skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Apparently not. The fuzzy bits created on the master discs were extremely reliable (and by that I mean "unreliable"): every time you read the track, you would get different values. Remember that a track contains a lot of bytes. The copy protection was only checking one fuzzy bit to declare the disk genuine. And these fuzzy bits were by design impossible to create on regular disk drives (thankfully!).

The hardware required to create these tracks was extremely expensive and sometimes even out of stock, leaving hackers no other solution than to actually remove the protection if they wanted to produce a crack.

Years later, a disk copier appeared that was able to preserve these fuzzy bits but it was way after there was any commercial interest left in the Dungeon Master titles.
> If you're trying to raise $500M, you don't have many choices.

Every other unicorn in the world suggests otherwise. This is the first large round by either GM or the Saudi prince. The Saudi prince isn't even a strategic investor, he's just a guy with a deep bank account. VCs and Private Equity Firms have been incredibly active in later stage rounds for Unicorns.

Late state rounds almost never have a single investor. That's true for Lyft this round. It's telling that they couldn't find any of the more traditional investors to invest (even for a part of the $250M they weren't able to sell).
Not sure how that is supposed to help them get tips in the future when the vast majority of passengers don't know their own rating number and probably aren't even aware that such a number even exists.
Can someone point out a video of Baryshnikov's dance that is so impressive? Perhaps it's a lack of training or interest in dance, but I just looked at a few videos on Youtube, and none of them seem all that amazing, just consisting of what seem like standard ballet moves.
Schneier's point is not only that those attributes should be ignored, but there should be no correlation between those attributes and the end result of the algorithm. You can quite easily find examples of algorithms which do not include race or gender as an input, yet have a disparate impact. Schneier is saying that algorithms with disparate impact should be avoided without regard to procedural fairness, proportionality of outcome, or correctness.
I agree with you. Provide a space with facilitators to keep kids out of trouble and point them in the right direction(s), then just let them have at it.

The whole grade and classroom system is horribly antiquated. Children with ability will follow their more successful peers without any external impetus. Those who lag "behind" (based on whatever metric you choose to use) can get one-on-one assistance from instructors to determine where they're running into trouble.

Personally, I think the "traditional" classroom has always been "broken" and I'll be happy to see the back of it.
Have you read anything on the linked site? They address _all_ your points. See especially http://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/

> The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country [...]

That's not at all clear. Also, we should probably look at benefits to persons (or humanity in general?) instead of countries.

The point of the comment was saying that those immigrants don't benefit the country taking them. If having them is such a benefit, then sending them back should benefit their home country, which it obviously doesn't.

> The immigrants would of course benefit economically, no one ever disputed that. But at the expense of the native population. Good luck earning a living wage when you are competing against the whole third world's population of laborers.

Actually, it's not at the expense of the native population. (Studies have shown that. The open borders people have the links.) In any case any negative impact could be compensated with taxes and redistribution.

Also, with free trade you already compete with the whole world in some sense.

> That's not even covering the immigrants using social services. You can't have any social programs at all, or every sick person who needs free health care can just move to your country. Or welfare benefits or whatever. Those programs can't work if the entire world's population can show up and take them.

Just restrict those specific uses. They cover that, too, on the website. See http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/
Main point of the article was really to show how to use gc logging correctly - calculating max, avg pause-times plus throughput. The VisualJ stuff was just added for fun. I ran without it - and the numbers are the same. Also running for a minute was just to get images to compare.

In a real application you just need gc logging and a tool to calculate metrics. Point is that you have to measure - my numbers are only valid for a 1 min running testapp..
Suppose we have some algorithms which are trying to predict which team will win a game. People are going to bet money based on what the algorithms say, and teams benefit when more money is bet on them.

The red team plays dirty.

First they spread false rumours about the blue team. Most of the algorithms respond by reducing the blue team's chances of winning against the red team, but algorithm #5 successfully predicts that the rumours were false and people who bet using algorithm #5 made a lot of money. Now lots of people use variants of algorithm #5 and thereafter the red team has no luck getting anyone to believe their false rumours.

In other words, if the algorithms are incorrect then we're all better off to fix them.

Next the red team successfully lobbies the government to raise the blue team's taxes (even though the red team makes more money). Now the blue team has less money for training and equipment, which has actually reduced their chances of winning the game. Most of the algorithms successfully predict this, and then the blue team loses the next game.

Your argument seems to be that the red team should be punished for this by having your algorithm stop preferring them. But now you're screwing over everyone else relying on your algorithm, who weren't responsible for the behaviour you're trying to punish. And thereafter no one trusts you to provide true information.

