skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Funny when I read the image I thought the student was optimizing to less work. His way was faster "I can use multiplication strategies to help me multiply." Seems the student's strategy was to do less work by adding 5+5+5.

When I took geometry I often was burned by my teacher when she'd ask me to come to the board and solve a problem. She'd say "You can't do that we haven't gotten to that part of the book yet, sit down already!" It all just seemed to logical to me. Maybe I didn't know what "it" was called but it was logical and easy to work out.

Most of my math teachers treated me this way, they'd be upset with me because I didn't write 100 copies of the problem on my homework but I'd pass all my tests. I was constantly in trouble with my teachers often being reported to the administration as a cheater. One teacher made me take my shirt off he was so convinced I must have written the answers on a sleeve or something. All because I didn't miss a single problem on his test but never turned in a single page of homework to his class.
The reason the price moved is because his trades were being front run. Otherwise the market had said there were 10k shares at X but when he tried to buy them he could not because an HFT bought those shares before he did.
This is like complaining with Gauss that he summed the first 100 numbers in the wrong way ;)

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57919.html
The sad part is that quite a few of the ransomware cases aren't actually recoverable, as the malware could be just dumb AES implementation which doesn't send the key to some C&C server some where, in some cases the key is hardcoded into the malware or is just generated at random so even if you pay the ransom you might not get your data back.

The other important thing to consider is that you data is already tainted so the cost of the ransom are meaningless compared to the cost of re-evaluating all the data once you manage to decrypt it, as well as the cost of the decryption it self it's not like you'll get an easy tool do it.

But considering that recovering data from backups also costs a small fortune it might be a reasonable gamble after all.
+1. In few years this kind of answers will be criminalized.
US Attorneys are certainly not the NSA's minions.

Except possibly when they are arguing that nothing the NSA does should ever be revealed, and that nobody has a right to sue the NSA.
It's incredibly presumptuous to assume that someone does not understand the protocol(s) of felony indictments because they object to government opacity, particularly in a case where the government is precisely impugning the value of privacy in a now-moot question with thuggish strong-arming.
When I learned English (second language) I remember thinking "wow, wonderful, the language of multiplication tells you exactly what to do!" which I read as, in this case 5 × 3 => "[five times] three" 3+3+3+3+3, as the teacher illustrated, but here the student apparently answered "five [three times]".

In my first language (Spanish) the multiplication is read as "five by three" which conjures up rectangles or lists, which can be vertical or horizontal oriented, and in either case, less clear and unambiguous than the English version.

Still I believe it's certainly teaching the wrong lesson to mark the answer as incorrect, especially when the red mark comes without explanation. Even if the problem states "Use the repeated addition strategy". The author mentions it's crucial to understand this but I don't believe important enough to discourage a young student this way. The explanation of what was requested and the method of arriving at it should be made explicit, and it may have happened in class, we just don't know.
Hard to automate if you have a lot of URLs to screenshot :-(

Developed this tool to easily screenshot large bulk of projects in a SPA to perform visual diffing after migrating to the new backend. It's nothing new or smart, just wanted to automate the process, and thought someone might find it useful :-)
You're joking, right?

GP read it as: "5 x3", like he would read "copy x3", or "copy, three times". It's a natural way of reading "5x3", though I personally read it as "5x 3".
Ancestor of All Apes Might Not Be What Scientists Expected, New Fossil Shows
This is how you ensure that somebody will never like math.
EM resident with an interest in EHR design and development here -- this is really cool, I didn't take a close enough look at this in Annals in August but I'm reading about the spec now. Looks promising.
Funnily enough, the traditional formal definition of product is due to Peano and it would say 5x3=5+5+5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms#Multiplication
"Use the repeated addition strategy..."

Critics of this are missing that the teacher is not asking the student to find the correct result. Instead, the teacher is asking the student to apply a specific algorithm.

If the teacher asks to apply Merge Sort to a list, but the student applies Insertion Sort, both strategies will result in the same sorted list.

But only one will demonstrate what the teacher asked the student to demonstrate.
> "you'll see in Question #2 that the child had a "different rectangle orientation" than the teacher"

Vectors can be considered identical for the same reason... [1, 0] and [9, 0] are the same arrow if you move your head in the latter case. Here, the teacher is assuming the kid's head is at [0,0], when rotation (or translation) doesn't change the arrow any more than the rectangle. Neither is wrong. The lesson: memorize the teacher's poor use of language; ignore objective reality.
I may have bought the explanation if the answer below hadn't been marked incorrect as well, because the axis on an imaginary array are arbitrary.
A lot of the "Malthus was wrong" people claim that we can continue a modest exponential rate for essentially indefinitely, as technology will continue to wring more efficient use of land.

