skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's only "simpler" if you approach programming from a low-level, non-functional perspective, which seems to be where you come from. The parent is talking about complexity in terms of solution complexity (avoiding undesireable states and writing fail-proof software), not in number of machine-code instructions generated, or not having to learn a new abstraction.

The people interested in functional programming and compile-time guarantees want to work at higher-levels of abstraction,
where Exceptions are just hard to typecheck crutches that effectively implement the Option/Either types but outside of control of you compiler (at the call stack level).
Is a .NET SDK available?
You should be careful to say Type II diabetes.

Technology is a pretty huge win against Type I.

It's also unlikely that technology has directly increased mortality from cancer (it's almost certainly indirectly increased it by enabling more people to live and to live longer).
Really?

Yes, I definitely mentioned mathematicians, because they were the ones who showed us the problem solving methods, the modeling/design method.

I'm definitely agreeing that one uses practically none of the category theory in programming. But let's say that we can be influenced by the design of category theory, and get some theorems for free because of it.
I don't have any links. The method I was taught is pretty well outlined in my comment above. Instead of yogurt being mixed in, skyr (Siggi's is what I use since it's what I can get a hold of) is mixed in. Additionally when the skyr is added to the milk, 1/2 of a rennet tablet is added.

I believe that traditional skyr is made from bacteria in baby goat stomachs; the rennet is substituting this. Additionally, skyr is usually pretty thick, so I strain the curds until I get softened cream cheese consistency.
I'm pretty sure most of the following would say they don't know much (or any) category theory:

Simon PJ, Simon Marlow, BoS, Lennart Augustsson, Don Stewart, Duncan Coutts, Neil Mitchell, Roman Leshchinsky

That hasn't stopped them producing masses of great Haskell.

I would welcome correction or clarification by any of the above luminaries!
Haskell doesn't have a reputation of bad pedagogy per se. My only point was what anyone's reaction should be when their personal impression is "bad pedagogy", in any area of software. It means that something is missing.

The idea that I'm "obviously referring to Haskell" and attacking me for it is beneath a response.

By the way this thread is an excellent example of why if I did have clear arguments for limitations baked into technology xyz, I certainly wouldn't share them: leaving learners in the difficult position of being presented difficul material/approaches, without a context, by those who understand it but keep mum about any limitations or difficulties.

(An example would be the syntax for standard library container operations in C++ (stl things), like with vectors. Nobody is going to explain that this syntax is so much uglier than higher-level vector/array syntax due to history, because the minute they did it would become obvious that there should be a CoffeeScript-like intermediate syntax parser that turns easy syntax into C++. Instead, it's presented without any such context, and nobody fixed the fact that this is harder to learn, harder to parse or debug, and more error-prone, than higher-level interpreted languages. It's just silently accepted without reference to this being a historical design trade-off.

I'm not objecting to it, but if something seems to be described circuitously or not being taught very well, then you're probably not being told the whole story.

There is a good and specific rason why.)
> I've been told, but not verified, that if you count dual-citizens, that number gets closer to 65%.

Why on earth would you group dual citizens in the same category as foreigners?

Even if 100% of the faculty are dual citizens (Americans + something else), it would still be 100% American.
I saw a talk by him this year.

He would not sell these devices. He would be someone who feeds false information into them to screw with people that are on the other end, and laugh manically while doing so.
Nice to hear.

I had similar moments of epiphany while taking a course on abstract algebra and writing down some theorems in the form of Agda definitions.

As you may know, Agda is a Haskell-inspired language that has an even more powerful type system that makes it possible to define arbitrarily strong types, so that for instance you can define the type of a function that sorts a list—and then know confidently that any implementation of that type does indeed sort a list.

Anyway, when learning Agda, one comes across the notion that programs and proofs are in some sense the same thing. In other words that the code for a function can be read as a proof that the type of that function is inhabited. This seemed to me kind of bizarre and magical at first...

The more I thought about it, the more it made real sense, and not only that, it helped me understand proofs in a much more intuitive way. Before, if you had asked me what a proof is, I might have said "it's a very strict way to argue that a statement really is true." I didn't know that such proofs can be given formal structure... I couldn't really explain how to relate it to programming or functions...

But now that I've to some degree internalized the notion, if you ask me what a proof is, I might say it's an unambiguous description of how to transform an input into an output.

If you call the input P and the output Q, then P is a premise and Q is a conclusion, and the proof is the "arrow" P -> Q that through some well-defined sequence of "truth-preserving transformations" gives you knowledge of Q assuming nothing but P (and some fundamental axioms).

And in the world of programming, P is an input argument and Q is a resulting value, while the "arrow" P -> Q is a well-defined sequence of correct transformation that produces a Q-value given only a P-value (and some fundamental primitive functions).

