skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore.

Uh. I'm not twisting anything, bro. My information came from the International Business Times article that I linked to earlier.

I also expect that you haven't read the franchise agreement entered into by Provo and Google [0] or the Fiber Lease agreement [1] or the Asset Purchase agreement [2] or the Network Services agreement. [3]

If we read through those (and I strongly encourage you to do so), we discover that the only thing that the International Business Times got wrong was the claim that Google was going to be taking on the financial liabilities of Veracity Networks LLC (the previous company that was in charge of running, managing, and maintaining iProvo) [4]. I could see why they mixed that up... the language in the Excluded Assets section is slightly tortured.

> A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google.

Are you basing this on more than just the single complaint from CenturyLink?

Look. Google has proven that they're both able to and serious about deploying gigabit municipal networks and pricing access to those networks at a rate that kicks the shit out of anything any other commercial ISP offers.

Read the official agreements. You'll see that they're all bog-standard. Actually dig in to Google Fiber's performance and track record (rather than just skimming the froth from some pundit's clickbait). Do some research and discover that what Google is doing today should have been done in the mid 1990's [5], except nationwide. Most of the entities who are scrambling to counter or stop Google (and -generally- municipally-operated fiber) now are the ones who reneged on those promises decades ago. (But were more than happy to retain the incentives and tax breaks.)

Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? :)

[0] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298

[1] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300

[2] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296

[3] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304

[4] I bet you weren't aware that there was a commercial entity running Provo's network before Google Fiber came in. ;)

[5] Albeit at 40->100mbit symmetric.

[6] http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5176637...

[7] Namely, Provo switching the manager, maintainer, and upgrader of iProvo from Veracity Networks to Google Fiber.
Agen Taruhan-Striker Manchester City Wilfried Bony Telah Meninggalkan
Why did you disable fullscreening the youtube video on the page of Collider?
I take it you don't care much for employees that do things besides programming? Like I dunno.. hobbies, and family, and stuff?

Call me lazy if you wish but I almost never want to program during the weekend. That time is better spent with family, or playing games, or washing the car. Or something. Anything really. If I come into work having burned my brain out over the weekend programming something, then I don't produce results that satisfy me. Hehe.
At no point does the author elaborate on why failing to start if the environment isn't sane is a bad thing. All my software checks for the things it expects to be in place, then bails hard and fast if they aren't.

It's then up to the init daemon to attempt to restart that process, and up to the monitoring and orchestration tools to ensure that the environment returns to sanity over time.
I wasn't aware of that. Where I live, in a mountainous area of Thailand, we have lots of bats, small insect eaters to large fruit eaters. It's quite a show around sundown watching them swoop overhead.

We also have lots of mosquitoes and the population sure isn't dwindling. We've got the aedes aegypti and there have been a few cases of dengue in my area. I don't think bats are going to solve the problem.
By we I mean humanity, not the authors of the paper. They tended to hide behind sciencese in regards the significance of their work and didn’t go too much into its importance - the English don’t like to boast in public about themselves :)

What is important is they have showed how you can achieve extinction - we have known for a while that it was possible in theory, but there has not been a practical way of achieving this. We now have a practical way doing this - basically there are no limit to the number of genes you can target with the CRISPR-Cas9 driver system. Target enough and the species goes extinct.

If this approach is implemented it will save millions of people - every day we delay means another 3000 people die.
I run a plex server and share with 12 people. A few months ago I asked everyone to watch the same shows in SD and 720P and pick if the 720P version was worth the extra bandwidth and the size of my library being drastically reduced. Three people picked the 720p option. But they were the three that watch very little.

Movies were different. I did the same thing but with 720p and 1080p versions of movies. The majority wanted 1080p even if it meant a smaller library.
I implied it only, but yes that I believe that was the goal.
Absolutely amazing, changed the way I look at the society, will re-read:

- George Orwell, Keep the Aspidistra Flying

Loved:

- Alastair Reynolds, House of Suns

- Andy Weir, The Martian

- Neal Stephenson, Seveneves

- Greg Egan, Teranesia

Liked:

- Arthur C. Clarke, 3001: The Final Odyssey

- Arthur C. Clarke, 2061: Odyssey Three

- Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Laws

- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

- Jonathan Slack, Stem Cells: A Very Short Introduction

- John Scalzi, Fuzzy Nation (bought the audiobook for Wil Wheaton's narration)

