002901.html

[2] http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/image/L0036628.html
Paeno axioms do not define multiplication. Multiplication is considered to be part of second-order arithmetic, which includes Paeno arithmetic (which is a first order system) and augments it to form a stronger set of axioms, of which multiplication is one of them.

The definition of multiplication is indeed in the Wikipedia article, but if you reread it then you'll see it doesn't claim to be a Paeno axiom. A better article to read (after reading about Paeno axioms!) is here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_arithmetic#Basi...
Even a truly visibly awful business has better odds than a lottery.
The tragedy of Rikers Island is that it's inhumane to everyone involved, guilty or not. I absolutely feel empathetic to all of them. It's disingenuous to suggest that it's a problem only because some of them might be innocent.

I'm not a hypocrite. I've had plenty of close calls, and some of them were my fault. I was lucky, but left the scene with full knowledge I was to blame. However, that's a personal acknowledgement; I would still do whatever it takes to stay out of jail, because the US prison system is broken and I don't want to get raped, beaten or forced to join a gang.
> Do we decrease spending from other areas, increase taxes, increase debt, increase GDP, or print money?

We are doing these already, and we are spending public money already.

The idea behind basic income is just adjusting where to input public money.
Instead of watering the flowers (trickle down economics) you water the roots.

If people have some way to survive then they won't turn to crime and they will be able to buy goods. So this expenditure goes right back into the economy.
I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price.

There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.
To be at least somewhat comparable let's assume it's not a suicide, but an accident, as with the motor cycle driver. These actually happen - people get killed at train crossings pretty regularly in some places.

It matters to what degree you're capable of preventing the accident. The whole point of my post was to emphasize that there are shades of gray, and that it's a mistake to harshly condemn those just over some artificial line while letting those nearly as responsible get off without any consequences.

Of course, as shades of gray go, it sounds like this one is about as guilt-free as one can get: there was almost nothing the driver could have done to prevent the accident; no amount of thinking ahead could have let him slow down enough because trains (unlike motorcycles) take forever to slow down. And you didn't specify the details, those matter - people walking out from behind a stopped bus is unfortunately rather common and predictable. But there are others that do bear some responsibility, for example those building level crossings that lack barriers.

Also note that the aim is explicitly not to be fair, it's to set incentives straight. If you're in a situation that forces you to pay for risks you yourself can't avoid, you're going to get annoyed, and try to fix that situation. For example, by getting barriers at train crossings installed, or by pushing for the city to design safer bus stops, or by discouraging mixing motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

If you just shrug your shoulders say "c'est la vie", improvement isn't likely. In unreasonable soundbite style: "you don't like risk taking - reduce the risks, don't whine about how life isn't fair".
Its not a fair comparison.

Businesses have a single, all important goal, to generate a profit so a top down plan can and does work.

People on the other hand have different and changing values. Money is a distributed consensus system to figure out how to satisfy them. Markets help to do this more efficiently.
'Home Alone' Is Just a Safe-For-Kids Slasher Movie
Many companies make opt out clauses - can we make an program that does automatically?
And now on to the topic!
Here’s Waldo: Computing the optimal search strategy for finding Waldo
Lots of vendors ship encrypted hard drives. Some of them are even almost secure.

Or are you asking can a vendor prevent a compromised user account from installing pgp and encrypting everything? Probably not very well.
It doesn't seem like a cardinal sin so much as a small quantitative note that the process was taught a different way that the teacher thinks is important.

Let's suppose one student can follow the procedure when asked but can't actually multiply in application, one student can't follow the procedure correctly but can multiply when needed, and a third can do both. Probably the first student will get questions on this quiz correct but will struggle on much of the rest of the unit, maybe get a low grade or hopefully get the help they need. The second (with the paper shown in the OP), will probably get an high grade because they got partial credit on a silly quiz. The third will get a higher high grade. What's so bad about that?

BTW, appealing to definitions won't work here, because the x does have a very well-defined mathematical meaning: a x b := b + ... + b.
You can register with your email.
Has anyone heard of the ransomware that encrypts your whole hard drive and makes you pay to unencrypt it? LOL.
While I'm sure this is true and some hackers behave based on this idea, there are two issues:

1. "Many of these outfits" is not all: we still need a way to determine whether we should pay a ransom.

