skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The "truth lies in the middle" theory of American political analysis/reporting is perhaps the most dangerous idea in that field. I'd say, in fact, the truth rarely lies between the two big parties. Often it's outside them entirely, or way out on the fringe of one of them. Sometimes one side's perspective really is correct and the other is wrong. Sometimes either side's solution to a problem would likely be fine, though they conflict and a balance between them would not work. Sometimes one side has a mountain of evidence behind them and the other has a tiny amount of evidence, some anecdotes, and alternative plans based mostly on speculation (cough the healthcare debate).

For any of the above, trying to "balance" reporting leads one farther from the truth, not closer. It's not even the case that they must both be right or wrong equally in aggregate.

Similarly, just because there are prominent, awful people getting a lot of press and support on one side doesn't mean that each of them must have mirror images on the other.

Failing to manufacture false balance isn't evidence of bias.
Every extra part is extra weight, needing extra fuel, which in turn needs extra-extra-fuel because of the weight of that new fuel, and so on. There is very little redundancy on a rocket.

It's unknown what exactly 'not upright' means just yet.
Bankers and financiers has bigger things to worry about in 2016
I wonder how much of both there was left though. If they can salvage the engine it still might be a success. It would also depend on when the leg broke - do they vent any unspent LOX/Kerosene after they land?
This is just manipulation of decent people. You can always get some percentage of people to agree with something you've propositioned with a camera and mic in their face and when they don't really understand what you mean (and then edit out all the people that didn't). Basic psychology phenom.

Repealing the bill of rights is obviously not something Clinton or Sanders have ever proposed and certainly have not been screaming it on national television like Trump

This is absurdity of the tribe of Alex Jones
Switching to fish was one my new-years' resolutions.
I've done it already and now I'm a happy camper. It wasn't that hard to convert my old rusty bash exports/aliases/helpers collected over last 5+ years, one or two afternoons after all.
I'm assuming that means it's in 10,000 pieces scattered across the Pacific. I'd be shocked if it didn't topple over, and once it goes over it's blowing up.
> 'emergency' backup legs to address this kind of event?

For the extra weight and complexity a second set of legs would add, I'd expect they'd shore up the primary legs instead, unless they were already at the threshold of being too heavy.
That's a fair implication, that I didn't give Doug all the credit he's due as a "head down get shit done" kinda guy, so let me correct that: Doug is an amazing talent, and it's a raw deal that he got sucked into the politics of this; I hope he's able to move on (FWIW I think his name carries enough weight that a fork would get attention) and we can all forget the soap opera that happened on that thread.
Didn't think about the "global freezing" of cards in the same bank - indeed, one more problem.

The diversity could indeed be a great point for cryptocurrencies. I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but here in France we had previously three main payment methods: credit card, paycheck and cash. Paychecks are now refused in most shops (there was too many frauds around them). And banks decided you can't withdraw cash anymore by visiting them (they don't want to hold any money anymore to avoid bank robbing), so you have to use your credit card at atm to have cash. Basically meaning that credit card is now the only way to use money.
Iran: US imposes new sanctions over missile test
Such technology already exists and is embedded in your browser. It's called bookmarks.
I'm not totally familiar with FF, but reading through their manual and checking out the examples, also using this FastFlow example as a reference ( http://sourceforge.net/p/mc-fastflow/code/HEAD/tree/examples...):
1) FF still seems to require explicit locking
2) The job management in FF requires explicit function calls
3) Not illustrated in the example, but RaftLib can auto-parallelize using the raft::out keyword inline with the c++ stream (using SESE) within the DAG.
4) Auto-buffer management (FF appears to require explicit calls to allocate/free workers, and manage memory), RaftLib auto-manages buffer allocation based on queueing occupancy, queueing theory.
5) I like the FF2 explicit scheduling, RaftLib has a few, they're all selected by the run-time. Right now the default is the system scheduler since I'm trying to get the Win64 cross build stabilized before I go back to any crazier threading (there's a fiber plug-in too).
6) The interface is hugely simpler with RaftLib compared to FF for adding "workers"
7) RaftLib explicitly has lock-free communication between actors, seems FF2 requires at least the mutex, and there's not a simpler FIFO interface there (could be totally wrong, please correct me if I am...again, just looking at the docs).