- Ray Monk, Robert Oppenheimer: A Life Inside the Center

- Alastair Reynolds, Revelation Space

- David C. Cassidy, Beyond Uncertainty: Heisenberg, Quantum Physics, and the Bomb

Found full of BS, did not finish:

- Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power

Textbooks:

- order of 10^3 pages of Open University textbooks

- Klauber, Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory

- Feynman & Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals

- Wald, General Relativity (5 chapters)

- Peskin & Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (5 chapters)

Not as bad as I felt before making the list, but underwhelming in terms of quantity. I intend to read a whole lot more in 2016.
In NZ the stations don't go "All Christmas" but they do play a lot of Christmas Music. The easy-listening station in my local cafe was probably play 50% Christmas music for the last 2 weeks.

"Snoopy's Christmas" is the local cult Christmas song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-hWZGIWe_U
I wonder if simulated saccading would address this problem?

Rank the image by entropy, and re-run the neural network centered on those points with a radially-increasing gaussian blur applied to the subimage (approximating the sensitivity of the human visual field).
I was amused by "The authors promote using dozens or hundreds of compiler passes, each being as simple as possible."

That's kind of a desperation move. There was a COBOL compiler for the IBM 1401 with about 79 passes.[1] They only had 4K or so of memory, but they had fast tape drives, so each pass read the previous intermediate form, did some processing on it, and wrote out the next intermediate form. Except for the passes which did sorts.

[1] http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/ibm/140x/C2...
Music creates very strong connections like you've said, even showing it can help patients with dementia (https://musicandmemory.org/). I've sung and listened to Christmas music all month long.

I agree it is in vogue to be disinterested in Christmas. Not so much from advertisers but I've felt a lot less "happy" feelings this holiday season from the people in the stores I've visited. Like pulling teeth to hear a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah from anyone. No one seems to know what to do, what won't get them in trouble, or no one is celebrating any holiday at all. Do you have any ideas on why you think that is happening?

This is extreme, but I can't think of a milder way to say it. <rant>Why hate on Christmas? Do they hate on Hanukkah? Do they hate good will toward each other? Peace on Earth? How can you hate something that is generally a good message? Why not just let folks have their happy celebrations? Isn't that the idea behind tolerance for others? Must they hold someone else down to push themselves up?</rant> whew! Sorry about all that.

I'm reminded of The Offspring "It's cool to hate" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRJzErnRmY
Overall I was not disappointed. Which was the main thing for me. But I did have a few minor issues with it.

The whole movie looked very distinctly like Star Wars, but only the second half actually felt like Star Wars. (I haven't figured out why yet)

It's way to mild in terms of violence. It was like Narnia, in that all the violence was only alluded to but you never actually see anything violent. Especially the scene where Han Solo dies. You don't see the lightsaber go through him, you only see it behind him. This ruined the effectiveness of the scene for me.
This contributed to another thing I didn't like about the film. It didn't have the same darkness and grit of Episodes 1-4 (and to a lesser degree 5 and 6) that I really liked.

There were a few too many scenes that were made just for the nostalgia, and they seemed a bit forced.

Other than that, I enjoyed the film very much.
Had this installed for almost a year now. Great tool.
32 bytes, i.e. 256 bits, which is why the curve is called P256.
I am probably missing something obvious, but why is he "the admiral"?
> When bookies get shut down, the customers don't get their money back.

Recent history would indicate otherwise: http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/pokerstars-processing-u-s-play...
Thanks for the link. That article mentions a plan where A) a vector species is eliminated and B) the species is repopulated from "clean" populations that have been simultaneously been kept alive in a lab/farm. Supposedly this will eradicate the parasite and its host while (probably?) allowing the reintroduction of the host species in the future without all the nasty parasites.

I suppose if the parasite rears its head again you could try rinse & repeat or just eradicate the host species and not bother to give them another chance via repopulation from a clean source.

EDIT: This eradicate everything, followed by a reintroduction of a "clean" population certainly sounds nicer than plain eradication. I worry about how an ecosystem can gracefully handle a rapid fire extinction/reduction and reintroduction.

Even if that isn't feasible, we would behoove ourselves to think about creating a Naughty Species Bank of populations of species we want to eradicate, before we actually attack that species. I'd be worried that we cannot re-introduce the original species if (when?) we encounter an "Oops... turns out that was a bad idea..." situation.
I haven't read the Nanopass Framework paper, but...

The idea of doing tons of compiler passes works well in a functional context, where functional separation i the preferred method of abstraction, and you can use composition to effectively transform all your passes into a single pass.

