skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The whole reputation dependency is highly problematic. It puts people in spotlight that produce a lot of papers which get some spotlight, but serious scientists that put a lot of time and thought into one paper and only produce a dozen in their lifetime get under in the flood of papers we have now.

Everybody in science knows that the quality of papers has degraded over the last 10 years, just the amount went up enormously.

I dream and hopefully get this project into development that takes a different route. First, instead of letting 1-2 people decide if a paper is ok, everybody can test and classify it. Math or logic errors are obvious once, but also a dependency tree is required. Which methods are used, which tools etc.

Each user will then have the possibility to follow others and accept their view, which means, their trust in a particular method as well as trusting in methods itself.

To give an example: One may trust in classical logic, but not mathematical logic (yes, there is a huge difference). When a paper uses a statistical method that requires mathematical logic, this paper does not have a truth value for you, but maybe for someone else who believes in it. Or you don't accept method xy, or a specific apparatus.

You may also say: you accept all papers that got reviewed by at 10 people somewhere in your web of trust.

http://vixra.org/why

censorship in science does happen and it helps nothing. Every great scientific change in thinking sounded nuts or at least strange in the beginning and very often reviewers are not open minded and don't let math and logic rule but their feeling.

Since I found a physical model that requires only classical logic not a mathematical one, I'm not so sure if I should accept anything that requires mathematical logic at all (outside of a purely mathematical space). It's nearly impossible to go through all the details in a paper and found their chain of proves to check what requirements a paper has.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TRIANGLE CENTERS
> They are storing data about you for the people who, like it or not, you shared your data with.

Exactly.

I'll add that on a technical level, you aren't being tracked like a hunter would track prey; your machine is being periodically asked to provide identifying information, and you have it configured to automatically comply.

I get that most consumers of the web don't understand this, but it is the truth.

This is what I find vexing about the EU cookie disclaimer law. Every individual website owner has to add a message to their site letting you know that they are going to request that your browser store some information on their behalf.

It makes me think about all of the manhours that could have been saved if the law had instead required major browser vendors to include a feature enabled by default that would prompt the user before storing cookies.
Identifier-locator addressing for network virtualization
I would rephrase it. The try-block method in this example is not useful. There is only one exception we care about and that's 404 with key.
> That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied.

Except GPL section 7 says I can ignore your non-commercial restriction. If you want to restrict commercial use, you must pick a different license. GPL won't work.
Sandy2x Is a Curve25519 Implementation Tailored for the Intel Sandy Bridge
> I don't expect a wave of [Amazon bookstores] popping up across the country, mostly because of how other large bookstore chains have shuttered in recent years. At the same time, now I can at least imagine a world in which they might work

> If there's a case for an Amazon bookstore, it's really the case for any other store in the mall: It will always (or at least the foreseeable future) be faster to buy something in person than it will be on the internet.

i shop at independent bookstores whenever possible, and it's not because it's 'faster'.

this essay sidesteps several elephants in the room...
> scientists believing that a deity farted out the earth some 4000 years ago (young earth creationism).
You're now going to reply and tell me that we should carefully consider the evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax placed by satan, right?

Stinky rhetoric, indeed!
Ok, so what's the psychological/cultural anchor that keeps Snapchat alive and floating? I mean, I understand what's happening mechanically, but I don't get why it would be engaging, entertaining, or lead to compulsive use.

Maybe because I'm introverted and don't care what my friends are eating? I have no insight into the minds and motivations of young women, so maybe that's part of it too. Dunno.
Umlauts are the two dots above a letter, quite common in German I believe.
Impressive detailed writing.
I currently use Workflowy. It is not FOSS but it is has some nice features. It syncs between devices, has a decent mobile client, works offline, seems to have a good developer, doesn't cost an unreasonable amount, has pretty good multi-user features.
>> It's pretty horrible. How did we get to this point?

Because ads... are more important to get right than other stuff /sarcasm
Same guy I spoke to. He said you could drive and access the trail head which is right where the fire trail for the Radio towers is, first sharp left turn.

People still have issues doing that though. My wife reminded me this evening that she was confronted walking down the hill. It's nuts.
I think you're misrepresenting what the rule of law means. The rule of law just means we follow codified rules, not the arbitrary whims of an individual. The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law.
I'm sorry if I was unclear but I did understand that and was responding to that particular notion. I was attempting to demonstrate that the "and" does not imply the question is now two (or more) questions. Perhaps I can be clearer:

My primary point is that there is a difference between asking both the question "A" and the question "B" vs. asking the question "A and B". It is true that I can waste two questions asking both "A" and "B" to obtain the answer to "A and B" so in that sense I can see why one might feel "A and B" is two questions rather than one.