If the red team is playing dirty and the math accurately predicts the result, the problem is not the math.
This post is almost entirely inaccurate re: actual statistics. Power, as you say, is the likelihood of a given experiment rejecting the null hypothesis given some a priori sample size and effect size. And one- vs. two-tailed tests do not change effect sizes, or even your estimate of the variability surrounding an effect, but a p-value related to the effect (should you choose to calculate one).

You would think, given their team of "analysts" and "statisticians", that they might have known these basic pieces of statistics.
If they can equip the mice down there with repeaters they could get a pretty good 99% coverage rate. (BTW it is possible ... http://blog.tanaza.com/blog/bid/296349/Dogs-and-cats-turned-...)
The networks we use can and do vet
the ads before serving them.

You know this for every ad for each network... exactly how?

If they failed in this duty, would you be informed?

Do they have a duty-to-defend clause in your agreement with them such that if you are sued for serving malware in your app, the network will pay all costs for your defense and all necessary restitution?

There's a sour "we were only following orders" flavor to such an indifferent stance.
“The Tap Awakens” – 'Star Wars' Tap Dance Medley[video]
> Updating JS apps is a bit less tricky than updating Android apps perhaps?

Except that FFOS already has a worse fragmentation than Android, because no hardware vendor ever bothered to properly support their FFOS phones. It's been dead on arrival as far as the mobile market is concerned.
VLIW is many times cheaper (in terms of power and area) than OoO. It is not going anywhere from the low budget range.
My local bus system has ramp entries, and the driver can require non-mobility-impaired riders to give up seats at the front. (And those seats can also be folded up to make room for wheelchairs.)

Would something like that work for the New York subways? Or would it require too much oversight to make people follow the rules?
Research shows to rebuild cities, get back to the basics
Very well reasoned! Thank you.
I thought about those for a while too until I finally dug into it. They are "embellishments" and here is a Google image search link: https://www.google.com/search?q=embellishments&prmd=isvn&sou...
Me too, me too.

Man, it was just so scary and intense, creeping around that dungeon in realtime, with the stereo sound effects. It was about 1000x more exciting than bard's tale 2 (which I did love too)!
why are they not liable for damages?

The more relevant question is: how would you (or another random end user) prove that the malware was served through their, and only their, site?
They do. As of last month. It helps a bit, but it's almost entirely unnecessary.
> Or the exact opposite: that the algorithms simply reflect results caused by bias, a far more likely relationship given what we know of history.

Unsupported assertion

> But we also know that a snapshot of current society is often little more than a reflection of social forces that has made the society what it is at this particular point in time, and treating them as immutable (or simply placing faith in their persistence) is nothing more than a political policy that helps perpetuate them.

This is anti-inductive. Knowledge can only be contingent based on past experience. This is John Stuart Mill stuff, empiricism.

> Treating past correlations as future predictors in a dynamic system such as society is programming conservatism into your algorithm.

Yes. All anyone has to go one in making predictions is past data. If something changes radically in the environment then the model may break. This does not mean we should just make shit up for some of our sample data/training set.

> Acting on them is a political policy which strives to maintain the status quo -- there's nothing wrong about it per se, if that's what you want, but we need to be aware of this fact.

A model of the world can be more or less accurate. That is apolitical. It can be biased. This can be a political matter. So reduce or eliminate the bias.

> Alternatively, we could program the algorithms to predict or even assist with social change.

If you want to enact social change go for it but stop pretending that this has anything to do with statistics, modeling, prediction or math, just go straight to the politics.
I'm curious about the data for women who published papers with other women. That will tell us whether the issue is that men tend to get most of the credit for collaborative work done with women, or something else.
Yes, choice of collector is just one of many tuning options. Point is you need to log and measure your own app for every change you make.
> The way around the Halting problem is very similar: Don't write arbitrary programs. Rather, design your programs right from the beginning so that you can prove whatever you need to prove about them.

The system you outline works perfectly as long as you limit yourself to provable assertions. But Gödel's theorems have led to examples of unprovable assertions, thus moving beyond the hypothetical into a realm that might collide with future algorithms, likely to be much more complex than typical modern algorithms, including some that may mistakenly be believed to be proven correct.

If we're balancing a bank's accounts, I think we're safe. In the future, when we start modeling the human brain's activities in code, this topic will likely seem less trivial, and the task of avoiding "arbitrary programs," and undecidable assertions (or even recognizing them in all cases), won't seem so easy.

> This much math you need to know if you want to lecture others on the Internet.

My original objection was completely appropriate to its context.
You seem to be implying that there's RISC failed.