However, actually doing that many passes seems like it is going to end badly. Even if you don't touch disk, you're doing mean things to the memory subsystem...
>The article starts off by talking about trying to run legacy applications and then just casually tells you to modify the source code to solve all your problems. Not everything you want to run in a container is something which you want to modify.

I think it goes without saying that practicality/pragmatism trumps convention or philosophy every time. I suppose the question we have to ask ourselves every day is "are we being resistant to change or are we being pragmatic?" Anyway, he does cover this when he mentions applications you don't have control over. So I'm not sure it's a fair criticism. This post seems to be aimed directly at developers or people with the latitude to effect change with them.
I Love it when Prime is late. Open a chat and let them know you expected it on time and they always give money back or extend Prime. Either is OK by me for the day or two it is late. I even let them off the hook for any tardiness around the holidays.
> Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted

That's rather misleading. As noted in the Wikipedia article on "global cooling" [1], which I know you are aware of because you cited it in the original version of your comment:

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific
community, but gained temporary popular attention due
to a combination of a slight downward trend of
temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press
reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of
the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger
and faster-growing body of literature projecting future
warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who did support it generally did so not because they thought global warming was wrong. They just thought that smog levels would continue rising faster than greenhouse gas levels, so that the cooling affect that smog causes would be more significant than the warming effect greenhouse gases cause.

Their only mistake was not anticipating that we would actually start taking air pollution seriously enough to not only stop the smog rise but reverse it. Since the '70s smog levels have come way down.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Popular enough to take a chunk of a 26BN market: http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Health/story?id=814864&page=...
Ok, I see my misunderstanding. Gene driving takes both genetic engineering, like the process you pointed to initially, and it would require a catch-and-(selective)-release approach that works on guiding sexual reproduction (sorta like domestication, not gene therapy). (Aside: This reminds me of the TED talk https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate... )

It makes a lot more sense to me when looking at it on a population level, rather than genetic. Emphasizing gene-level enhancements seems to inspire a "one-and-done approach" view, when as in the paper you added, its authors note several open questions they want to answer later (like these two):

* How can large numbers of high-quality modified insects be reared economically? In this context, how can insect quality be assessed?

* How should potential risks relating to the long-term instability/evolution of self-sustaining genetic elements be investigated, assessed and mitigated?

It seems, they have eyes bigger than their stomachs.

I will keep my eyes open to new tools from a wide range of fields. Influencing mosquito populations' genetics seems worthwhile, long-term. To get behind it, I simply want to see some practical approaches, like some phenotypic sorting tools, and some studies showing good mosquito DNA diffs. As related to this article, how/when could this work at scale in all parts of Earth mentioned here?
...and no explicit native macro system either (lot can be laid atop it of course...).
> make the software used and to encourage sharing of the source between developers

That's a very narrow interpretation of what RMS had in mind. Free software movement and its basic license GPL has always been about users' freedom and community.

Also, you're conflating open source and free software here. GPL is a license conceived by the free software movement.
>Just 40 years ago "global warming" was called "global cooling", and an ice-age apocalypse was predicted

No serious scientist ever thought we were going into an ice age 40 years ago.

>The good old thinking that you know everything and can't be wrong almost guarantees that you will be wrong.

Ad hominem arguments are not very helpful, but where exactly did I argue that I can’t be wrong? If you have an actual argument that shows I am wrong please post it. It has to be better than a warmed up precautionary principle.
Alpine Linux Docker Image. Win at Minimalism
> You go to log in to your Google account like normal, but instead of entering your email address and password, you provide just your email. Next, Google will provide a secret code — in Paul's case, the number 21 — and tell you to look at your phone.

> The Web giant will then send a message to your phone asking if you're trying to sign in. If you answer "yes," you'll then need to provide the secret code on your phone, and voila, you're in.

That looks a lot like a password to me. It's just much shorter because the trust in 2fa is higher.
Everyone stands on the shoulders of those who came before. Furthermore if you have a good idea the odds are extremely high that someone else has had the same idea. "Inventions" are almost never worth the name. Things generally follow a natural progression (at least in technology):

1. Some wild-eyed visionaries (sometimes from academia) come up with crazy visions of what computing might be like in the future. This vision is usually highly impractical, requiring vastly more compute power or vastly cheaper components than exist. Further the software is the quality you'd expect from academic professors (garbage) and barely works for a few minor demos. This is the pre-prototype phase.

