skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The US government is based on the idea that power is always corruptable, so the way to counter that is to divide and istribute the power.

The 2nd Amendment isn't there so you can protect yourself against criminals. You already got the government (the police force) for that. It is also not there so you can go hunting (though you can use it for that).

The 2nd Amendment is there to divide and distribute half the power to the people and half to the government.

Did you know that the Ten Amendments, are the second part of the Constitution? The first part of the Constitution gives power to the government, while the second part of the Constitution gives power to the people.

Your ancestors fought and died so that 50% of the power will be given to the people. So that the document will be divided into two parts: the Constitution itself (for the government), and the Bills of Rights aka the 10 Amendments (for the people).

So why do you want to abolish your part of the constitution and give all the power back to the government?

It's would be as illogical as Congress deciding to abolish all its power and give them all to the Executive Branch.

The point of the Constitution is to divide and distribute power between the branches, between the federal and the states, and between the government and the people.
Nah. It's about ego(tism). Power & influence use different currency. You have to either - 1) not know or 2) not care - how badly you'll mess this up.

And you will.
First Round Capital's 2015 State of Startups Report
From reading the abstract, it sounds like this addresses precisely the topic of "Worse is Better" [1].

There are frequent misunderstandings of this essay -- the argument isn't as coarse as "crappy software wins", or "release early and often".

The tradeoff is: do you want a simple interface (MIT style) or a simple implementation (NJ style)? If you want a simple interface, you have to hide a bunch of complexity underneath. If you want a simple implementation, you punt on some hard things and expose it to the user.

Despite its authorship, and marketing as a better C (which is the epitome of NJ style), Go is MIT style! The concurrency model hides a lot of stuff under the covers: sync vs async syscalls, segmented stacks, etc. And GC is probably the ultimate MIT-style feature, in that the interface is very simple (just pretend you have infinite memory), but implementations are tremendously complex -- basically each GC is unique and its own research project.

[1] https://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

EDIT: From paging through the slides, this seems to be basically the gist of the last half, but I don't see that he mentioned "Worse is Better" or MIT vs NJ style...
They mostly make money with the private equity business by buying businesses with high cash flow and extracting more cash from them.
Would it affect vpn services as well? Sad to see more outrage here than in Kazakhstan
He makes it feel understandable, but does it communicate anything meaningful?
Before you go planning to build everything on Lambda, understand there's still no VPC support, so no RDS databases.
"AWS Lambda functions cannot currently access resources behind a VPC."
Solar or Coal? The Energy India Picks May Decide Earth's Fate
I see more and more that hubris is apparently a deprecated concept.
Everyone doesn't need to go to college, and I agree apprentice/trade stuff would be great for people who don't want to go to college.

Anecdote, but my half brother is apprenticing under his father in welding. However, both he and his dad get paid relatively low (no special certifications or whatever it takes to make good money as a welder). Also, I don't think he's learning cutting edge and highly desired welding skills, just basics. I think apprenticeship isn't going to be enough to put someone in a great position to learn a craft as a master or to make great money in a trade. Just as a degree won't guarantee success, neither will apprenticeship, though it is another path.

Where I work, for many positions I don't think a resume will be considered without a college degree on it. A bachelor's is the new high school diploma. To encourage apprenticeship, businesses would need incentives to do so. Why would they choose to apprentice people if there is a glut of college graduates desperate for work? It seems convincing business owners would be the key, and what incentives would those businesses have to do this? If businesses don't do it, who would? Colleges?
Absolutely not, have you tried 0.facebook.com ? Ux nightmare !
We've become too cynical and rent-seek-ey. Many people realize that a large wad of money was Nature's way of telling them to keep doing what they're doing.

Instead, it has to be "charity" now. Very few rich people ever did charity well.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy[0]. The specific problem with your argument is that you didn't set forth a hypothesis that would predict which VCs would be successful before they'd all started investing their money.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
Personally I don't bother anymore. If the project that is on kickstarter will succeed, then I'll be able to buy them when they do and not have to wait. If they fail, I wouldn't have gotten anything, and I get to keep my money.
Like your ruthless monkeys, someone could point to countless proclaimed adherents in jail or advocating bloodthirsty war or abusing children or embezzling community funds.

Are there any important religious teachings that wouldn't be taught in a secular ethics class?
Electromagnetism is a the effect of a physical field that permeates all of space. Fields are real things, not just useful calculators.

Some of Max Tegmark's writing as well as Lawrence Krauss' have describe gravity as the "cost" or the thing that is balanced by the expansion of space.

The expansion of space having been driven by another as yet undescribed field.

All things are physical. Consciousness is a side effect of information processing. Seems like we just have fundamentally different assumptions about what can be a valid belief.