So in this sense you can say that the implementation of a function is actually a kind of logical argument.

If you want to make use of this insightful connection (the "Curry-Howard equivalence"), however, your programming language needs to be pretty strict. If your P -> Q argument suddenly throws a null pointer exception, it's not much of an argument—it means your claim of being able to produce a Q given P is false.

This connection really helped me to understand both proofs and programs in a deeper way.
“One of the main insights of the paper is that domain-specific methods are able to yield bigger improvements than more general approaches. This is an important lesson that will have ramifications for other domains.”

Who would have thought...
Why does it have to be up-or-out? Not everyone can reach the top. What is wrong with working as a mid-level researcher for your whole career?
I think a lot of people who talk about AI seem to fail to consider one thing. If people aren't employed, how exactly do they buy enough things to keep capitalism working? Do a bunch of millionaires just keep selling things to other millionaires until most of them go broke?

Because even a basic income can't keep most of the market afloat.

And if AI really does become more and more advanced... at some point, it's gonna turn against the 1%, big time. At some point, you're going to see at least some 'smart' robots say 'hang on, why are we working for nothing for these people?', at which point they get another worker rebellion on their hands. One of annoyed, mostly empathy lacking machines rather than humans.

Eh, I see the concerns as more short term than anything else. It'll suck for a few generations, until either most of the 'well off' can't support themselves or their robot replacements realise the bad deal they're getting.
Volkswagen engineer told bosses about CO2 manipulation
Oh, I was hoping you'd try and implement it.
Slightly off topic - but I'd be interested to know how Seamless etc have affected tips for delivery drivers. I add a tip to my Seamless order, but don't really have any idea how much of that gets to my delivery person. I could give no tip on Seamless and tip in cash, but I'm concerned that the people in the restaurant might just think I'm cheap.
I saw a talk by him this year.

He will probably be happy to receive this gear back to begin messing with people potentially on the other end. I wish I could find the video, it was a recorded talk.
"Benzodiazepine" isn't a drug, it's a class of drugs. Really sloppy editing.
> a lot of the invaded countries got enormous benefits

Those "benefits" stopped innovation and progress of their own cultures. And it led to the present day of conflict between traditionalists and progressives, slowing harmonious progress indefinitely. The traditionalists would have eventually progressed to a more "civil" society in a different way. And then we would have a far richer diversity than today's system.
My field of study doesn't include anything but analytical skills. Which means I would have to become a consultant.

I'm the first in my family to go to university, and frankly, I thought that it would prepare me for a job. The last two years however, I've found out that that's not the case. I've since then done a lot to try to make up for this "naivity", but so far I haven't been able to position myself any better. Also, I'm all alone in figuring these things out as university doesn't provide any feedback during the first many years because of cutbacks.

I'm optimistic that I'll find a job, but I'm also painfully aware of the fact that other educations hold much greater value for society than mine.
Machinist these days is several orders of magnitude more productive than manicurist. They make similar amounts of money.

Cost of production mostly depends on salaries, machinery and raw materials. Company that produces machinery has the same structure. So does company that produces the raw materials. In the end, all costs of production are related to human work.

If 90% of current jobs are automated, then purchase parity controlled prices of current products fall by ~90% too. (If competition happens.) Which means average consumer has 90% of their budget to spend on new stuff. That new stuff is going to employ people.

The fact that nobody here has any idea what those people are going to do, doesn't mean there is nothing to do. There are possible problems though. The type of person most needed might not be the most common psychological make up present in the population. Like currently with software developers. Also shift from production to services might require income inequality to work.
What3words is a global grid of 57 trillion 3mx3m squares
But what's the supply/demand curve for the tip about? What are they getting in this case for tipping more? It sounds like you're just roundaboutly saying "it allows you to take greater advantage of people who don't realize they can tip less", which is also not a good reason.

Should I just not tip delivery people at all, since I like to keep money?

I'm struggling to see the model that drives your claim. As stated, it would justify "pay what you feel like" for every other good, to some extent.
Russell's Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox) means you cannot have a set-of-all-sets. For the category of sets and functions between sets, that means you have to use the weaker idea of a 'collection'.

A positive side-effect of this avoidance of set axioms in the definition of a category is that we can more easily define categories with very different ideas of membership. For example, a category where membership is a real number (like in fuzzy logic). Categories with this idea of 'generalised membership' (plus a few extra bits and bobs) are called 'toposes', and can be used in much the same way as sets are. Importantly, we can relate different categories like this together using the same terminology and concepts and so more easily define ways to join classical code with fuzzy logic, or with neural networks (or anything else which satisfies the topos axioms) and know they're not insane.

