skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I posted this article. It is rather long but answered questions I had on new financial partnerships.
What?

I was talking about my statement at the upper comment. I used x++ there, not ++x. The doubt is about the value of the other x.

The difference you talk is about the main behavior of the operators. You won't find any description of them that does not state it.
Why I Don’t Rely on Time Machine
why? the signed cert is on your disk in 2 seconds. just request it on the fly. what's your use case for wildcard certs?
Better to use emacs/slime with Meta-x slime-connect and ssh port forwarding.
Isn't so easy compared to what? Complaining? Sure, but the research I work on is way harder than this for me… as well as a host of ill defined problems that require way more than just being able to write software…

Nothing you mention isn't uncommon for any decent size project. It shouldn't act as a deterrent for expanding ones horizons, and implementing something you want done where there will be no chance in hell it will be added/removed upstream in any decent amount of time for free (10-40 min, but you don't have to compile the whole project while debugging… I made some mods in dom/base/ and netwerk/protocol/http as well as other places, and neither took more than 10-20 seconds to compile standalone while debugging). I tend to think security is mostly security theater anyways for what its worth. So many ways to get owned, and the user is usually the weakest link… and if you are targeted and don't know it, game over…

And if its boring for someone, they obviously don't have enough motivation, but maybe just enough to moan. Then again, the only user I have to support is myself for the things I want in the browser instead of a bunch of people who will probably never push a line of code with their complaints masquerading as requests… yeah, I can see how that can get boring.
They might help build more urban areas. Low cost per mile rides can shift a bunch of people that are currently making car first choices over to making car second choices.

This is what happens in much of the US, it is utterly impractical to not have a car, so people make their choices in the context of having a car. Make the car less important and there is at least a chance they will make different decisions.
> Linux and Windows default to strong hinting, and MacOS X uses only slight hinting, preferring accurate shapes to sharpness.

I know you already know these things, but for the sake of discussion (or other people).

Linux allows you configure hinting. It's true that by default (depending on how you define default) you get no hinting, but no reasonable distribution that I know of has shipped with that default for the past 7 years. Quite the opposite in my experience. Linux fonts (thankfully) look more like OS X fonts than Windows fonts.

Unfortunately, this configuration usually happens in some Gnome/Unity/XFCE/KDE configuration format, so if you want to use a better window manager with no DE, you sometimes have to recreate this from scratch, although, as someone who obsesses over font rendering and doesn't like the DEs, this is easier now than in 2000.

And then you have Google Chrome who just ships with its own font rendering. Gah.
Is this good or bad from a societal point of view?

It seems like a way to try to calculate and thereby eliminate risk, would be an overall beneficial thing. But then it also seems to make insurance less effective overall.

Let's not think about big "evil" insurance companies for a moment. Say there are 10 Amish guys who want to form a risk pool to provide emergency health care for their families. They were just about to finalize the contract when one of them proposes that they take a medical exam beforehand. It transpires that one of them has lung cancer. Why would the other nine allow the poor guy to partake in their risk pooling?

If you eliminate risk you also eliminate the need for insurance. This seems like a good thing. But then you also leave a bunch of people helpless.

It's an interesting ethical question.
I've never found a use for std::tuple. It comes with a lot of inconvenience without providing much power.

Boost Fusion on the other hand is extremely powerful. It's relatively straightforward, for example, to write a function that takes a std::function<R(A,B,C) and returns a new function<R(vector<string>) that performs argument count checking and lexical interpretation before invoking it. Doing that with std::tuple would be a mission.
Ex options trader here. Something about the ingenuity of this scheme is familiar.

So basically they make two firms, and each quarter swap which firm is doing the business in order to get privileges that only firms that haven't traded much in the previous period would earn. I wonder how they thought the SEC would not find this out, that there's two companies outside a financial centre with owners of the same name and birthdate, alternating their trades.

I wonder if it's going to be considered a loophole that will be closed or an abuse. I suppose it could be either.

The other thing, gaming the algos, I have a good idea of how it might have happened.

You see, options people (the ones I know) are not as technologically sophisticated as stock people or futures people. Many of them rely on quite simple systems to quote their orders. Several of these are off-the-shelf systems with functions you'd expect: an autotrader than joins the BBO in some size, on every single option, not particularly fast either. This works fine most of the time because options traders are not overly concerned with the action on a specific option; they need to know their delta/gamma/vega, and those can all be thrown in a big bucket to be hedged as appropriate. The spread is normally quite wide, so as long as you're not being gamed on everything, you have ample room to lock in some profits.