I don't just disagree with you. I think your belief about consciousness isn't even well formed. I don't even think there could exist evidence to support a belief like "consciousness creates matter".
Don’t delay building your startup culture
Wifi Password Hack v5 Apk Full Version Free Download
Debt usually has highest preference during liquidation. I don't see how kickstarter is like debt.
Rather like Ms. Elk on the subject on the Brontosaurus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
I've been staring at that for 5 minutes and I can't for the life of me see what doesn't make sense. What doesn't make sense?!
House Restores Local Education Control in Revising No Child Left Behind
I haven't voted on your comment, but here's what stands out to me: (1) It's not written in good style. People who care about how their ideas are received by others take the time to write properly, including capitalization and punctuation.

(2) It reads like a middlebrow dismissal. It's critical but doesn't add much of substance on its own through the criticism. Wolfram certainly realizes that he hasn't proven his case, that current science is indeed incredibly useful, and that the current path will only be a "detour" if network- or automata-based models are proven correct in the end. That's why he says he "suspects" it "may" have led us to a detour. He certainly understands that the theory needs to be developed further. Put simply, Wolfram would probably agree with your overall sentiment, so the remarks are not insightful, but they're presented as if they'd likely be at odds with his position.

(3) Beyond style, the diction is unclear, such as the choice of the word "use-case". It's unclear to me what you're referring to. It's unusual to refer to physics as "use-cases". If that's intended as an analogy, then for me it doesn't connect or succeed.

(4) The ideas themselves are not clear. "... reveal those use-cases untouched by contemporary thought"; "an existence where every new finality conjures new questions". It's not clear what you're trying to convey with those phrases. You probably could say what you're trying to say in a simpler, more direct, and less critical way way. You might benefit from this advice: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html

> Here's a simple trick for getting more people to read what you write: write in spoken language. Something comes over most people when they start writing. They write in a different language than they'd use if they were talking to a friend. The sentence structure and even the words are different. [...] But perhaps worst of all [mistakes], complex sentences and fancy words give you, the writer, the false impression that you're saying more than you actually are.

If I was to try to rephrase what you've said in simple language, then I end up with something like: "The ideas need to work to be useful. We need to think up new ideas. I think we'll always have more questions to answer", which isn't that interesting. With the current phrasing it reads like a middlebrow dismissal.
The fact that you failed to even give lip service to peer review is strange maybe speaks to your understanding of professional science.
I don't find it unsettling but it's not particularly interesting. You can view epicycles as detour before Copernicus, I think that's more of the sense of what Wolfram is referring to as a detour.
5 Websites That Give You a Summary of Terms and Conditions
I was going to make a joke about the there no longer being a need for servers as we have the "cloud".

Then i read the article...
Maybe this bit? "potential connection to a Soviet Cold War-era structure, the Duga over-the-horizon radio antenna"
Never Forget an Idea Again with the Feynman Technique [pdf]
Strangers Drowning: Voyages to the Brink of Moral Extremity
First you'll get the one, then the other. Elon Musk and Gates are hardcore egotists. Charles Koch was just trying to live up to his father's expectations. He's stated that his guiding principle is economic consumer surplus.

I won't excuse the whole "killer instinct" thing they all have in common. It's just how humans sometimes work.

Don't get me wrong - Koch et al is a weird company but there's room for that, too. W.R.T energy I hope you're right but it moves slowly.
This is a distinction without difference. You could've also said, "Startups have fewer employees" for instance.

How does the urge to grow separate a startup from a business in the desire to obtain low cost debt?
A more cautious approach would be to open boarders selectively to people who have demonstrated whatever "talent" is deemed to be economically useful.

Of course, many wealthy countries do this already (including the United States).
Not OP but I prefer to re-type rather than copy-paste because too often when I copy paste I discover that I forgot to change something.
Depends on a programmer I guess. I'm pretty confused by the Ruby version and I can do Ruby in anger. I'd also use maps rather than each if I was writing it.
Using Light to Simulate Time Travel
What you are describing is a pretty poor pairing interview process. I did a bunch of really frustrating whiteboard type interviews and sudo pairing interviews like you describe before interviewing for my current position [1].

The screen is a one hour onsite pairing session followed by a final round that is a day of pairing using a proper workstation: One computer, two monitors and two sets of mice/keyboards. You pair with one person in the morning and another in the afternoon. It's very relaxed (you take turns "driving") and it gives you and the interviewers a lot more information about each other and your potential place of work. It also gives you enough time to adjust to the process if you are nervous. I don't think I'd do it any other way going forward.