2. I'm sure I could manufacture a support forum which shows me to be trustworthy in an afternoon.
Dead comet with skull face to hurtle by Earth on Halloween
And his investments in Letsbuyit.com …
Drone horror stories involve new pilots; how can the community fix that?
IANAL but I believe the state's prosecutors decide what to charge you with, and the difference between e.g. Murder and Manslaughter or different degrees of a given crime carry hugely different sentences.
The article states the % of people that support rent control, but what is the percentage of people that rent vs. own? Of those renters... what % are living in rent controlled apartments?
The vision of a web of triple-blind, peer reviewed scientific observations, published independently of the "story" behind the research is audacious. But it's not clear what incentive researchers would have to publish this way -- especially the tantalizing, breakthrough observations. And it's also not entirely clear that observations have an independent existence outside of the scientific stories that give them context.
The Band isn't "useless", but it's more of an activity/lifestyle level fitness tracker. I don't know why anything would have convinced you otherwise.

Of the continuous HR tracking general-purpose devices, Band v1 was better than the competition at the time [1], but things have progressed significantly in the past year (everyone's building their own PPG stacks w/ multi-wavelength LEDs now).

If you need ANT+ and more advanced tracking of course you'll need a more specialized device. You won't get powermeter support on a Garmin watch until you get into their triathalon range, like the $450 Forerunner 920XT. The tradeoff there is that there's no optical HR/continuous HR support. For Garmin, optical HR is only on the newest FR235, which doesn't have powermeter support either - that doesn't make it "a fun gadget for a teenager" - power meters are specialized, expensive (is there any <$800?) devices for a single activity. If you know that you need support for it, you should know what you need to look for, but don't expect the majority of people to care about it, especially since it's obviously not the Band's target market.

I will say the thing that's a real shame is that there's no of the "pro" fitness device manufacturers (Polar, Garmin, Suunto, TomTom) that has 1) built anywhere near a decent API/platform for consolidating fitness data (something that MS, Fitbit, Jawbone, etc have done a much better job at) or 2) at the very least, allow multiple of their own devices to work together - ie, Garmin now has a decent activity tracker w/ the Vivosmart HR (no GPS) coming out, and a whole range of more serious/specialized fitness trackers, but you can't seamlessly use and sync both into Garmin Connect. That's just embarassing (also, Garmin charges a $5K fee for API access. wut?)

BTW, for those seriously interested in their fitness gadgets, I recommend visiting, which has great reviews and an interested community, although sadly, not a forums: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/12/7193493/7-minutes-in-hell...
I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out:

1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts.

2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them.

3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one.

4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.)

Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.
Considering corporate influence on the government, I suspect fine print laws will be strengthened, not outlawed.
Let say that I sell a car with the fine print that said "To the extent permitted by applicable law, you may not drive it, move it or sell it".

Having the reading comprehension to read that is very different from the required legal comprehension to understand it. Customers who do read every contract they sign and see a clause about individual arbitration will have to parse it under the legal context in which the statement is put.
> But a commercially viable Li-air battery is still “at least a decade away."

Eh. Why even bother talking about it then? (especially in the context that we've seen tens of these announcements in the past decade).

What all of these "breakthroughs" talk about is that they managed to "double the density for the same cost" or whatever, for only a pin-size battery. Anything scaled beyond that and it starts losing its advantages. That's why we hear about so many battery breakthroughs only to never hear about most of them again. Because when they start getting close to actually making a battery product for the market, they realize it's actually not very competitive at all.

So wake me up when they can make at least a 2,000 mAh smartphone battery that's ready to be commercialized within a year (basically they'd just need to find a customer and start mass production).

Until then it's all fairy tales.
The "spiritual successor" is meant to refer to CS183 which Thiel taught in 2012 at Stanford, not an online course.
As a business owner, sometimes it can't be helped, and sometimes you have to think that way cause firing someone is never a pleasant task.

Sometimes you know it must be done but you know the person is nice enough but just not competent, or can't do the job, or the job has changed and they're getting fired for no fault of their own.

There are those times when you fire someone but you feel guilty that, as their manager, maybe you could have done better with them but you didn't have time, were too distracted, too tired.

