skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's not the same thing at all. Listing a $1999 product for only $19.99 is clearly a mistake, not intentional on the part of the seller, and it is obvious to any reasonable person that the buyer must know that this was a mistake when purchasing it.

On the other hand, listing a product for fair market value and then cancelling when the market value skyrockets after the sale is not at all reasonable behavior. I assume there's some part of contract law that covers this sort of thing (since a sale is a form of contract).
How about more voting dimensions?
All of those quotes are conditioned on the premise that you're doing research which purports to be relevant to industry. In that context I agree with Matt.

> Now, I don't think all academic research has to be relevant to industry. In some sense, the best research (albeit the riskiest and often hardest to fund) is stuff going way beyond where industry is focused today. Many academics kind of kid themselves about how forward-thinking their work is, though. Working on biomolecular computation? That's far out. Working on building a faster version of MapReduce? Not so much. I'd argue most academics work on the latter kind of problem -- and that's fine! -- but don't pretend you're immune from industry relevance just because you're in a university.

This paragraph makes this point abundantly clear: there's plenty of research that is focussed on expanding the field and is discovering problems that will exist once industry catches up. Fantastic. It's risky to try and find the future, but someone has to do it, and I think (based on this and his other writing that I've encountered) Matt would agree that time spent in industry is of dubious utility to those folks[0].

For research that is attempting to tackle extant problems encountered by industry, though, the researcher would be well served by ensuring that the problem they're attempting to solve is actually extant and that the assumptions they're making in trying to solve it don't simply sound reasonable but actually reasonably embody assumptions underlying real (aka industry) deployments. Otherwise they may get a lovely paper which solves a problem that nobody actually has or presents a solution that is impractical because it assumes things which are, in real deployments, incorrect.

[0]: On one hand, it might give them a better feel for in which direction a tractable future lies, but by the same token it might prevent them from exploring potentially fruitful avenues by constraining their thinking.
How Netflix Reverse Engineered Hollywood
I agree that "publish or perish" is not a good model for research. What are alternative models that are potentially viable?
Great article and the last mantra stood out:
>Value, not prices.
>Experiences, not products.
>Outcomes, not processes.

Would love to see the title changed to "Being right(eous) won't pay your bills" - being right is important, letting everybody know it is a totally different thing :)
If you truly did not get it, go read 1984, now.

On the other hand, asking which specific (US) agency plays the exact same role as the Ministry of Truth in the novel is kind of pointless. The short answer is none, but that doesn't mean the same kind of propaganda is not happening in a more nuanced/subtle form nowadays.
I agree, this is the most important issue for innovation in MA.
I have no idea. It just seems odd to me that assuming a relatively low protein/fat intake is easily done then why have a metabolic pathway for it? My guess it's to work with fat stores over long periods of starvation (get fat in Spring/Summer/Autumn, 'starve' in winter).
fiber is the indigestible portion of a plant. "avoid all carbohydrates" means avoid sugar and starch.
It's just an automated ad promoting a product. I'm sure that company saw other ads when logging in on different days. Is it silly that they advertise it on high risk accounts? Maybe.. but it's nothing nefarious.
Quanergy Announces $250 Solid-State LIDAR for Cars
The problem is it's not actually an error. The quoted bit is using "error" to mean "R did something I wish it hadn't."
I've been thinking about that quiet a bit lately. My two random thoughts:

1. I don't think it's strictly bad. More pressure to build coherent and precise arguments is good. It can indeed yield unnecessarily verbose language but I don't think it has to? Inserting qualifiers etc. everywhere is just the most naive way of approaching it, like a newbie programmer using too many nested if statements.

2. We should assume all comments are charitable as well. They are no different, they're just as likely to be misread.
To be fair, I understand where they are coming from. It's an reaction all marginalized groups share. My version is when white authors write about PoC issues. But I voice my complaints by tweeting at them. ;)
Also applies to all of Star Wars, which I struggle to reconcile with how much I enjoy (most of) the movies.
I'm a big fan of YNAB as well (classic, web just isn't there yet and normally I'm the first to jump on the web bandwagon). I'm still just getting started with it but it's an awesome tool!
Read Noam Chomsky, a lot of the facts aren't made public, particularly the huge US neocolonial interest in the region, spanning back a century.
Whenever I feel like I have to respond immediately, like right now damnit: I should wait.
The dollar is more valuable than the last decade? How come the Euro exchange rate changed from 2 for 1 USD (about 2010?) to 0.9 for one USD today? Did the Euro increase so much more? Without oil?
Godoc has been down for 8 hours
"But does it allow specifying vectors that has no less than three and no more than seven items? Or vectors with even number of items?"