To me this is obviously false, so we will need to grow sub-exponentially (i.e. per-capita growth rate must go down) at some point. In the context of the article we are discussing, arresting growth rate is part of preventing the Malthusian apocalypse.

Obviously besides the green revolution, the other big change since Malthus has been safe reliable contraceptives, so the tools are there to arrest population growth, but most people are uncomfortable with any coercive use of these, so if the U curve of population growth (that TFA discusses) ends up being real (a lot of countries on the right side of the curve are culturally very different from countries in the middle of the curve, so it could be coincidental), cheaper energy could accelerate us towards a situation where we need to consider coercive means of reducing growth rate.
Fascinating. I have had a number of urban close encounters with coyotes in the west US, and the prospect of a similar animal but with less fear of human is certainly concerning.
Looks interesting. For any kind of script writing I find it hard to move away from Scrivener though. It is just fantastic.
I thought I was the only coder doing screenwriting as a hobby... :-) Which genres are you guys writing in?
Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow.

(This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise reckless.)

Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of being charged by using it.

(Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the excess risk you have brought into the equation.)
A lot of work in 2.11 has gone in stabilizing the compiler (aka bug fixing) and the backend (the JVM bytecode generator). Unfortunately this is not very visible work, but it had to be done to maintain compatibility with Java 8 lambdas.

As for the new things, they are mainly library-based and compiler plugins, so the scalac compiler remains stable, and new features are self-supporting. Some examples:

* Scala.js (http://www.scala-js.org/)

* Scala.meta (https://github.com/scalameta/scalameta)

* Pickers and spores (https://speakerdeck.com/heathermiller/on-pickles-and-spores-...)

* Scala offheap (https://github.com/densh/scala-offheap)

* RRBVector (https://github.com/nicolasstucki/scala-rrb-vector)

* ScalaBlitz (https://scala-blitz.github.io/)

* Miniboxing (http://scala-miniboxing.org)

Also, I should mention the theoretical work on the DOT type system, which is a sound and more expressive type system to be used for the Scala programming language (compatible with the old type system, as it's more expressive, but also sound -- disallowing any incorrect code).

Regarding Typesafe, they took over releases and maintenance, and did a good job at that. Yet Martin Odersky himself and his team at EPFL are the main drivers for innovation, including dotty and all the projects listed above (which were all developed at EPFL, see http://lamp.epfl.ch).
It's relevant because everything he's done up till now isn't anything technically innovative, just mainly ways for him to make money and promote himself as some kind of Internet hero, which is is not. This project will be more of the same nonsense.
If you look at the next question, they go over the five by three in a rectangle approach.

Maybe we should do away with grading students based on exam performance altogether.
Green Solution for Wastewater Treatment: Ecotru – Infossible
53 is pronounced "5 times 3", synonymous with "3, 5 times in sequence". So if the problem given had been presented as "5 times 3" I would agree that that means "3+3+3+3+3".

However, just becuase 53 is pronounced "5 times 3" doesn't mean that it's exactly the same thing. We pronounce it that way because it's convenient, "times" is a one syllable word that we can inject right where the multiplication sign goes, and have it be a meaningful, representative sentence. But that doesn't mean that "53" derives its semantics from "5 times 3". "53" is an abstract mathematical expression that has no concept of "grouping". It can't have a concept of grouping --- how would you extend grouping to something like matricies.
(5, times 3) or (5 times, 3) both work.
Ah yes, "Stop the Clipper chip!"[0]
The NSA has been looking to get backdoors into telecommunications for a long time. See their tapping of all international underwater cables (and back in the 80's I heard a second-hand report that they had commissioned some high-powered scanners that could read the contents of most mail envelopes, which were positioned to read most international mail).

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
Snapchat hasn't promised privacy since the FTC told them to stop last year.
> I did something today I’ve never done before,
I looked up the definition of multiplication.

> And as I suspected in the definition of multiplication, the first factor is is the number of copies and the second is the number being repeated.

Yeah, something seems off if an educated adult has to look up something (on the site that's always harped on for being untrustworthy in school) in order to convince us that it's basic knowledge a grade-schooler should know. It implies there's not an actual consensus (as indicated by my parent comment), and/or that the fact in question does not really matter at all. I have no memory of whether I was originally taught an order that's "right." It's possible the student already learned it the opposite/"wrong" way -- what purpose is served by forcing them to change? As illustrated by the more complete photo here (https://imgur.com/gallery/KtKNmXG), the student seems to understand the geometric difference between 7x4 and 4x7, when it's more explicitly stated and the two are non-equivalent in the context.
I think that your comments are mean and inconsiderate.

I agree that appealing to the authority of Webster on the question, "what is love?" is capricious and demeaning.

To reconstruct my point, I meant that, for example, when you say, "I love you," make 'love' a verb in the present tense in your mind. Love willingness and with abandon.