There's tons of other differences aesthetically/documentationally (I'm checking out now!) Thanks for the reference, this doesn't seem to pop up on any scholar.google hits and I hadn't run into it at any of the academic/industry conferences I've attended/presented this to (ISPASS, MASCOTS, HPCC, EuroPar, etc.) so sometimes it's hard to find related work. I'll definitely update my rbzip2 benchmark with their pbzip2 code tonight or tomorrow!
I think he means basically this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-22/illustrated-guide-k...
Hey, sorry I didn't see this before. You can go to www.loveandrobots.com, any example using upswing image files should use fabric.js
That was not a real statement, I just meant that it made contradiction in my mind, not speaking on short run, but in my country and european countries, you need to pay a lot of money to hire someone that includes health insurance something similar to US 401K beside so many things, so it seemed to me like on the long run, robots are much more cheap.
Not if the right side is completely packed with people at a peak time.
Actually, Stallman himself asked us to mark the video under that license (he proof-read the post).
> There were no DVD's or even VCR's -- movies could only be seen in theaters, or older movies on TV.
You could also buy a super 8mm film version, probably not the entire film though.
> Braintree was bought only 2 years ago for $800 million. 6x less than Stripe's valuation.

Ask around: Braintree's product isn't as good as Stripe's.
How I ruin you doesn't matter, only that I have the ability to ruin you.

A corporation should never be able to seek damages from a government due to legislation (unless, possibly, property rights are involved).
Fair enough, how about some robotic arms on the drone ship ?
Does anybody know why they would re-try the barge thing when they've already got a once-proven way of landing on a pad? What is the benefit of being able to land on a barge? (which to me seems to be a lot harder than landing on land, after all, now you have two craft to coordinate, one of which is only nominally under your control (lat, long, the rest is very much subject to change due to the action of the ocean).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10904397
> it probably won't work

You could as easily have said the same thing about HN at every point in its history, yet for all its weaknesses it has managed to survive as a semi-ok place for online discussion far longer than human nature, statistics, and every internet law would have predicted.

That didn't just happen by accident. To stave off inevitable decline has been the main intent behind the design of the site and all the work on it. So, bad as things sometimes appear and critical as everyone sometimes sounds, it's worth remembering that HN has a track record of finding new things that work—for a while—at slowing decay.
The word "ruin" is one you introduced to the thread, so asking me to somehow answer for it doesn't seem like a reasonable argument.

Obviously, I do not concede that the TPP enables foreign governments to "ruin" each other in legal disputes.
To the contrary, a bigger vocabulary expansively used is more.
Probably the same way that some people enjoy roller coasters, sky diving, walking tightropes, climbing vertical walls, ski jumping, flying trapeze, skating or boarding down a "half pipe" and various other "extreme sports" without getting a panic attack.
>That's not at all how the TPP works. The treaty doesn't allow foreign governments to "override" local laws, but rather allows for damage claims against the governments themselves

Yet the net effect will be exactly that. The distinction is barely worth making.
Fuel.

Edit: to elaborate, you can burn more fuel on the first stage, with all the advantages that implies, if you have a place to land down range as opposed to having to turn around and fly back. Sometimes the way to get that place to land might be to put it there.
Unique Live chat software provide live video chat with screen sharing
Effectively you want to turn arbitrary link submissions into a podcast feed of their multimedia (probably rehosted). Then you could reuse a normal podcast client to configure when items are automatically downloaded to your phone, do playback, maintain played-status, etc. Podcasts aren't necessarily audio-only - there are video podcasts and video-capable podcast clients out there.

See https://huffduffer.com/ for an (audio) example of the web service part.
We have a shared calendar in the business with all this stuff on and there's also a reminder that crops up in the order system (Mainly because monies are due to change hands again rather than the ssl is about to go pop)
"damage claims against the governments" == ruin, depending on the size of the government.

There are a substantial number of companies with financial resources greater than the GDP of some countries who a party to the TPP.
I don't have kids, but I find it curious when parents have that mentality. If you're kids feel the same about their kids, and so on, then we're not much different than apples, existing only to spread our seed.
You mean so they can reach higher orbits when landing further downrange rather than reverse back to a landing pad?
Interesting read. I was thinking of hooking up Travis CI for one of my side projects. I'm sure this post will spare me a few headaches.
Since governments settle economic claims against each other all the time, this seems like an extraordinary claim.
Now you have two problems. But I wonder if something much simpler, like a net, wouldn't make more sense. As soon as the rocket touches down, the net extents and wraps the rocket, keeping it upright.
Homeland Security Looked Past Antigovernment Movement, Ex-Analyst
Depending on the target orbit, it is often simply not possible to propel the first stage back to dry land. Today's Vandenberg launch into polar orbit was just that.
They need it for falcon heavy central core, and also for certain launches where they don't have enough deltav to return to landing site. Land is preferable of course.
The benefit of landing on the barge is that the barge can be located way downrange. This means the rocket can fly to it more directly, rather than making a U turn and flying back where it came from. That in turn means the rocket needs less fuel for landing maneuvers and can use more fuel for putting stuff into space. For some missions, the rocket won't have enough fuel to get the payload to orbit and return to the launch site for landing. The barge will allow first stage recovery for these missions.
There are lots of trade agreements that allow for economic settlements in the same fashion, so, if this argument is valid, it should be easy for you to find an example of a ruinous economic judgement against a country owing to laws it drafted that contravene such a treaty.
He means offline viewing of online videos in a convenient way, like iOS Safari "Reading List" (Saves pages for offline viewing), or Pocket, which does much of the same but for text.
What is the point of this company? What benefits do I get from government spending my cash on the company? None.