Yes.
Given the different circumstances, I doubt that.
I'm legally blind in my left eye due to Toxoplasmosis, most likely passed to me before I was born, and they didn't figure out what was wrong until I was 6. Your description of your vision sounds similar to mine, strangely enough 10 years ago it was even worse, but I still don't have the necessary sight to read with that eye.
Things are looking really bad for Linode:

http://wptavern.com/linode-confirms-data-security-breach-tha...
Also applies to all of Star Wars

Well, basically, Star Wars is a "futuristic" themed fantasy. So no wonder the morality portrayed in Star Wars is that of a Fantasy story.
Yeah, the "Fan Protect Guarantee" is more like "Fan Protect Guarantee Unless The Price Goes Up A Lot."
Is that necessarily true? It seems like it would depend on the dynamic. I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning. Knowing the inputs and broad transactions to someone's mental processes (especially if they're very close to you) can help facilitate communication/understanding, regardless of the value judgement one applies to them.

To tie this back to the article, sometimes being right can work, but it's a risky line to push without the above, a clear understanding of the person opposite you's mental process. That being said, also as the above, I find that in situations where a business relationship can build that trust and understanding even in the face of contrary views on certain things (logic vs emotion, to draw that parallel) a far better working relationship can be established, although I have a feeling to an entrepreneurial community this is stating the obvious :)

I think the author touches on this but not specifically, "be easy to work with" is a nice umbrella that I'd add an addendum to, a hope that both parties try to give each other the benefit of the doubt and some tolerance through disagreement in the hope that the opposite party is doing the same, and eventually, you may not have to worry as much about the friction of being right. (within reason)
Heh... this is pretty close to the Wheelie Boy from William Gibson's recent novel The Peripheral.
California and Mass. have been blue, high tax states for decades. If high taxes were as destructive to entrepreneurship and innovation as low-tax proponents usually claim, one would expect that these two states would be in the economic dumps. Instead, the opposite is true.
As a bioinformatician, I completely agree with you. My question is, which contributes more to the field? A specialist enabled by code, or a coder who has learned something of a second field?
Robotics is one of those things where the hardware,
price, and networking are there but the software isn't.

I'm not sure where you got the impression that the hardware is ready for prime time, because it ain't. I work in mobile robotics, and I wrote a blog post about this a while ago: http://c1qfxugcgy0.tumblr.com/post/31187427192/the-enduring-...

Batteries aren't good enough, linear actuators have awful power/weight ratios, and computers just aren't fast enough to solve CV problems and calculate grasps and paths in seconds, rather than minutes.

Saying you "have thousands of dollars to spend" is great, but not sufficient. The PR2 I talk about in the blog post costs four hundred thousand US dollars, and it sucks! It's like saying you're willing to spend five thousand bucks to buy a Lamborghini Aventador. It's going to be many decades before a useful household robot only costs ten grand. A household robot just requires too many breakthroughs in too many different fields.
This project is completely absurd. It started from an open-standard for darknet markets, and pivoted into bad magento clone that requires a special non-http browser and protocol to access.

The stores are trivially censored, and there's no efficiency here that will stand up to the preferences of non-libertarian consumers that have no problem with the so-called 'middle man' that is our current state of frictionless purchasing.
There is a fourth one - quality. It is important to acknowledge its existence, otherwise you can find yourself in a position where you can alter "all 3" constraints for the better at the cost of a hidden fourth one.
Confronted this when looking at Hamilton tickets recently. The thing that is crazy for venues and artists is how much of the value they are losing to scalpers via StubHub. If venues forced non-transferability (or some better limitation) and staggered releasing, they would be better able to appropriately price tickets without feeding the StubHubs of the world.
128-bit wasn't an arbitrary choice. It was done to ensure the routing tables would remain small and sane. It's why we use a 64-bit prefix, and a 64-bit address, for IPv6 network assignments as the default.

Note those values and think of the significance.
I'm always surprised this isn't discussed more or at least a variable to consider among others for updating the Drake Equation.
Have you seen the clothing of the man who fires?

Clothes is one weak point with real time CG today. Another is grass, trees.

There is a reason there is no green in those pictures, and they try to only draw people in rigid suits.
"The question is not -where- are the life forms capable of interstellar communication, but -when- are they."

That is the central point of the argument in the article, yet somehow it's never really mentioned.
This is absolutely true, and applies to people other than "creatives".

There's a slightly patronising tone to this, whether it's right or wrong: " we must Siberia educate our clients". While true, it's not the key issue. They can educate us too, and perhaps that's the take-away here. I hope to put myself in my clients' shoes every time I talk to them. That way, everything they say makes perfect sense, and we can agree a way through any issues together, as a partnership.