[1] http://pivotal.io/careers
"I have a hobby business in a niche where I've seen a few small entrepreneurs take pre-orders (often 50% down payments), spend the money, go broke, and face a bunch of angry customers. They can't deliver product, and they can't refund the money."

Yes, and then the Federal Trade Commission dumps on you for violating the 30 Day Rule, which covers refunds and delays.[1]

In the early days of the Internet, many little companies ran into this. They put up a web site and started taking orders on line. But in those days, the online ordering system was usually disconnected from inventory control and fulfillment. A successful product could suddenly generate far more paid orders than the seller could fill. Instead of the seller refunding the money after the 60 day limit like they're supposed to, they held onto it, hoping to catch up later. (After 30 days, you have to notify the customer they can get their money back, and refund them if they ask. After 60 days, you have to refund even if the customer doesn't ask.)

Kickstarter is sort of a gimmick to get around the 30-Day Rule, by explicitly dumping more risk on the buyer. That doesn't always work for the seller.[2]

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/bus...
[2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/feds-take-first-a...
Not quite. Raising capital could just be seen as massing liquid assets so you have the funds to finance your business, which could take the form of debt, equity, or just a plain transfer of assets for nothing.

With equity financing, the company transfers partial ownership of the company in the form of shares so that they can gain the capital. Having shares in a company does not automatically give you future revenues. Unless you cash out your shares in the secondary market (if it's still a private company), you are not going to see those future revenues directly. If there's an exit (IPO/acquisition) or a share buyout, that would be the only other time you would see your shares turn into a liquid asset. The value of your shares will not increase unless those events occur or if the value of the company has objectively increased through a higher valuation which in the private market is through another financing round.
Quantum dots could bridge gap between electronic and quantum computers
Data Science: An Action Plan for Expanding  Statistics (2001) [pdf]
I'm trying to think how the simple/complex from this talk compare to the simple/complex from "Simple Made Easy".

The part about how features should be orthogonal does seem similar to the "not entangled" (and to DRY / SRP).

The part about visible surface area -- garbage collection is "simple" because you can't explicitly talk to it -- seems to be a closer match for "easy" tho, as do the examples (smell test: anything with "and" in the name probably means there are entangled concepts).

...huh. Which means that his concept of "simple" does in fact contain multiple things entangled together, or in other words is complicated. ;-)
A good reason to use list comprehension for simple things though is that you can sometimes quickly change [...] to (...) and get an equivalent generator. With a loop, you'd have to extract it into a separate yielding function.
"The Duga systems were extremely powerful, over 10 MW in some cases, and broadcast in the shortwave radio bands. They appeared without warning, sounding like a sharp, repetitive tapping noise at 10 Hz, which led to it being nicknamed by shortwave listeners the Russian Woodpecker."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duga_radar

http://www.brogers.dsl.pipex.com/Wpecker5.html
It's definitely a new skill on top of sitting alone and writing code. You can practice by doing some pair programming at your current workplace, with a friend, or at a coding meetup.

Edit: it may also mean the company you are interviewing at does pair programming. If you don't like pair programming, the interview is a good time to bring it up!
There's absolutely nothing that indicates the date on the article. But I appreciate the note.
Then why can't the talent be leveraged elsewhere? We all know that capital moves around quite easily.

So, what makes some places more effective at turning talent into wealth than others? Could be a lot of things, for sure. But, my guess is that it's mainly 'culture'. And, once all those new people come, that culture is no more.
Hawaii Court Rescinds Permit to Build Thirty Meter Telescope
I strongly disagree with this notion of "simplicity" as being attributable to scarcity of language features. Some of the languages that I felt were the easiest to use had quite a number of language features, but had simple semantics. I think Rich Hickey nailed this in his "Simple Made Easy"[1] talk. Complexity is not about additivity, it's about entanglement.

[1] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
"Moving forward, we look to integrate more technology and hardware (like our painting robot, or advanced machine learning) directly into the actual painting process."

The Turing test of robot painting in this instance: "would I pay the same amount if the artwork was done by a robot?"
How much do you read the Washington Post? Personally, I wouldn't put it on a pedestal.

Take this example from a quick Google search (admittedly it's a partisan source) http://www.thenation.com/article/eleven-years-how-washington...

Personally, as a DC native now living far away, I think a citizenry reading WaPo seems like a frightening bunch of conformists. Yes I am aware of what they did in the 70s. Different paper now.
You're moving the goalposts from what the article claims.

The opponent's strategy is unknown and unspecified, per the puzzle. The point of the article is that there is a strategy that never does worse than chance, and may do better, depending on the opponent's choice of numbers. Sure, the opponent can make your advantage arbitrarily small - the article says that directly. But the notion that they are trying to do so is not part of the puzzle, and finding a strategy that prevents them from doing so is not what the author claims to have done.
The mere presence of choice incurs a tangible mental cost, even if that choice is not exercised.