It did fail to deliver on all its promises.

RISC is requires less logic (=area,power) to implement

True, but ultimately it is overall energy usage that is important. A tiny low-power CPU with less performance will take longer to complete a task than a larger faster higher-power one, meaning it consumes more energy. That's what the article I linked to shows.

processors have faster cycle times

That's not necessarily a good thing, as Intel's failed NetBurst microarchitecture shows. Making a CPU with such short delays that it can run at upwards of 10GHz is futile, as power dissipation becomes a huge problem long before that.

In fact, Intel have a few proprietary microcontrollers hidden inside their chipsets and SoCs that were designed post-2005ish and these have RISC architectures.

If you're referring to the ARC4 in the Management Engine, I have a feeling that was chosen for reasons other than being RISC or otherwise.

It is completely absurd to expect a team of 10 or so grad students to compete with them.

I remember it said that RISC would be so simple and performant that such small teams could easily design CPUs which vastly outperform the big CISCs at much lower prices, so I don't think it's that absurd of an expectation.
"I don't think it's anything sinister since these are mostly fixes for the game bugs and the rest are resolutions for API ambiguities."
I think it is big problem. It is the same as forcing intel to change their CPU to workaround bugs in your application.
100% sure - once you have the masks, pumping out chips is cheap, if you do it in volume.

http://www.adapteva.com/andreas-blog/semiconductor-economics...
I agree that my app and approach are not suited for a real comparison. But using gc logs and a tool like GCViewer is. Point is you need to measure these things - for every option you change.
I can afford a new car, but always park at the back of the log and walk, because I don't want anybody parked near my car. :)
Actually FFOS uses everything Android that is below the Java VM.

I think recently there was an apk released that allows you to try out the UI part of FFOS as an Android launcher.
Those users who are savvy enough to use adblockers are part of the most-coveted demographics.
EDIT: The books aren't even from the 19th century. Google lists them as being that old, but they clearly are from the 1970s.
List of books banned by governments
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article [1] doesn't distinguish between CQRS (command-query responsibility segregation) and CQS (command-query separation). They are entirely different concepts. Compare Fowler's CQRS article [2] to his CQS article [3].

CQS is an old OO design principle suggesting that an object's behavior is easier to reason about if every method either changes the state of the object or interrogates its current state. That's not always possible, but it's a helpful habit.

CQRS is the idea that use cases involving searching and reporting across many entities are fundamentally different from use cases involving interactions with particular entities. It is therefore sometimes worthwhile to develop separate data models for searching and reporting that are updated asynchronously.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command–query_separation

[2] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CQRS.html

[3] http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CommandQuerySeparation.html
Neat, this will work well for creating a Plunkr.

It's a PITA to setup Angular2 transpilation without WebPack/JSPM.

If you're interested, here's a demo setup for my custom Angular2 Markdown component. It uses JSPM and Traceur for ES6+annotations transpilation.
https://github.com/evanplaice/ng2-markdown-component-demo
Can't agree on the amazing choice part:

Most IoT devices will be headless. The will act as sensors, actors or gateways, but information will be displayed on other devices (your PC, Tablet, Smartphone, and probably a very limited number of control center things which actually embed a display).

For headless devices I can't yet see the benefit of Firefox OS over the Linux distribution of your choice (or even a custom one, e.g. with Yocto) plus Node.js (if you wan't to program in JS) or any other programming language of your choice. I would for sure prefer to use Node APIs (where the ecosystem is in the meantime really big and development and prototyping can be done on most platforms) against some other FFOS APIs (which I don't know - so it might be not a problem if porting node libraries is easy - but it could also be a big problem if FFOS specific BSPs are needed).

For devices with displays: Well, here comes the question again where the benefit of FFOS is against existing platforms for that solution. Of course, iOS is out there, but you still have the choice between Linux + Browser or a classical GUI toolkit (GTK, QT), an Android based device and now also Windows 10 for IoT.

If portability is a concern then I would create the fronted simply as a web app which can run on any of those OSes with a decent browser. And the actual system runs in $programming_language_of_choice and exposes HTTP/WS APIs.
I'm not sure what your example is supposed to prove. Besides the fact that your likelihood function isn't an "unbiased algorithm" like your original comment was talking about, it assumes the bias of the input is known and accepted rather than heavily contested.

We certainly shouldn't mandate specific outcomes. We should analyze processes, outcomes, and inputs alike for bias.
Interesting project; no updates for a year. I wonder how the project is going?
There is nothing fundamentally new described in the blog post, although pinning threads to core is almost never the default operation mode (though many popular servers expose an option for turning this one).