People writing sophisticated algos (whom I also know) know how to do an ignore size, ie don't just blindly follow a tiny order.
Editorial: End the Gun Epidemic in America
ΡΟΛΟΙ+QQ+ATTRACTIVE+DA64J512Y
> (For me) it's mostly a transparency and trust issue. People widely suspected that it was Mozilla looking for another revenue source, they aggressively denied that money is involved.

And we still don't know that money is involved. ;)
But I agree the revenue sharing arrangement should have been communicated better / earlier.

> And now it turns out that there potentially is, but no details are published.

It's not unusual for contracts with for-profit companies that you're not allowed to make the details public. We still don't know the exact terms of the old contracts with Google or the new ones with Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu etc.

> I actually think that with the way they did the integration, they probably should have received money

Like I said, I don't think Pocket, the company, is big enough. Mozilla could probably have demanded a six-digit figure for integrating Pocket, but to what end? It's too little money to really matter and would have just inspired more "Mozilla is selling out!" rants.

> (Otherwise, why not do a generic "read later" button and a way for services to register instead of adding a single, proprietary service).

As you can imagine, there were discussions internally about whether there should be a provider-agnostic read-later button and I don't think anyone disagreed in principle, nor is that idea dead now. Integrating Pocket first was just the cheapest and quickest way to ship something to users.
> And we have a name for contractual agreements with everyone in a society. We call them "laws".

Except that no one asked us if we agreed. Without mutual agreement, there is no contract. In reality, laws are commands that we're punished for disobeying.

Tell me, what's the practical difference between getting punished for disobeying a King's or Emperor's law, and getting punished for disobeying a law written by politicians or bureaucrats somewhere?

Then there's the problem that governments don't actually adhere to their own laws anyway. NSA's surveillance is unconstitutional. That's not a problem for them, but if you disobey laws, you will be punished one way or another.

Who do you think you're kidding?
Indeed - I was thinking how convenient this is for the NSA and FBI.
Maxwell’s demon faces the heat
Switzerland, Zurich | (Senior) .NET, C# | Full-time | Remote possible

We are building a virtual reality lab for schools and colleges.

The dev team in Zurich is being build from scratch. Salary is at least 100k+ CHF per year. This amounts to 7k CHF per month in net-salary due to the low taxes (Google for "reasons why to move to switzerland" for more info). We look for .NET / C# senior devs. Bonus points if you have experience with Oculus Rift, WPF, Silverlight, Unity.

Mail our hiring team, if you want to get more information: whoishiring@gmx.ch.
Just put insurance in the public sphere, and we don't need to contend with these parasitic corporations who profit of people's health.
Maybe I could see annoyance about the perceived dependency on Let's Encrypt. If someone is used to setting it for multiple years, then feeling like the transaction is complete for a long while, then LE could appear too involved. It's almost like the server needs a permanent attachment to an organization, to keep pinging to ask permission to exist on the web. If everyone goes 100% HTTPS/2, with automated renewal, then one could imagine a possible scenario where Let's Encrypt going out of service would break large chunks of the web. Or gives them too much power to selectively deny renewal and break sites with unattentive admins.

I'd be a little hesitant to switch commercial or critical sites to using Let's Encrypt right now. But overall, no, I like automated renewal. I think I'd choose to get a new certificate monthly, instead of 3 months. The provider I was using before with very low prices requires me to go through a manual process through their website. The main feature to me that'll cause me to switch is being able to set it and forget it. With automated monthly renewals, the 90 day expiry is extra buffer in case something goes wrong.
The distinction between spoofing and market making is very clear. When a market maker puts an order on both sides of the market the would absolutely love it if both orders traded. That is, in fact, how they make money. In general they would love every single order they put in to trade, so long as it happens in the right order.

When a spoofer puts in a spoofed order, that order is all cost. Under no scenario do they want that order to trade. The hard distinction to make in this case is not between normal market making behavior and spoofing, but between normal hedging behavior and spoofing. Hedges look like pure costs, but they are costs you are happy to pay to give up some risk. So spoofing all comes down to intent, which seems pretty easy to prove when you have chat transcripts.

Whether spoofing should be illegal is another discussion, and probably one the legislature should have, but for now while it is illegal, it should be aggressively enforced as if it's not, it incentivizes the bad actors.
I think of this:

http://www.craigflint.com/graphics/illustrations/justsoeleph...
Autonomous drive is a novel idea but doesn't really provide any real solution. Most important selling point at the moment is that you could take the time spent in car and spend it doing something else such as your work while the car drives itself (i.e. is stuck in the traffic).

However if the real problem we want to look at is the overall stupidity of traffic congestion that is extremely a) energy inefficient, b) time consuming c) unenvironmental d) space intensive

the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time?
It seems that urban city planning has really gone horribly wrong with all the businesses and companies packing into the "business district". The direct consequences in terms of economy and environmental pollution not to mention direct impact on individual life (time wasted in a car...) are dire.