I don't always manage to do this effectively, of course, but reflecting on this helps me slowly, slowly improve.
YourMechanic (YC W12) Is Looking for Dir. Of Analytics
regardless of what division is making the determination, either the company is risky or they're not. charging them interest to access the money that is rightfully theirs is extortion, plain and simple
Interesting to know. I still won't buy one until I can actually try it out, but it sounds like it's better than 3D movies, which I cannot watch without getting a splitting headache (I think it's due to the decreased light levels that come through the glasses).
Related to the last 2%, I'm always shocked whenever a waiter balks at splitting up a check when multiple people are paying. I always think "Really, you are going to annoy me right before I decide how much tip I will give you?"
According to the article, PayPal claimed that it was not an automated ad and they were in fact eligible for it.

"To paraphrase: “It may seem weird that we’re holding collateral on your account and offering you a loan, but that was not a mistake! You’re still eligible. Contact me if interested.”"
We've been using PayPal for over 10 years. High volume. No complaints. Their dispute resolution service is better than others we've tried in the past (Braintree, BluePay). Fees are solid. Customer support team are pretty on top of things (if you feel like picking up a phone).

Seems like people like to pick on PayPal because they want to see the new 'startups' win. But PayPal doesn't have to lose for them to win.

To expand. We thought about switching to Stripe once. Implementation was fairly annoying compared to PayPal's which was surprising considering how loved they are by the dev community. Their fees were much higher. Support couldn't answer some relatively easy questions. Stupid turnaround time for bank deposits.

I can understand how getting setup with a Stripe branded payment form is easy and saves some hassle for a new project. But as an established business they don't bring much to the table. We passed and skipped the obligatory 'X Sucks Because Y' article.
All that will do is generate a Stripe token. You still need a backend capable of actually charging the token.

PayPal continues to fill a niche of people who want to collect payments with literally no coding.
There is another perspective to this, which is to appreciate when others have put forth a well-considered argument, and to sometimes relish in the challenge of anticipating the rebuttals and shoring up leaks in your reasoning. Often I will write something out that is somewhat critical, and then I'll think about where people might attack it, and it ends up with a more measured position. I love David Foster Wallace because he was the king of considering all facets of an argument or idea so thoroughly that you can't tell which side he's on (and neither could he).

I would say that the people with the problem that this article describes are the good ones, and they are outnumbered and drowned out in our society by "loudmouths" who don't obsessively consider their statements and who do present their own thoughts and beliefs as factual and/or morally correct, so I would say please do keep qualifying everything and even promoting that type of "defensive" thinking. (The caveat is: don't cater to trolls and the willfully uncharitable, and you have to decide for yourself whether someone is trolling or genuinely trying to make an argument worth responding to [or both], it's tough these days!)

I often think about qualifications like "I believe that...", "It is my opinion that...", "I think that...". Some people argue that they're not necessary, it's implied and obvious, it makes you seem weak, etc., but I disagree. I see so many conflicts created by people communicating their beliefs as facts, and it's not at all obvious that they acknowledge the viability of other opinions.
It lasts just long enough for my round trip commute! Too bad the entire route is restricted airspace. If they ever release I wonder how these will be regulated under existing laws.
This is not surprising to me at all, nor do I see anything nefarious in this. PayPal operates two different business units, a payments processing business and a commercial loan business. Both operate on separate P&L's, and with different risk requirements.

Let's consider two different situations:

1. PayPal's payments processing group worries about the risk of your account, and thinks about applying a hold on your funds. Just before doing so, they call the loans group, who says that they'd be perfectly happy to give you a loan for the amount of the hold, you're good for it. So, Paypal as a whole decides not to place a hold.

2. Paypal's payment processing department worries about the risk of your account, so they place a hold on your deposits. In parallel, the loan department decides you're a good credit risk, and so you apply for and receive a loan for the same amount as the hold.

In case 1, if those payments do indeed get charged back, Paypal is forced to try to come after you for the balance. Unfortunately, this debt won't have very strong legal standing, because it's not backed by a loan agreement. They might or might not get their money back. It also puts them in the position of having to chase you for the money.

In case 2, if the payments get charged back, Paypal is sitting on the funds already, and can just claim them. This might cause you to default on the loan, but that's your problem now, not PayPal's. They are also making interest on the amount of the loan.

It's pretty clear that Case 2 is MUCH better for PayPal, and only marginally worse for you, assuming that you are right about the payments all being good -- you are only out the interest cost on the money. What you seem to be arguing is that PayPal should be "nice" to you and go with Case 1.