In the case of programming languages, this is not only a development cost, it's a maintenance cost as well. But this concept seems to apply to many more things than just programming.
This calls to mind the (ongoing) MST3K Kickstarter, and his explanation of how much of the first couple million is going to fees + fulfillment of awards. At the level I pledged, I would love to dismiss the physical awards and just have the digital movie copies. But I can't.
Ask HN: Should I write a lean business plan for a social startup?
One of the co-founders is very big into "lean" and doesn't think any type of business plan should be written, while another co-founder believes at least some sort of light (or "lean") plan should be written. If that is the case, should the lean business plan be written as an internal compass for the founders or directed at early potential investors?
That was without a doubt one of the worst start-up horror stories I have ever read. It was so bad that I went back and edited this comment four times.

Complete ineptitude by ever facet of the company, and I'm sure to this day each member of the (please let it be) dead company is pointing the finger across the table at someone else.
I would love to go to WWDC. However isn't having the honor of paying the 2k or so a bit like winning lotto? I mean - since you have to enroll to be (hopefully) selected as one of the lucky few who can attend, and if you're selected you're allowed to pay them to attend?

I have been a solo mac developer for the past 15 years or so (you can see my stuff at http://macdaddy.io), and I have never been able to attend a WWDC. It does strike me as unfair when I see other companies having the opportunity to attend, getting advice and recognition, and then getting featured by Apple and so forth. I have seen other companies allowed to have their apps on the mac app store which require root access, while I write a competing app data recovery app and it's never allowed on the mac app store - only to see that they blogged about attending WWDC and rubbing shoulders with the right people at Apple. Sometimes I feel that I write good software, but I lack the political connections to make real progress.
> Regarding Haskell specifically, Haskell makes it cumbersome to write code that mutates data structures

Can you provide some Haskell examples that are cumbersome, then provide an example that isn't in another language of your choice?

Also, have you tried using lens for this?
China to Build “Higgs Factory” Twice the Size of Cern’s Large Hadron Collider
However, those are western civilizations which value rationality and equality. Rationality and equality (and inclusiveness) aren't values in a great many cultures.
I'm just guessing based on my experience with Amazon's Kinesis Client Library (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/kinesis/latest/dev/developing-con...), but it probably means that you write something as a package with certain public methods, and they have a wrapper around it that knows how to invoke it. That's how KCL integrates with the languages that it supports.
The building is a good point. I remember when living at a student housing co-op we were planning (or had already signed a contract, I forget) to put solar panels on the roof. A developer wanted to put in a bunch of 25-story buildings in the lot next to us, which would have cast a shadow on our panels. We brought it up when the planning was discussed at the town council. I'm not sure what happened as I moved away shortly after that.
> it's basically a few really awesome modern features in a massive graveyard of failed academic initiatives that are now enshrined in the lore of the language because one or two useful libraries used them.

Err... can you qualify this? Based on my knowledge of Haskell this isn't a fair assessment at all.
But if it doesn't block RF people are still receiving incoming calls and texts with ridiculous ringtones, which has got to be annoying, even to professionals.
This seems like a warning sign for all horizontal companies that claim to solve AI/CV/ML in X years. If you don't focus on a specific vertical, Google will beat you.
> This is subjective, but having tried Elm with its Haskellish type system, it seems that the type system makes me think hard about things that ultimately don't matter much. It might depend on your problem, but I doubt it. Even doing numerical computation with Theano I find myself better off just executing subexpressions and seeing results and the shape of the tensors interactively is more useful than thinking really hard how the operations transform the shape.

If it is true that the type system, perhaps static type systems in general, make you think hard about things that ultimately don't matter much... why not go for the most dynamic and interactive language possible? Clojure perhaps.

I've been toying with the idea that either fully dynamic and as interactive as possible or full dependent typing is the generally right answer.

By right, I mean what you should reach for with most programming tasks if you aren't going to put effort into selecting one tailored to your task.
More info about it (from priyom.org):

---

Location: Rostov-na-Donu, Russia, 47°17'58"N 39°40'25"E (72th communication hub, callsign Akaciya), South Military District main command network

Antenna (StreetView): https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2985646,39.6750428,3a,75y,32...

Occasionally voice messages are sent in various formats, main purpose is to send command messages for South Military District of Russia.

Here is what an operator station looks like:

http://priyom.org/media/124724/akaciya.jpg

And it uses the traditional Russian military Monolith format:

http://priyom.org/military-stations/russia/monolyth-messages...
Short Strapless A-Line La Femme Prom Dress