If I want Mars experience, then I'll go to some shitty place in Nevada, which is much cheaper + human body is accustomed to Earth. I really don't get the fascination with SpaceX.
What's California doing in space?
What exactly would be the point of finding the host government except to get them to change their laws?
"He" didn't dump the agreement as separate PDFs; that's how these things are almost always handled because most people involved are focused on specific areas (be they negotiators, interest groups, or concerned citizens). Other governments published the text in exactly the same way [1].

The USTR also published the full text on Medium [2] for anyone who doesn't want to download a PDF.

There are plenty of issues worth discussing when it comes to the text itself and the way the original negotiations were conducted, but arguing that the final agreement hasn't been made accessible is really not a legitimate complaint.

[1] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-makin...
[2] https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership
You said something that may be non complimentary about the left, and hacker news mods are left coast based, see who they have in senate and house.
It depends on which laws you are talking about.

>provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter

Specifically, if there is a local law that requires measures that are not consistent with the provisions of the mentioned chapter, it can easily be argued that this agreement overrides that local law.

Also, why even include this language, if it does nothing special, as you seem to be claiming?
Exactly. Or fly more cargo.
What is the reason they cut the stream for events like this? Just so they can shift focus by writing a press release saying how they could salvage the most important stuff before the video hits the news?
I like :tabedit ;)
As far as I understand this, the landing location depends on the launch site and mission profile - i.e. they can't always boost back to the pad with the remaining fuel stage 1 has.

Given that, then even if they'd decide to eventually launch every mission so that first stage can land on the ground, the current situation was that they could either waste the booster or try and land on water. So the question is - why shouldn't they try?
You're missing double entry book keeping essentially. The economic textbook examples of this are mostly flat out wrong.

The mistake that just keeps getting repeated in the economic literature is to confuse the two different kinds of money in the system. Banks are essentially performing statistical multiplexing between asset cash, and liability deposit accounts.

So - A puts $100 in a bank.

Double Entry Bookkeeping (DEB), that's: [debit cash, credit deposit account]

Bank loans $50 to B:

That's [debit loan (also an asset, creating it), credit deposit B]

Total assets: $150, total liabilities: $150

Notice B never got physical asset cash - they got a deposit account. Only if B withdraws the cash, or transferred the money to another bank, does physical cash get touched. Let's say B just bought something from A with the money, that would be: [debit deposit account B, credit deposit account A]

Loan gets written off. In this scenario, the bank has no interest income, no profits, and no capital. It would get closed down by the FDIC before it ever got a chance to lend B any money :)

But in a more usual case, where is has received some interest income - which would be [debit account B, credit bank interest income], it would first deduct against its required loss reserves, then its interest income, also removing that amount of the loan, [credit loan, debit loss reserves], then from any other profits, and finally from its capital holdings.

Note, credit and debit mean different things depending if the ledger is an asset or a liability - the right hand side is what you think it should be, and the left hand side isn't.
i think we only need offline availability
because mobile data cost is still high

i really hope they mobile networks start providing
unlimited data

its just better for everyone, we wont need to make
redundant copies, and as the downvoted comment suggest
we will only need a good bookmarking app
except that we don't have that. we have representatives that have piles of money from corporations and special interests. these piles of money on the two sides of the scale are what drive any decision around voting.
Or simply lift more stuff with the same amount of fuel.
It is similar to it, here are few differences:
1) Regex search
2) Performance - most of the data is locally cached
3) IDE like experience and a one click/swipe to move back to previous file without having to visit an intermediate page, not much of a plus but yeah!

Based on the feedback/usage I hope to build more features like goto method/variable definition to make it a more complete product.
They didn't cut the stream, the satellite link to the drone ship failed - SpaceX wasn't getting telemetry either.
In this particular case the launch was from Vandenberg in California and they do not yet have permit clearances to land the first stage back on land here. However, as others have said the barge is key for other reasons too.
CloudFleet|Your private encrypted opensource cloud at home
A Look at the Data: Uber Is Losing Share to Lyft Across the U.S. And via in NYC
Regulators should favor Lyft and Uber, not taxis for safety reasons
I was thinking the same thing. Github has some useful keyboard shortcuts available: https://help.github.com/articles/using-keyboard-shortcuts/
You're acting as if the correctness of pg's views is relevant to your misconduct on this site. But the two have nothing to do with each other. It's against the values (and rules) of HN to misrepresent what someone said or personally attack them in order to vent your spleen, regardless of how wrong they are.
We have something that can understand a pattern but we don't have something that can understand how different patterns relate to each other.
I found this book to be a very interesting and affecting discussion of the end of life. Unfortunately it gives fairly cursory attention to the topic of suicide, assisted or otherwise. Otherwise highly recommended. http://atulgawande.com/book/being-mortal/
> "so it seemed to me like on the long run, robots are much more cheap."