2. Someone brings a more realistic version to market. Sometimes the first to market fails badly because they arrive too soon. The product is too limited or the market isn't ready yet.

3. Finally someone brings a version of the invention to market that is a sellable product.

What matters is execution.

Ericsson had a touch screen phone? So what. In high-school in the late 90s I had a PocketPC predating the Ericsson phone; it was fucking obvious back then that they'd add a cellular radio to it as soon as it became practical (I know, I carried a Windows Mobile phone for a while). They were all garbage. They took no risks. They didn't have the animation or feedback systems that made iOS so pleasant to use. None of them even pretended to offer a real web browser - it was WAP if anything. Everything before the iPhone was qualitatively and quantitatively inferior, even if it happened to have a janky plastic touch screen. They sure as hell weren't running slimmed down desktop operating systems with fully-featured frameworks. They ran whatever software your carrier deigned to offer at vastly inflated prices.

There's a good reason the engineers at Blackberry thought the iPhone was a faked demo. There's a good reason Apple waltz in and completely upended and transformed the cellular industry.

Of course this all ignores that Apple had the Newton because it doesn't matter who had something first. It matters who can productize that thing and sell it to customers for money.
Ugh, you're link lead me to "Christmas celebrations banned in Somalia, Tajikistan and Brunei" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/christmas-banne...

Not sure what I'd have to do, but I'd never want any religious celebration banned like that in the USA.
There is a lot to be said for a language where a single edit somewhere in a program can't have snowballing effects across the entire codebase. In practice, that means deferring logic to the runtime...
If you want to get rich, your best bet on a risk-adjusted
basis is to join a profitable and growing public company.
Google for short. Make $200-500k all-in a year, work hard
and move up a level every 3-5 years, sell options as they
vest (in case you joined Enron), and retire at 60, rich.
This plan works every time.

I don't think this is great advise. Not everyone is able to join a company like Google due to either luck or their capabilities. I also find being rich around 60 years pointless, since you've wasted too much of your life working for "the man" at that point.

I think a better approach would be the following:

1. Become freelancer.

2. Do what you love and do it well. If you're passionate enough about your job you should be able to increase your rate over time.

3. In western european countries: aim for at least 100.000 EUR a year.

4. Live cheap and save up. Invest the cash you don't need at any moment in real estate (house) and index funds.

5. Travel around the world and find a nice cheap country you could enjoy your life in.

6. Emigrate once you have enough money to live comfortably in your country of choice.

---

That's my plan at least. Currently I'm on a 'holiday' (2 months) in Thailand. I figured the following:

- In Thailand one can live (bare minimum) for around 500 EUR a month (some Russians in my co-working space live from that amount).

- Property can be bought for around 50.000 EUR in Pattaya. Not really huge, but decent with shared gym and swimming pool in apartment complex.

- 100.000 EUR invested in indexfunds should net me on average around 6% a year after taxes, i.e. 6000 EUR a year or 500 EUR a month (7% historic average minus ~1% tax).

- With no monthly rent to pay, I'm should be able to live a bit more comfortably compared to my Russian co-workers here :)

- I could fully focus on personal software project and hopefully that will add to my income over time.

---

I won't be financially rich, but I would have financial independence and could do what a love in a country with nice weather, good food and nice people - it's another form of wealth.
I totally agree. Behavioral science needs an applied branch, and computer scientists are going to have a big role to play there.
Yes as long as we kept some of the species alive we could always choose to repopulate the environment later if it turned out some extremely unlikely catastrophic result occurred.

Personally I think the only good blood sucking mosquito is a dead one so I doubt I would want to see them back even if they didn’t kill people.
> I don't think this is great advise. Not everyone is able to join a company like Google due to either luck or their capabilities.

The original posts which prompted this one was centering around the super-engineer who can control their own destiny and work for any company they want. Nothing in this post applies to the average engineer.
The idea that anyone bothers to read patents to find ideas to steal is laughable, at least in the fast-moving tech industry.
I find it very useful in music production apps - press the pad harder, get a louder sound.
Apple isn't stupid... the only way to protect yourself from the patent minefield in cellular/mobile is to make sure you are involved deeply in the standards process and creating your own cellular radios, etc. Then you too can have a huge portfolio of patents to make sure none of the other large players can hassle you.
There was a fairly decent discussion about this last time around:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10296505
There's no discipline needed, the kind I'm talking about aren't (easily) removable.