The other fact that you might be missing is that nearly all traditional payment processors would require some kind of reserve account in situations like this, and even if they weren't holding the money, they require that they have withdrawal privileges on the account into which the funds deposit so that they can claw back money if needed. PayPal is by no means unusual or abusive in holding funds, it just seems that way because they don't pitch this as part of their up-front marketing.
I wonder how this relates to the 'ghost' towns being built over there? Could this be a consequence of the slowing rate of construction of these huge cities/housing projects (no one lives in practically)? That artificial growth is/was not sustainable and the bubble is bound to collapse, or is this simply oversimplified view of the problem?
Wow! That seems very Drop Zone-ish https://github.com/17Q4MX2hmktmpuUKHFuoRmS5MfB5XPbhod
Dirt-cheap client-encrypted online backups with Raspberry Pi
Nah. MySQL rocks. I've been using it since 1998 at Credit Suisse, 2000 at eToys.com where we used it to run the entire company from warehouse to web. I used it at the BBC in 2003 for a high traffic Radio 1 application and I've used it since then on my own companies with serious volume including a job search engine featured in NYTimes and Time Mag in 2005 and feedjit.com doing real-time traffic on over 700,000 sites. We use it for Wordfence now which is where the image link comes from I posted earlier with 20K TPS. All very high traffic with consequences if it screws up. I've never run into any of the issues you mention.

You say "upserting into a mysql table". Which storage engine? MyISAM? InnoDB? I find MySQL to be both reliable and incredible durable i.e. it handles yanking the power cord quite well. The performance also scales up linearly for InnoDB even for very high traffic and concurrency applications.

We use redis, memcached and other storage engines - by no means are we tied to mysql. But for what it does, it does it incredibly well.

I'm also completely open to using PostgreSQL and I was hoping someone could give me a compelling reason to switch to it or to use it.
I've experienced photorealism in games, even on last-generation hardware - but only in certain scenes. The PS3 / Xbox 360 open-world crime-drama game Sleeping Dogs, for instance, genuinely looks like a movie in certain areas, on foot, at night, when the weather cycle has gone to rain. On the other hand, driving, during the daytime, in the Central district looks more like a Dreamcast title.

The big challenge I see is not photorealism, but consistent photorealism. In the Sleeping Dogs example, the game's engine is optimized for its iconic scenes of rain-slicked Hong Kong backstreets, but the tricks it uses don't hold up well in other contexts.
That creates bland writing and the process of correcting every little deviation is so pedantic that it provides a strong incentive to stop writing. Both of these problems result in a world where we learn less, grow less, and take fewer risks with our writing.

What is wrong with truly being charitable, assuming the absolute best intentions and giving writers the license to deviate a little to let them make a point?
In fact the graphics processor in the PS2 (and some PS3 units) was called the "Emotion Engine"[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_Engine
The sun vaporizes. That's where comets get tails.
The scrypt-derived yescrypt participated alongside argon2 in the PHC[1], and argon2 was chosen in favour of it – mainly because scrypt is a bloody complex mess to implement –, but yescrypt is still recommended if you need backwards compatibility with it.

[1](https://password-hashing.net/)
The Top 5 Richest Modern Day Bodybuilders
It comes back to what Marshall McLuhan said, "The Medium is the message": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

I've come to realize is that the expected audience is a crucial aspect of the communication requirements. On the internet, the audience is quite wide, and disagreement / outrage usually leads more responses / activity than does agreement and acceptance. I should say, in fact, that agreement leads to further sharing, whereas disagreement leads to comments. Thus, an article that some people agree with and some disagree with, gets re-shared and exposed to a lot of controversy. That eventually finds its way into other outlets, whereby each compelling article has a counter-article somewhere else in addition to all the substance-free vitriolic comments.

What the internet has really done is stop letting us get away with echo chambers, by breaking the walls between them. I think that is a good thing.

I should write a blog post on that :)

PS: This is not new. I think Bertrand Russell said: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Now, those doubts are reinforced by the threat of being shown wrong. I think it's quite an art to articulate compelling arguments out of factually true statements, and even more of an art to think several steps ahead, choose which statements to focus on in order to draw certain reactions from an audience, and thus build receptivity to your next statements. Daniel Dennett said: You should be able to understand your opponent's arguments so well that you can say it back and they say "I wish I had put it that way". And of course, to do that, we shouldn't just write, we should also read, and all be exposed to the other arguments, instead of the echo chambers that social networks make money off of:

https://sealedministries.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/3-reasons-...
The way I see it, defensive writing is also a kind of self-indulgent, narcissistic behaviour which seeks gratification from always being "correct" and never being proven "wrong".

It requires a certain dose of humility to admit that something you've said was wrong or to accept some parts of the opponent's opinion.
Hey, thanks for asking! The thread was encouraging that it wasn't time to change fields; I'd say I'm making quiet progress.

Since then I've spent a lot more time thinking about what I want to be doing: work has been slack so I've had fewer chances to see how I now am decomposing software. But I've started to enjoy programming again :)
Moto 360 Sport is now out
OneNote is the best current option, by far, but taking advantage of a lot of its best features require also using MS Office & Outlook, which is a nonstarter.