Yes, in the very long run, assuming relatively unchanging tasks and capacity demand.

But most jobs aren't like that - industrial robotics are dominated by robots that are purpose-designed with a singular task in mind, with a narrow envelope for deviations. A human can be re-trained to do something completely different than before, whereas a robot would likely have to receive completely new hardware. A welding robot cannot become a precision fan-balancing robot, but a human can be retrained from one task to another.

It's cheaper to train a large group of humans to do something different than it is to upgrade the hardware & software on the same number of robots.

This means that some jobs (see: automotive manufacturing) lend themselves easily to robotics - the throughput is steady, the capacity requirements are stable (i.e., you don't suddenly need 5x more cars in July than in March), and even between different models the general process is the same.

Other jobs (see: warehousing, shipping) do not lend themselves to robotics easily - the job changes regularly as processes evolve, the capacity requirements are chaotic (i.e., you need to scale to 10x your normal throughput during Xmas), and there is significant variation in process requirements (e.g., Japanese retail warehouses that run vertically instead of horizontally).

Robots are also still astonishingly expensive and largely made-to-order with long lead times. This means that it takes many years to break even on a robot (whereas you can fire the human when you don't need them), and you can scale easily with humans (it's much quicker to find a human than it is to order and receive a robot).
What would be the two problems?

How would you envision the net though? A net does sound simpler but I have a hard time picturing it
I think you've misrepresented their views. They doubtless know roughly what level the technology's at, even if it's not their speciality. They're worried about what level AI might go to in the next few decades/centuries. And you say they worry about an "impending AI disaster", but I don't think either of them has said they believe such a catastrophe to be imminent.

There are good reasons to be at least a little worried about AI in the long-term future. (Not to mention the imminent social effects of replacing various categories of worker with AI -- many examples of this have already happened, or are happening right now.)

Also, a minor nitpick, but you've misspelled Stephen Hawking's name. There's no "s" on the end.
One of the more useful heuristics I've heard is that when humans make split second decisions (like recognizing a face in an image or choosing the next word to say) there's only time for a few - like five to seven - layers of neurons to fire between impulse and action. These are the sort of tasks that neural networks are currently making great progress on.

But things like long-term planning and goal formation aren't in this quick-reflex domain. (Though humans are arguably pretty bad at these sorts of activity too, on average.)

We're also generally training neural nets to succeed at well-defined, bounded tasks, which don't really require long term planning so much. The video-game playing work at Deep Mind is actually a pretty important step forward, though; they're doing impressive stuff with domain-transfer (learning multiple games with a single network), and as one goes further with games, we might start seeing longer-term planning and concept formation. (eg, if we start seeing awesome StarCraft players...)

There's a case to be made, though, that we humans just trained on a big, broad objective function - survive, thrive, and multiply - with training applied across millions of years. And a good deal of intense local training over the first ten years of life, using a massively parallel computer that far outstrips any data center.

The question for strong AI seems to rest heavily on how much extraneous work there is done in biology, and whether we end up with a system so complex that it requires eighteen years of training time. If creating a single strong AI actually requires that much effort, we don't have to worry too much about skynet, methinks.

But we certainly don't have to worry about them spontaneously arising when we train with simple objective functions.
Ask HN: Good forums to ask/talk about Delphi?
Checked the comp.lang.delphi ones, seem inactive - via faqs.org at least.
You didn't. It completely ignores monetary velocity, in addition to ( as carsongross said ) conflating stocks and flows.
This is perfect, thanks for sharing.
Can you explain the rational for providing this ability to corporations?

EDIT: A downvote is not an answer. I'm looking for a legitimate reason why a corporation should be able to sue a government for damages.
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind can't stay in the cradle forever.
It makes it more expensive for local governments to try to protect their constituents.
> The "flow" that imaginative people love so much has a darker cousin that prevents you from pausing to savor life amid the daily slurry of errands and alarms.

A similar thought scares the shit of me. I can code for hours on end (in the "flow") toward even perhaps the most trivial ends established by my employer. On the one hand, you could say I'm doing what I love in life. On the other,d darker hand, it seems like I'm squandering so many hours of my life playing this (effective) video game where I code for points (money).
Have you called your congressional representatives to voice your opinion? If not, do so!
Nobody Wants to Use Your Product