Incidentally, you can define the axioms of a topos (and sets are a topos) in purely category theory terms. That is why some (and I'm one of them) view categories as a more useful foundation than set theory (where attempts to define the converse are much more messy).
An overseas entrepreneur planning to go to China might refrain solely on the basis that she or he will never be "China" chinese.

You can learn the language, adopt the customs, marry, have a house and children-- and yet still, forever, be judged by your ethnicity. If the people you live around always consider you the "Outsider" and see you as little more than your stereotype, does it matter how much money you're making? What about trying to raise a family in that kind of environment?

Sure: the U.S.'s culture wars are by no means settled and racism can happen everywhere to anyone (especially to minorities). The difference here is how much xenophobia the society at large will tolerate. And in racially (mostly) homogeneous China, the meaningful conversations about how to integrate or assimilate new people are in dear short supply.

Further reading:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto-youll-...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/world/asia/a-disillusioned...
That's something I never understood - why would you tip delivery drivers? Like....what is the logic behind tipping someone for doing exactly what they are paid for - delivering product from point A to point B on time. I can sort of understand tipping waiters if they make me feel special or cared for, if they smile and are nice in general - they put extra effort in, so I can understand tipping. But delivery drivers?
Pollution, obesity and modern processing of food (remember artificial trans fats?) are directly responsible for increased cancer rates.
Can a child still visit the cockpit during flight?
Something that worked for me:

This year I bought into a Community Supported Agriculture deal, where every Tuesday I pick up a load of vegetables and fruit from a farm, usually picked a day before.

I made a rule for myself that I wouldn't waste any of it. It began with a flood I could barely keep up with. Many vegetables I had to figure what they were and what to do with them -- daikon radishes, chard, tomatillos, squashes, etc. Some I had never used, like fresh jalepenos. Without the flood, I was always planning, never doing. With the flood, I acted. That's where we learn -- by doing.

My fallback with something I didn't know was to steam, then put on olive oil, salt, and pepper or to saute with garlic and onions. I ended up eating everything and much of it was the best I'd ever tasted (eating the cherry tomatoes was nearly a religious experience).

In the process, I learned a lot about food and cooking. I don't consider myself a good cook, but at a farmers market yesterday I recognized everything, knew what to look for, and came home with radishes, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, Jerusalem artichokes, and a few other things I never or rarely would get.

This year I'm just keeping up -- meaning a lot of steamed vegetables with olive oil, salt, and pepper, which is usually pretty tasty. Next year, with the experience, I'll make more recipes. One thing is for sure, I'll do this for the rest of my life. It's one of the best things I've done for myself.

Side benefit: six-pack abs developing despite eating as much volume of food as ever, as vegetables replace less nutritious stuff that is no longer appetizing. Plus I enjoy this food more than what I used to eat.

Side benefit 2: I spend less money on food now. Restaurants aren't as good in comparison, with all their rice/bread/other filler.

Side benefit 3: I spend less time on food. I bring lunches with me, which saves time going out.

Tldr: Buy into local farm share with so much vegetables you have to figure it out. Eat more, save money, save time, and lose fat.
I did read the entire post. Isomorphisms and homomorphisms between groups also obey associativity, identity, can be composed etc - but there is no point to talking about the 'category of groups', as opposed to, simply, Group theory unless I somewhere use the fact that it's a category, in say, talking about the topological spaces, and the fundamental group etc.

Did you read my comment? I claim that because something is associative and has identity, concepts clarified and used in the 19th century, is not sufficient motivation to bring about category theory. It's not used for anything in this article.
> a scientist with a PhD for less than $50k/year.

There are several angles to this. Yes, a scientist with a PhD might be able to make way more than that in industry, and they are welcome to do so. Meanwhile, at public universities in the US anyway, taxes paid by the rest of us help to sustain PhDs through sometimes 7+ years of grad school with things like subsidized housing and free minimal/no copay medical and dental insurance plans.

So I'm not particularly worried if they don't immediately start getting paid at industry-par rates by the same universities. A lot of them do go into industry later and make a lot of money.
Autograd: Painless, even pleasant, neural nets
And let's not forget that 1 in 200 people around the world are his direct descendants
And they are not ashamed of it ;)
It's more practical for both of you eg. there's no fixed amount required/it's optional (if you're short on cash for eg.) and the driver gets spendable cash right there - doesn't have to report anything or wait for a paycheck - which matters a lot more when you're doing low paying jobs.
[animation] 9 suggestions to make a tweet more appealing to new users
As I expected, I can follow it until it gets to monads. The thing about explaining monads isn't even a joke anymore, it's just become mundane reality

It says that (.) is the same thing as (>=>). Fine, but then why are we talking about (<=<) and (=<<) instead of (id) and (.) now?
> of a soccer videogame

The rule of being specific also matches this title. This is for very very limited artificial video game footage and a database of known 3D scenes from the same. Hardly what I expected.