In companies that get big enough, the percentage of people getting fired for cause gets higher. Then firing people becomes part of a routine. If you let your feelings get involved, it will drive you crazy, so you try not to let that happen.
Just alias it.
I only have a bachelors degree in math, focusing on theory, but I think we have a different understanding of what actual mathematics is. For example, in some "real math", definitions, properties, and axioms are well-distinguished and mixing them up can get you in trouble.

More importantly, are we even trying to teach "real" math to elementary kids (I wish we did, but I don't think we do) or "computation"? Both are useful and interesting.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2015/10/dotty-scala-bootstraps has some more details.
It's a symptom of collapsing faith in the American judiciary. Individuals can't trust that innocence and good faith will protect them, and corporations have the same problem. This is their solution.
Hi. 1. Only for windows (I have only linux here); 2. From a not well known website; 3. no source. How to know it is not a virus ? A formatter which will erase all my pc and all my family's.
Seriously, I will not download your game but I wish you lot of successes.
I came to the comments section to post something similar. This is probably the most humane, respectable, and generous firing I've ever read. It's left me with a much more favorable view of Google. I mean, he had the entire PIP period plus a month of salary to go find another job. Incredible! I've seen people find out they were fired when their badge stopped working.
I concur with the person you are replying to. People like you have made cycling miserable for everyone.

I used to 100% cycle as my form of transportation. 20 years ago. Doing 20+ miles a day, and didn't own a car. You know, before bike lanes generally existed and you had to use common sense.

The rise of the aggressive "hipster cyclists" like yourself turned the tables from biking being dangerous simply due to folks being unaware of you - to being actively dangerous akin to a warzone because drivers rightfully assume you are a a passive aggressive asshole who is likely attempting to inconvenience them on purpose.

I also have not seen nearly the number of "aggressive" drivers compared to aggressive asshole cyclists these days. Perhaps the problem is you if you continue to run across them.

I cannot tell you how much I despise what you, and people you identify with (critical mass types) have done to my chosen mode of transportation. You took it as a way to get from A to B and turned it into a divisive social cause. Because of this, I don't see bikes being considered on par with motorized transport in my lifetime. At least in the US. In my town, the political pushback on cyclists is only growing as this phenomenon increases.

Do yourself a favor and try seeing how the Netherlands/Belgium integrate road, rail, and bike traffic. You'll note the complete lack of people like you.
The JOBS Act _does_ cap the amount people can invest per year. It's 5% of your income or net worth across all platforms (whichever is greater). If you make more than $100k the limits are higher and more complex to compute.

Platforms are also required by law to have educational material. And, annoyingly, investors have to fill out a small questionnaire about the risks of investing every single time they invest. So if you invest $100 in 10 companies you'll have to fill out a thing saying you know you could lose all your money and you should be diversifying, 10 times.

Plus, it's in our own economic interest to make it clear how and why diversification is important and that investors make smart decisions. Our whole business model depends on investors making a return since we charge carried interest (i.e. a percent of profits that investors make). This is standard practice for accredited crowdfunding and I expect it to carry over to the unaccredited world.
What would it take to make the protections permanent instead of something that is renewed?
>I didn't want to make this code depend on stdint.h

Why?
Somehow I expected this to be a markup language for writing on screen ... and couldn't figure out why something like this exists.
Yes, those are some of the issues with 'Laissez Faire'. There are always winners and losers in any system and I feel that some redistribution to "take the edge of" is a good thing. (But perhaps not your specific policy suggestions).

Democracy isn't central planning. It has a similar basis to capitalism actually.

If you believe that morals are subjective then it makes sense to give everyone a say in what morals are codified as law. If on the other hand you believe in a single objective moral code, a dictator's for example' then you don't need to make any decisions.

Capitalism is the same but with morals switched with values/desires. It may not be the best "type 2" system, but in a subjective values universe any system that replaces it would need to be "type 2" as well.
Who then defines what is fraud? If I can't stop transaction of two other people based on what I think is fraud, who can ever? And if you are telling me that I can't ever stop any transaction of two people, that actually poses extra risk for me, from serial fraudsters gaining too much power.