Notice, by the by, that the way that we use the word "love" in casual conversation is often as a verb, not a noun. You never say, "I happiness you" <=- that syntax doesn't make sense for a feeling. And love isn't one.

I submit that the impetus to misconstrue a beautiful act as an emotion is mostly a commercial one.
Snapchat already turned down two offers from Facebook. Maybe a third will be the charm.
The student wrote 5+5+5, isn't that a repeated addition strategy?
Yeah, how...what is that?
PNG has been the subject of a rather horrific ongoing civil war over the past some 45 years, but scarcely documented and seldom known in the West: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_conflict

It's rather surreal.
Please see the comment above: even though the main compiler is in maintenance and stabilization mode, innovation has happened in Scala in the form of independent projects, driven by people in Martin Odersky's lab.
Cynicism aside, I wouldn't bet against lithium-air. It will be a game-changer.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the first applications of VR will be porn and cat videos, in that order.
1) When I was learning what "5 times 3" was I don't think I could even pronounce "commutative," let alone understand what it meant. I did know that 3 x 5 was the same as 5 x 3, but 5 / 3 was not 3 / 5 though!

2) Javascript's equality operators can confuse even longtime practitioners and bringing them up muddles the point.

I think the author is trying to say that 5 x 3, 3 x 5, and 30 / 2 are equivalent but not equal because they represent different operations, which he is somehow equating to types in computer science? This is nonsense, all three expressions are obviously the same type, and they are referentially transparent mathematical expressions, so they would be equal not just equivalent.

3) Setting students up for matrix multiplication? Really?
Which Droplet should you get at DigitalOcean?
Odds Are, It's Wrong
"Am really curious: what's the plan to foist this onto the Hollywood screenwriters?"

Final Draft is the industry standard at the moment, and it has been for 20-odd years. To disrupt it, you could explore certain channels: dedicated websites and communities for writers; USC, NYU, and other film schools; or get studios and and agencies to accept it, which is ultimately where you need to win approval to get adopted as a standard. In any of these scenarios you'd probably need Final Draft import/export compatibility to get started and minimize switching costs.
Its a trivial mistake; we don't know the context; the kid could (and maybe was) tutored on the difference. All about nothing.
>In fact, we don't even know if "socially optimal" solution exists

Actually we know it doesn't, by way of Arrow's impossibility theorem.
It certainly is a repeated addition strategy, but is it the repeated addition strategy given to the students?

The definition of the algorithm given to the student may involve language like "take the first number and..."

The steps are the steps.
I'm not sure why this argument tries to use programming as a justification but then uses a different example from programming as the evidence. Yes, in JS, 4 === "4" is false. But 3+3+3+3+3 === 5+5+5 is true. Because they are mathematically identical. It's a universal truth that 3+3+3+3+3 will always be equal to 5+5+5. If the idea is that the kid needs to understand the difference between equality and identity then actually it seems important that the kid does understand that 3+3+3+3+3 is identical to 5+5+5.
On that point, matrix multiplication is not commutative (and oh that it were!).
It's pretty obvious the kid is incorrect because 5*3 is using the sum monoid and overloading notation.

Or at least that would make more sense than arguing the kid is wrong via Javascript and matrices.
I almost stop reading at the first paragraph: He makes a difference between "Equals" and "Equivalency" and then he gives overlapping definitions:

Equal is defined as, “being the same in ...value.” Whereas equivalent is defined as, “equal in value...”

If you can't be precise in what you write yourself...
It's not that uncommon: http://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/
Scientists May Have Just Discovered a Parallel Universe Leaking into Ours
3 bundle x 5 banana/bundle =
5x3 bundlexbanana/bundle =
5 bundle x 3 banana/bundle =
15 banana
> These new terms are no different than any other terms of service I have read for a social network.

Snapchat's selling point is that the messages/images are deleted after the recipients have seen them - this isn't the case for other social networks.
The current doctrine of "minimal contacts" had already been around for 45 years in 1990.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Wa...

Yes, I think Comgress should be presumed to have known about it.
Why would online cloud backup providers suffer because of a drop in SSD prices?
Eligibility traces? Had those in Reinforcement Learning for at least 20 years...

See chapter 7 of The Book:

https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/the-book.html
Six of one, half a dozen of the other is also widely used in the US, to mean it doesn't really matter which one you pick because they're pretty much the same.
They are being multiplied, as in drawing a rectangle with one side equal to each number. There's no 'first' and 'second'; the idea that one is a count and the other being copied shows a fundamental misconstruction.
Nokia did this, they would snatch an opportunity to give out free phones when someone with enough followers complained on twitter about their existing phone. It worked very well indeed and were on the news pretty often.
However, I wouldn't consider it with HN, as HN is never a realistic representation of the market. A lot are brand loyal and a lot just shit on M$ for the sake of it, it would be the Microsoft Ipad and NFL all over again.