As someone else stated in another post, SO_REUSEPORT and accept4() is best, all things considered, way to accept connections across multiple threads. Again, most modern servers support this by default, if supported by the underlying operating system (e.g nginx).

By the way, Aerospike accepts new connections in a single thread and then directly adds the socket FD to one of the i/o threads (round-robbing selection scheme) directly using e.g epoll_ctl(fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, ..).

See http://blog.tsunanet.net/2010/11/how-long-does-it-take-to-ma... for costs of context switching, and performance improvement when pinning threads to cores (it's quite impressive). Also, note that according to the author, on average, a context switch is 2.5-3x more expensive when using virtualization.

You may also want to read https://medium.com/software-development-2/high-performance-s... -- it's been a long time since I wrote this, but it describes how one can deal with asynchronous I/O and other operations that may block a thread.
It says it's based on Debian in the "Welcome to The CHIP Operating System" section

"And because it’s based on the popular Linux Debian, if there’s something you need, you can probably install it."
I like that idea, but that's basically how they park in many cities around the world already. It's not uncommon for drivers in for example Rome or Brussels to nudge cars with the bumper, to get an almost airtight fit when parallel parking. Underground carparks in Europe are also enormously tight, I don't think robot parking will make it that more packed. The bar is just lower here when it comes to using space efficiently. It's more of a mindset problem than a technological one.
Those problems are bureaucratic problems that will be solved with the money at stake. You're already protected with valet parking, through a combination of your own insurance and the valets. This wouldn't be any different, you'd pay a few more bucks per year in insurance to save a large percentage in parking -- it would make economic sense in densely packed cities.
The article seems to address that in the second chart. When a woman publishes with only women they get the 9% bump they're supposed to. When they publish with a mixed-gender group they get only 4%, and when they publish with only men they get almost no benefit. Is this what you were asking?
It's a bit difficult to tell from the videos, but it seems like the only one of those that was a production vehicle was the Nissan, and there was quite a bit of manual intervention (shifting into forward and reverse).

To be fair, I don't really understand the point of the Tesla feature either... can it do anything but pull the car from right outside a garage to inside the garage and vice versa?
I remember Dungeon Master fondly, even if I never finished it. It was a truly great game. One silent aspect of that was probably the lack of scripted story. Just a few fragments of text on scrolls and a few more scattered around, chiseled on the walls. (Author notes that story didn't really come into the play until the final level.)

The level that killed my interest was the annoying, slapped-on-for-malevolent-humour "Zoom!". Everything until that point is a marvelous gaming experience, but the forced timing and counting based teleport field problem is a big misstep. In a game where sometimes returning to earlier levels was not only possible but also encouraged, facing that single funnel-like problem raised a terrible spectre of a thought: "I may need to go through that again".

It killed the game for me.

But considering how massive an influence Dungeon Master had on a generation of gamers, it's probably not a coincidence that the release of an indie game that promised the ability to relive the experience was was so eagerly expected. [0]

Oh, to have time to play again...

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_Grimrock
Isn't it possible to create multiple asm.js memory arenas?
But in those places, you still need to leave enough room for a driver to open the door and get in or out. That's a lot of wasted space.
Aimless driving would be difficult to regulate.

Instead, if you know roughly how long you'll be gone, they could temporarily Lyft while you shop.
Sean Penn Secretly Interviewed ‘El Chapo,’ Mexican Drug Lord
I think my biggest concern is big blue, I'm sure they will have an eagle eye on this and make sure that as soon as someone accidentally adds support that falls close to one of their patients it will stifle the energy and progress of the community.
The further they slide into the abyss the more desperation will drive moves like this... But only time will tell.
> In practice, you never really needed it, since you could run your program a few times, see what the high water mark of your heap was, then set the precise size at compile time.

How would this work with anything that has unknown runtime memory cost? Say an editor of any kind? Like an image editor with undo buffers.
Why should fairness be a goal though? If men are really are more dangerous drivers, why shouldn't they pay more in car insurance? Or teenagers? It's not like they can control their age, but they are objectively more likely to get into an accident. So are people with eyesight problems, etc.

Algorithms should make the most accurate predictions possible. If somehow we had a time machine and could just see the future, we would do that. People who are more likely to get in accidents should pay higher insurance, or bank loans, or whatever. If you are less of a risk, then you should pay less.

Omitting statistically relevant features is silly. It's not like the algorithm has human biases. It doesn't hate people of a different race, it's not sexist. It just looks at the cold hard facts and makes the best prediction possible.
Or a "Hollywood Undead" song...