Basically, you cannot model society as two-person interactions. That doesn't capture the power dynamic.
The way the child is being taught is because the teacher or course administrator has misunderstood the purpose of teaching arithmetic via repeated addition.

Repeated addition is relying on the fact that children see the world in a very concrete way and have not started to understand concepts in a more abstract fashion. Thus you use objects to explain concepts, like: every cat has one tail, I have 3 cats so how many tails are there in total?

You introduce notation in the class, but I can't see how it is valuable to use an abstract expression like 1x3 without a concrete description of the example of cats and tails. After all, you aren't really teaching repeated addition, you are just using it as scaffolding to provide an insight into multiplication!

The fact that the answer given can be shown as wrong has already demonstrated that the child (and parent!) was annoyed because it made little sense to mark it as wrong. It probably caused more harm than good, because now the child questions their understanding of the subject matter, yet ironically they do appear to have grasped the concept!

So at this point, the poor pedagogy of the teacher in misusing the counting technique means that the child starts to doubt themselves unnecessarily, they become locked in to a scaffolding technique that will later need to be discarded anyway. When they hit non-integer rational numbers - numbers with decimal points - they aren't going to be able to add these together, instead they will need to grasp that you can scale down numbers if you multiply any rational number between 0 and 1.
It's been practical enough for me for a repo of this size for several years:

$ darcs get http://arc.liv.ac.uk/repos/darcs/sge &>/dev/null
$ cd sge
$ darcs log --count
4851
$ darcs show files | wc -l
4715
$ darcs show files | tr '\n' '\0' | wc -l --files0-from=- |& tail -n1
1343975 total

Rather than speed, it may be more important that the darcs theory has needed patching up.
but it still can have the other meaning. one does not exclude the other
I've never heard of that. Can you provide one example of a company that allows you to opt out of binding arbitration?
Nope. Leaded gas caused increase in crime http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-ca...
Ironically, the person who posted the linked-to article has a another post called "Common Core is not the enemy" https://medium.com/i-math/common-core-math-is-not-the-enemy-...

Reading the BS rationalizations in the linked-to artcle and I'm beginning maybe the problem with math education is learn-by-rote teachers who won't think for themselves.
Most severance packages include this sort of non-disparagement clause. It's not a huge impediment to story telling.
I'm still a firm believer that when these companies can't rely on artificial limitations to service speed, their only choice is to improve their actual service compared to their (sorry for using this dirty word...) competitors.
darcs.reviewed$ darcs log --match 'author florent\.becker' --count
200

See also their FAQ.
This is what https://tosdr.org is trying to do
I don't understand... Snapchat's ToS has always said this. They have right to access and profit off any of your content, but it remains the case that they maintain the privacy level of that content. If you send a snap (non-story), Snapchat has the right to do anything with it, so long as they do not violate the privacy level (they can only show it to the people you sent it to).

And of course they have the right as employees, to look at any piece of content.
See also: https://github.com/mattdaly/Fountain.js
I am not expecting anyone to take my klout score seriously. There is more to the service than that. I am going to give it a whirl and see if there is any value in it for me.

Thanks!
The smart alek teacher then tells the child that they are using second order arithmetic :-)
This is correct. In ultra-liquid stocks, with a finer tick increment, natural buyers and sellers could undercut the market-makers' spreads since they aren't concerned about making short-term profits. Market-makers could also compete with more diverse pricing.

It is not necessarily a bad thing to have a price floor. Removing the floor is a good thing for the parties that meet at the tighter spread, but there is an externality where somebody who wants the shares nearly as much has their order go unexecuted despite providing price discovery to the market by showing their order. Look at GOOGL for example. It is $700 with a $0.01 price increment. Somebody can jump in front of your order by paying just 0.0014% more, there is little incentive to show limit orders on the market, which this makes the order book very thin. There is probably a better balance where the tick is large enough to avoid people jumping your order, but small enough that traders can compete: https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-657/4657-40.pdf has more comments on these effects.

You can trade in a single price auction in almost every market worldwide. A large amount of volume in US equities trades in this way, so people already have this option, but many choose not to use it.
I love org mode but due to the fact that emacs doesn't run on my phone and Evernote does, I take notes on Evernote when I'm not at my computer
The steps are either being taught incorrectly, or they are wrong. Very worrying!