In order to really solve the problem of traffic congestion the ultimate solution is to disperse with this silly need. If people are really required at a place physically (i.e. cannot do their work remotely) urban cities should become decentralized with several business hubs closer to the suburbuan areas.

Failing that a secondary solution is to increase the efficiency of the transit. One derp sitting in his Ford Thunderfuck XL EarthDestroyer 5600 is incredibly stupid. Like the author of the commented a train is massively more efficient, has higher throughput and scales better. I know americans (and aussies) consider this to be an inferior mode of transport, they rather sit in their cars. But I personally don't really understand this. I'd never accept a commute that would take more than 15 minutes. My life and time is simply too precious for that.
Show HN: Yout – YouTube to Mp3, Internet DVR
I've been learning docker on an old 64bit IBM designed for XP using the a newish version of lubuntu.

There are still some things that make it unintuitive and in my view incomplete (eg. a command to copy/cut/paste/delete volumes).

A couple things I've found out: You should definitely use the Overlay FS driver as soon as possible; don't use DeviceMapper. Also, It can be convenient to use data volume containers but watch out for orphaned files in /var/lib/docker/tmp and always use -v.
Why would you think he wasn't? Many anecdotes mention him micromanaging minute details, and many of the things he mentions in keynotes are highly technical as well as low-level.
One of the best inspirations you can get for what you could build to score a home-run is to read science fiction. The older the better in a way, because those ideas may be just viable today. In general reading is a great source of inspiration but SF has a special place in that it is forward looking by definition and has/had some pretty creative people doing all the groundwork.
> By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free

Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done.

But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should.

The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.
We all make mistakes. Yet if we're talking about safety, then we're talking about danger, and that means something specific. Social impairment makes people awkward, it does not make them dangerous. Taking offense at such awkwardness is itself a problem IMO. This is why you cannot take a complaint at face value without corroboration and allowing people to self-correct.

We have all found ourselves on the wrong side of social mores and codes. The thing is, some of us move rapidly back, and others sit there happily, and on purpose.
>The organizers shall be aware of the risk of "date rape" drugs.

I'd love to see sensor hardware combined with computer vision techniques employed to combat this problem.

Smart glassware already exists, but a major caveat is that it doesn't catch the perpetrator.
Is it possible to run out of empathy?
I'm tired of downvotes without explaination. You don't see a problem with a new automation that when breaks basically brings down your website? Or any problem with letsencrypt basically giving you only <90 days to generate a cert with somebody else?

I also really want to have the argument for improved security. Because a compromised host can now generate new certs for himself at zero cost as well, so what's the real point behind the 90 day limit? Giving NSA less time to crack your key?

Thanks for clarifying.
Physicists Are Desparate to Be Wrong About the Higgs Boson
> externalities are not handled well by entities that, by definition, have no incentive to care about them

Entities like rulers, perhaps? You know "campaign contributions" are an euphemism for bribes, don't you?

When the people who you think are preventing externalities get bribed, they actually have an incentive to not care about them.

> You can call them "rulers" if you like, but then you'd be ignoring the concept of democracy.

What exactly am I ignoring? The idea that you can affect something by dropping a piece of paper into a box? That belief is extremely convenient for the people who are in no way bound by that act, you know?

> Except you don't support "voluntary" anything, because you're talking about property rights.

Do you sincerely think the main reason why people don't steal from others is that they'd be punished for it?

> As long as there is scarcity, there will inevitably be coercion in the distribution of resources.

That's probably true in the sense that someone somewhere will rob someone regardless, but.. if you actually have a problem with "coercion in the distribution of resources", then you just can't sanely support the idea of an organization that coerces potentially hundreds of millions of people in how their resources are "distributed".
BTW: SBCL won't work an all VPS.
That's my favourite argument for nationalized health care (insurance)! _Everyone_ pays the insurance and so the risks can be accounted for actuarially without leaving anyone behind.
The problem with enhanced LinkedIn API access
We recently submitted a developer application request for our product https://leadferry.com

What our product does is automate content marketing activities. For example posting updates on LinkedIn page, sponsoring updates, doing campaign analysis etc.

We got a rejection mail today. Here's what they said.

"Thanks for submitting your request for enhanced API access through the LinkedIn developer site. We reviewed the information provided in your application and determined that your use case does not qualify for enhanced API access. "

On digging deeper into the terms of use (https://developer.linkedin.com/legal/api-terms-of-use), it seems they don't allow "Applications used by marketers or their customers for marketing campaigns, lead generation, campaign analysis, or for anything with similar functionality"

Now, why would a company be against apps that help them do campaign analysis? Does LinkedIn want only one source of truth to exist- LinkedIn? As it is CPC/CPM rates on LinkedIn are among the highest of any networks. Do they fear programmatic ad buying can result in lower revenues?