But really, the answer to "A and B" isn't really about the answers to "A" and "B" as much as it is about the relationship between them. If you ask "A and B", an answer of "yes" will tell you they are both true but an answer of "no" will not distinguish between whether A is false or B is false or both.

Alternatively, consider questions "A" and "B" again. A is either true or false. B is also either true or false. You don't know the truth value of either. How many questions does it take to determine the truth value of both questions, assuming A and B are independent and the value of one doesn't influence the value of the other? Well, you could ask "A and B" and if you get "yes" you're done but that rides on you being lucky. In fact, there is no way that you can differentiate all four possibilities with a single yes/no response; you need at least two. This isn't really a proof that "A and B" is a single question, of course, but intuitively if "A and B" were, as you say, "really two different questions" one would expect to be able to construct an "A and B" that does differentiate four different possibilities.

Or, from another angle, per your prior post would you say "are you and the god to your left both not Random?" is actually two different questions? How about (ignoring for the moment that this is an entirely useless question in this puzzle) "are you not Random and the god to your left not Random and the god to your right not Random?" Or "Are none of the three of you Random?" I can see no cause to say "Are none of the three of you Random?" (or, say, "does it rain here every day?") is any more than one question nor any way to differentiate this construct from the version using "and". I also see no reason why asking "are you not Random and is the god to your left not Random?" would be any more or fewer questions than "are you not Random and does 'da' mean 'yes'" or why that would be any different from an "if and only if".

Of course, there is the final, if somewhat less satisfying, point to make: the framing as a "question" is more for convenience and wider understanding but the common intention for puzzles like this (especially with Smullyan credited for the puzzle) is generally for you to choose a predicate and ask a god to evaluate it for you, with the god possibly running the output through a not gate before it gets to you.
That's great! Do you mean the law demands a reason to do it? (I.e. reasoning for a warrant?) I'm guessing here.
> Per the Zen of Python, “there should be one– and preferably only one– obvious way to do it”. This is an aspirational message.

"aspirational" is an optimistic way to describe it. As the article illustrates, every ~2 years the "pythonic" approach is different. Innovation is good, but it hurts re-use of code and of skills.
That point is so important that I hesitated to add a distraction but I think it's also worth remembering that the NSA has a defensive role, too.

It's been much neglected in recent decades but the entire country would be better off if the NSA helped patch things. They're hoping some suspected bad guy doesn't get patched but odds are high that many Americans, particularly important IP-heavy businesses, are going to get exploited as well — and given all the reports about how e.g. bin Laden preferred to send messages using trusted couriers, that trade off doesn't seem very good.
Show HN: MarkRight – Electron-powered GitHub-flavored Markdown editor
Why Computer Programmers Should Stop Calling Themselves Engineers
What are your reasons, then? Of which elephants do you speak?
"Nick, our programming ecosystem barely satisfies the basic principles of software fault tolerance, much less self-healing systems. High assurance? Multiple independent levels of security (MILS)? Covert channel resistance? Completely out of the question!"

Original high assurance systems were done with Pascal, etc. Not much required in terms of programming past type and memory safety, esp strong interface checks. Plus easily understanding how that language becomes code with ability of compilers to transform it (eg auto-insertion of checks). More about a clear description of how it works, clear security policy, evidence they correspond, and implementation that maintains the same. As in another comment in this thread, small changes in hardware or OS's alone would create great increases in security.

Far as the other requirements, software MILS just takes a microkernel with capabilities, periods processing, virtualizable hardware, and the right scheduler. A covert channel analysis via Kemmerer's Shared Resource Matrix can be done by a junior staffer with guidance and little time. That usable, prototypes of secure systems were done by small academic teams with 1990's and early 2000's tech shows it's well within reach of today's programmers. There's just an issue of willingness. Just look back at all the times I wrote up a secure-by-design system and how many people jumped on bandwagon to try to build their own. I can count them on my hands.

"Yet one must not discount that how 0-days are even procured can involve questionable deeds."

That's the subversion risk. The EAL6-7 development processes going back to Orange Book are designed to partly counter that. I add certified compilation, mutually suspicious parties doing analysis, diverse hardware, and so on in my requirements. Gotta address it all. Teams with little resources should focus on ability to detect, trace, and recover rather than prevent. Prevent what they can but only so much staff and time...

"the property of domestic surveillance is not a unique event or something that can be eradicated, but a constant cyclical factor akin to a business cycle that may only be mitigated."