On a side note, despite being a loyal windows phone user for years, I might jump ship this time. Microsoft seems to be turning itself into a service oriented company. They treat their own mobile market as third. Wait for years for a quality phone to be release, and when it does it is exclusive to some carrier (950 and att). All of their apps now first come exclusive to iOS and Android and much later to Windows phone (new Office, Skype etc). Everything that made Windows Phone cool (Cortana, Offline Here maps, Offline Mix Radio etc) is now cross platform. Good for consumers in general but then it also cannibalized the reason to be with Windows Phone.
Do not know if anyone have Brand 1.0.

It very bad (painful, the sensor will create a dent in your skin) if you wear it for a long time. I bought it, wear it for 2 weeks and do not want to wear it anymore.

So, The user experience is very bad.

when I say the 'sensor' I mean the one in the back of the watch. (sorry for my wording. hard for me to express no technical things in English). Brand 2 still have it. So be cautious when you buy it.

However good it is, if it does not feel comfortable. It is not good. I wonder if anyone wear brand 1 for more than one month. I did not.
I feel the opposite way about the English reading "5 times 3". In English, the subject comes first, so I would expect the sentence to mean take 5, use "times" as a verb, and 3 as the adverb. Likewise, if you read it as "5 multiplied by 3", you would expect to take five, three times.
Sounds like one of those tech articles that pop every year about that "new" discovery that will be usable in a "decade" for ever and ever.
I'm out of my depth in discussions about art history, but comparing the 18th century illustrations to the 15th century painting in the same article, I find it hard to infer a notion of progress as you do. Having said that, one could well imagine that the 18th century illustrator was deliberately attempting to evoke a medieval style.

Here are some links picked up from quick Google searches that might provide stylistic comparisons:

18th century - http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/06/09/charlie-charli...
14th century - http://io9.com/bizarre-and-vulgar-illustrations-from-illumin...
The entirety of your argument is that it's a good idea to use code or protocol secrecy as a type of secret password. All the rest is a list of non-sequiturs; you can use port knocking or Ada and still publish the code -- the SILENTKNOCK code is public and port knocking is just a mechanism for password authentication. But this kind of security is already provided by shared secret authentication methods that are stronger and better designed than ad hoc protocol secrecy.

The most common (and quite valid) critique of secret custom protocols is that each change you've made from the well-tested common version is an opportunity for you to have made an exploitable mistake. In the event the attacker does learn the custom protocol that is clearly a liability. But claiming the protocol itself as a secret is worse than that. If one client using a secret password is compromised then you have to change the password, but if one client using a secret protocol is compromised then you have to change the protocol.

Even if no client is ever compromised, the general form of your argument is X + Y > X. So TLS + secret alterations is more secure than TLS. But it's a false dichotomy. A secret protocol is an unnecessary liability over other, better security mechanisms. TLS + independent Secure Remote Password is more secure than TLS + secret alterations. And the list of sensible things you can layer together is long: If you're sufficiently paranoid you can use TLS over ssh over IPSec etc. etc. The point at which you run out of good published security layers is so far past the point or practicality that there is no reason to ever suffer the liabilities of protocol secrecy.
Very wrong. We in the U.S. remember the 50's and 60's as the heyday of the country. Not confidentially, that's when public faith in U.S. institutions was at the highest.
Personally the way I learned to think of it was to read it in the order that organizes it into the fewest number of "groups". Afterall it is easier (and faster) to visualize three groups of five items, than it is to visualize five groups of three items.

For example what if it was 11 x 3. It would make no sense to try to think of it as eleven groups of three, when you can easily derive the answer far quicker as 11 + 11 = 22 + 11 = 33.
> I bet that if it were illegal to detain people for more than some limited amount of time before a hearing, and a few nice and gruesome murderers walked voters would get their priorities straight.

They would, but it would be less of a "we need to get these murderers to trial faster" and more of a "we need to relax the rules requiring a speedy trial but only for murderers."
Aren't you using the CTFs you run as a way of filtering out the best talent?

We intend to get in touch with very talented players. We’ll be interested in talking about the game, about what you’ve built, and about what you want to do in the future. If your future goals include “Get a better job!”, we can help make that happen. If not, no worries.

We have agreements with a small number of companies to find qualified engineers and introduce them to the companies. These clients pay us for introductions which result in placements.
The first comment (from Grigory Yakushev) makes the process seem really humane.
But the students aren't supposed to know that yet. That's literally two topics later in the Common Core Standard, so they won't learn that for another day or two. Smh.

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/OA/
Check out NextDoor. It's a nice place to work or meet someone for coffee.

https://www.nextdoorchicago.com/