This seems to be a very short sighted mentality. By shutting access to developers, what does LinkedIn aim to accomplish? Apple/Android couldn't have succeeded without the app store/play store apps.
The protocol I describe is almost entirely about procedure. Was that not clear, or not detailed enough?

Removing incentive and opportunity means recognizing what creates risk for participants, and reducing that. Which I also did try to cover.
The first 100% electrically powered Porsche is on its way
The Secret of Successful Anchor Text for SEO – SEO Basics
I should probably switch to Apache. :-/
> We don't need to; we already know how it looks like.

So you think we're now experiencing too little draconian legislation then?
Was on bus yesterday for first time in close to decade, 65℅-70% of users where sat on their phones the entire way without ever looking up, it was actually quite fascinating to notice.
...or modern, seemingly intelligent Western people believing in homeopathy. You don't have to look far, superstition and pseudo-science is still as prevalent as in the 'dark' ages.
> The term "bad actors" is a convenient euphemism for sub-clinical psychopaths.

Nice example of dehumanizing the enemy. We now have our very own untermenschen.

> It will speak to bad actors and say, clearly: you are welcome as long as you act decent. Otherwise, we are watching, and we will catch you.

Is this why we, a bunch of adults, congregate in technical conferences? So we can hunt down the "baddies", play the policing game, recycle some old presentations so we can feel good about our technological choices and at the same time pat ourselves on the back for finally being able to bully someone as a group?
Uber is planning to raise $2.1 bn for investment in India, China
OK, there were three bullets in the middle of the "protocol" that dealt with procedure. ("The organizers shall provide as secure ..." through "... privacy of all parties"). But it belabours trivia ("collect time, place, name ...") and skips over substantial questions like burdens of proof, appeals, range of penalties, false complaints, violations of procedure. That's the meat & potatoes of law, amateur or professional.
From the linked compilation, here is a wonderful little game. http://atiaxi.itch.io/this-game-is-not-going-to-load-itself
Turkey City Lexicon – A Primer for SF Workshops
Rootstock: combining Bitcoin with Ethereum
Honestly, accidental discomfort is part of being grown up. To try to regulate that is IMO both patronizing and counter productive. We need some level of friction to socialize. A CoC that lets well-meant actions become crimes is worse than no CoC at all. I explain this in my article: certain people will use poorly-designed tools to harass.

The key to solving this mess is, and I stick by it, to separate accidental clumsiness from predatory behavior. There is no grey overlap.

Once you separate these two, you can teach people to trust each other much more, while being properly cynical of the small slice of predators.

This isn't hypothesis: we use this approach in our open source communities to encourage and thrive on honest mistake while watching for, and blocking predatory actions.

I may add a piece to the protocol along the lines of, "Tolerance means accepting that people make mistakes, and working with them instead of treating this as a violation."
If you insist that you know better and aren't trolling, explain why Lisp isn't used in the real world then?

CL is like the scripting languages in capacity and ease of development -- but more. And it is both faster and earlier than the 1990s, when those scripting languages started to grow like weeds. Why did Perl, Ruby, PHP et al eat CLs lunch?

(I've seen explanations that basically boil down to fashion, too many academics and/or fear of different syntax. They seems possible, but hardly a reason why a capable tool was ignored? New things did get big around that time frame -- e.g. OO and testing -- so conservatism... hardly?)
Any paper describing the actual idea or givnig any analysis ?
> the first real question to be asked really is, why does everyone need to commute to the same place in the same time?

> If people are really required at a place physically (i.e. cannot do their work remotely) urban cities should become decentralized with several business hubs closer to the suburbuan areas.

Yes, other business hubs are called "other cities" and "towns". There's a reason people pay a premium to pile into the same city, and you can't wish away the large benefits of density, both in terms of housing and in terms of businesses.
It's disquieting that this isn't sanctioned. There ought to be a law against this.
"The first character in the instructions has position 1, the second character has position 2"

This project seems awesome but playful -1 for non-zero-based-indexing :)

[Edit:]

another note (obviously I'm hooked).. This instruction isn't 100% parseable. It's not clear whether the desire is for three unique vowels need to appear or if three positions in the string need to be vowels. For instance, would 'aaa' qualify?

"It contains at least three vowels (aeiou only), like aei, xazegov, or aeiouaeiouaeiou"

[Edit Again: Nevermind... the test example 'aaa' clears it up]
You can still use Emacs+SLIME, Vim+Slimv or whatever. It's just mentioned because of the fact that sbcl does not have readline support (last time I looked).