That's an interesting thought. There have been cycles in my country. What worries me is the cyclical nature seems to be ending. We haven't seen the mass protests of police state activity that we wanted. The abuses revealed by Manning and Snowden led to griping followed largely by inaction. We've only seen American power increase even after the parties changed. The 180 of Obama administration on the key issues further suggests strong, covert influence that exists across parties and time. I wished we got something like Iceland in 2008 but America is a fake democracy: people did nothing, are mostly doing nothing, and TPP situation is set to confirm that trend. It's the new cycle.
Can you provide some links to docs discussing NSA 0days against Americans? I can't seem to find 'em.
We have repeated proof of the opposite – Congress had to rush to retroactively legalize the mass surveillance programs, and much of what's been disclosed since is clearly unconstitutional.

What they are extremely good at is using security claims to avoid ever having to see a real court. Most of the cases have been thrown out for lack of standing because it's hard to prove that you've been spied on when all of the details are classified.
And now we get massive text. Responsive
I started showing this to my son when he turned 3.
Pivotal Tracker is deliberately minimalist. I didn't really get it until I started working at Pivotal Labs.
Hmmm, I haven't tried React yet. Yeah, now it operates directly on the DOM, but all functions for DOM manipulation are located in separate class, so maybe we will try hook them somehow. Looked at React docs really quickly, it seems they have been abstracted away DOM manipulation to prevent unnecessary browser reflow/recalc ops. So, I can't predict now how easily it will be to sync it with React.(we will try to do it)
Adhering-to-regulations aside, I think this is a good thing. Buildings shouldn't be required to have lots of parking. What other facilities are they missing?
The elderly already have a whole spectrum of shared living spaces ranging from crappy senior homes to swanky gated communities. This is just rebranding retirement homes as something for young working people.
Essentially, in CPython, you're already paying for an exception check on either a lot of the opcodes or all of them, so you might as well use it. Statements are very rich in Python, so generally to get the best CPython performance the name of the game is to get as much out of each one as you can, and minimize the total number of them. (I have to specify CPython because PyPy can be much more complicated.)

Certainly nowadays that would be in bad style, but, back in 1.5 it wouldn't have been so bad. Also, when 1.5 was out, 200MHz was still a pretty decent machine! The little things could matter quite a lot.
Docker is amazing
Ironically, it was the Hawke and Keating governments who ushered in economical liberalization of the Australian economy. So, no. Not really.
Sounds familiar.

Ah, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doorways_in_the_Sand had an interstellar version of one as a plot point. :-)
I'd be curious to see a similar study on active meditators. People who actively work to quiet their minds might have a better chance of doing so in a study.

Meditating makes you realize just how much noise is in your head. Between starting meditation and where I am now I notice a stark difference in my brain. A lot of it comes from the environment too. We listen to songs on repeat, advertisements are burnt into our memories, we have emotions, there's just so much for our brains to drone on about.

It is absolutely possible to quiet your inner monologue. I'd be really interested to see what it looks like in a brain scan.
This is like salt on the wound isn't it? First they undercut everyone and drive 'em out of business then they open up a shop of their own. The only thing worse would be if they opened it at the same site as a bankrupt B&N store.
Exceptions in python have historically been very cheap.
Thanks, that's a good explanation of open access funding trade-offs. Traditional publishing erects paywalls for readers (buying a subscription or pay per-article fees) but not for authors. OTOH open-access has paywalls for authors (or author's employer), but none for readers.

In 2002 the required payment was $500, probably about equivalent to current author fees. Presumably it offsets the administrative costs involved in running the journal website and overseeing the peer review process. I don't have first hand knowledge regarding costs of publication or profit margins, but the expense must be paid by someone, generically authors or readers.

I was willing to pay because I regarded wide exposure of the data I was reporting as important, my contribution to the benefit of the community at large. In retrospect, I guess the fact that the article has been viewed several thousand times (and cited by numerous subsequent reports) is a much greater readership than it would have garnered behind a steep paywall.
Skype.com SSL cert isn't trusted
Actually, the virtual DOM isn't to prevent unnecessary operations, it's to ensure consistency. State transitions cause a render, which builds the virtual DOM (for each component) from scratch, ensuring that the same state always results in the same rendering output. This is different from, say, Backbone, where you create or modify individual DOM elements, and this logic is typically spread out across many functions.
Or hackers.
Worth noting that Counter itself uses what the article calls get Method, but with a common performance optimization (caching a bound method).

def _count_elements(mapping, iterable):
mapping_get = mapping.get
for elem in iterable:
mapping[elem] = mapping_get(elem, 0) + 1
"The NSA is, I'm sure, very scrupulous about following the law."
Your certainty is definitely misplaced (unless that was sarcasm).
One of many, many examples:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-b...
5am - 3pm. After that - it's a downhill slide.
Not necessarily. Some people have serious problems multitasking and can't juggle resource management, unit constraints, tech trees and defense/offence simultaneously themselves (my girlfriend being one of them, she just can't play RTS's) on a basic level.