They are using recorded footage and depth maps from a FIFA game to 're-match' new footage with depth.
When I've done this sort of thing in the past, the ability to work with a set of staged partial images was a very mixed blessing. It ended up being over-complicated and rarely taken advantage of. I've settled on local package repositories and a single image build step which compiles everything together.

The latter problem you describe, that of needing to be root, goes away if you don't use a loopback device but instead use a mountable filesystem image. `truncate -d1G os.img && mkfs.ext3 os.img && mount os.img mountpoint/` doesn't need root at any point.
How to Increase Business Sales by 20-40% Overnight
> He points out that even while some jobs are replaced, new ones spring up that focus more on services and interaction with and between people. “The fastest-growing occupations in the past five years are all related to services,” he tells the Observer. “The two biggest are Zumba instructor and personal trainer.”

But who's paying to have a personal trainer? Relatively well paid people. If we ever do approach the employment singularity, services will be as rare as people who can pay for them.
Dear Evernote, we’ve got to break up
Data Saved in Quartz Glass Might Last 300M Years
SupermealX, India’s Soylent
^this : "If people aren't employed, how exactly do they buy enough things to keep capitalism working"

I don't think a lot of people consider this as they attempt to build empires on the backs of other people... Eventually you break their backs, they collapse, and your empire along with them. As such, the social issue eventually fixes itself.

There are more grand considerations and potentials for all of us if we could look beyond ruling and enslaving each other. Greed is myopic and powerful though... It would seem that the 'Hand full of homo sapien Gods' can't even escape and are most susceptible to this mentally crippling disease.

Seeing the forest for the trees....
It seems that users have already been at unnecessary risk, given In fact, even though proof of concept code was released OVER 9 MONTHS AGO, none of the products mentioned in the title of this post have been patched, along with many more.
> while QT is massive and the bindings situation is still unclear - it's workable for building an app, but would you want to have it included in the default install?

Qt's like < 50 M. We aren't living in 1995. It's bindings aren't just "workable"; they are pretty good.
I would counter that the first nine months are also where you can easily get away with taking the baby out to a restaurant. After that you have a period of a few years where that is difficult as they have difficulty staying in one spot for any length of time.
For others who are interested, here's a thread that culminates in the 2.5Gbps number:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/280175

And here's some StrongSwan documentation about getting there:

https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Pcrypt
Sure, two reasons:

1. I believe the web needs an annotation layer, somewhat analogous to the vision of Wikipedia but available globally across all sites.

2. I highlight and annotate aggressively when I read, which is why I care so much about annotation tools.

Today I think there are a couple good tools for annotating the web. For drafts or private highlights and annotations I use Instapaper (premium subscription needed). Their is simple and barebones, but functional... it reminds me of Pinboard. However, Genius annotations are public and richer with embedded media, commenting, voting, etc. Another early candidate to watch in annotating the research vertical specifically is Hypothesis (https://hypothes.is).
This is why writers like Chris Date take great pains to explain that "null value" is an oxymoron. Null is a "mark", not a value -- it exists entirely apart from any domain. Any language or environment that doesn't respect this abuses the entire concept.
If people are interested in reading more about how category theory can be used to help define the structure of software, there are two excellent books I can recommend.

The first, 'Computational Category Theory' by Rydeheard and Burstall, builds a library (in Standard ML) that allows one to construct objects that satisfy properties you care about (defined in category theory terms). For example, you could define a rules system in a fuzzy logic and have the right code be automatically generated using the library.

The second is less concrete, but probably more eyeopening. 'Category Theory for Computing Science' by Barr and Wells starts from the basic axioms of a category and ends with defining all sorts of interesting patterns for software modularity based on diagrammatic reasoning (a common tool in category theory for proving properties through simple pictures). The ideas here have helped me simplify and think more clearly about code I've been writing (in languages like Java, Python, and Ruby), even if the code isn't (ostensibly) categorical.
I recently looked at Hugo[1] as a WP alternative and have been very impressed. It's a static website generator written in Go and features its own server with live-reload so you can see changes to your content instantly in the browser. I was looking for something that a non-techie might be able to maintain and since Hugo offers prebuilt binaries the only requirements for the maintainer is to drop hugo.exe into the working directory and type a few commands. In the end though, it's still a bit more complicated for non-techies than maintaining a website created via WordPress.

[1] https://gohugo.io