Never mind trying to also throw in micro and optimum game strategies into the mix.
They very nearly have. Barnes and Noble shut down a store at University Village a couple of years ago. The Amazon store isn't in the same building, but it's the same shopping center.
My impression from the reviews is that most of the reviewers thought the study was too easy to run (just grab a widely known data source and press the “regress” button in some statistical analysis package), not novel or interesting enough, and with a fairly speculative analysis relative to the data. [Personally I have no opinion about the importance of the paper, which I didn’t read.]

It’s hard for reviewers to politely articulate “we just didn’t think your paper was cool enough for our journal” or “we thought your analysis was weak”, but most of them did seem to be trying. My impression is that the author didn’t really take the criticism to heart, and had trouble reading between the lines.

These journals surely get many similar paper submissions, and this authors’ opinion notwithstanding, they can’t publish them all.

I agree that the system is too slow, too arbitrary, and too high-stakes though. It’s tragic that quantity and venue of published papers is the main way academics are judged.

It would indeed be nice if scholars could (as an option) publish their papers without as much oversight, and then have more of the discussion back and forth about the paper’s relevance take place in public. Then if the paper turns out to be significant, it could be republished in a leading journal.
>It makes me think about all of the manhours that could have been saved if the law had instead required major browser vendors to include a feature enabled by default that would prompt the user before storing cookies.

You only need a disclaimer for a permanent cookie, which should only be used when you are logged into an account (and the disclaimer could just be part of the ToS when you create the account). I blame the websites for using permanent cookies when session cookies or no cookies would do the job.
Spectral LPM: Optimal Locality-Preserving Mapping with Spectral Order, Not Fractal [pdf]
As a communications platform, sure. As an application platform, I'm not sure I agree. I have used many actual applications packaged as .jar files. They're generally more featureful and performant than we have come to expect from web apps[1]. As a platform-independent, single-file distribution format, Java actually works very well.

Java wasn't ever intended to compete with the Web; it was the Web that got ideas.

[1] I know, citation needed. Okay. Show me the web app that looks like this, that doesn't kill my EeePC: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Gephi-07...
Gmail was down
Great post. I would just like to say that as an immigrant to the US, i see this tendency to turn every debate into "with us or against us" is much more prominent in the media here. I believe that most people across the world are reasonable enough to see the vast "grey areas" you mentioned between any two poles, but when we just read about an issue in passing, we tend to accept what we read so a media pushing dumb controversial articles can create this tendency.

The renewed push for accepting women in the workplace is simply one instance where a (reasonable) position has been chosen (women should have all the same opportunities as men in the workplace), but anyone who speaks against this position (even if just to improve it, or learn more) is labeled a old-fashioned,bigoted, and much worse.

The answer is to take a position without instantly shaming anyone who disagrees. So we can have an open discussion. The way controversial issues are treated here reminds me of medieval times - if you don't believe, you will be "excommunicated" from society. Debates aren't football games where you watch and cheer for your team to win. Right now, everyone is cheering for the womens side. Dont get me wrong, I am too, but that doesn't mean the other side is wrong/evil.
The issue with the current API is that it's read-only, so clients can't completely migrate to it. Using a combination of the API for reads and scraping for checking responses to writes makes things a bit difficult.
Seems like the last week or so the comment indentation has been worse on Android with Chrome on a 7" tablet. It used to be a larger indent. Now I can't tell who's replying to what without thinking about it.
/shrug yeah because people like EditorConfig and Atom write new projects and literally opt to ignore the standard.

It's just frustrating, annoying and a bit arrogant. "Oh just fucking throw it in their home dir. They won't mind. No one shows dot-prefixed files, right?!"

Uh.
Prime fresh, too, if you can wait slightly longer than now. My orders usually show up between 0400 and 0600 as long as I order before midnight.
Maybe I've been under a rock recently, but this is the first I've read of an Amazon brick-and-mortar store.
Unfortunately, we are unable to discuss the details of the technology because the IP belongs to our employer, Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R).

In short, unlike filters and firewalls which handles spam poorly, MB uses machine learning to model the data it collects to identify web traffic spam. If you are interested to see it in action, send me (support@malleablebyte.org) your email and I can send you an invite to try it.

As for the TM, that is what our legal department advice us to do. We are still employees of A*Star so we need to follow their rules. Hope this answers your question.
Abiti da Sposa Taglie Forti, vestiti da sposa ampi online di OkMi
I was expecting a larger difference in times, about 3.5x is the largest spread. https://gist.github.com/treyhunner/0987601f960a5617a1be

Nice article.
>Not at all. The cause of USSR's demise was its failing economy. There was literally not enough food

That basically describes North Korea in 1993. Except North Korea didn't have glasnost.