skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also, I wanted my brain to be online in a widely distributed, public manner. In case of robot apocalypse of course. Hopefully, a quantum computer in the future would have low-bandwidth write access to my brain in the past. Quantum mechanics. Then I would be one of the earliest widely-distributed, targetable maps of a human brain on the public internet. And the people of the future could avert a worldwide AI disaster by pinging memories directly into layers of my brain. A la Steins;Gate, if haven't seen it, you should.

Anyways....
I've made exactly the same observation.

And people like us are voting with our wallets. Its just that noone (except Ikea and some small "alternative" toy stores) seems to want our money.
I like their use of "simply" in that sentence.
Under no circumstances was this done in the name of art.

Out of curiosity, why point this out? It's obvious that you didn't do it for a number of reasons. Hundreds, in fact. So why art?

I also did it for philosophical reasons. I believe that all digitized information past and present will be inevitably become known & public post facto. It's the nature of information & knowledge in our technological world to distribute itself until the world converges on total information omnipresence. So if, in the end, all [digitized] information is known, then there is no point in hiding information. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint though. obviously it's impossible for all information to converge in this way.

This would be the end of freedom. I'll go into the reasons if needed, but the discussion has happened a few times before. Suffice to say, if you're not allowed to have privacy, then you're not allowed to be free.
Spyshelter Anti Keylogger 10 Premium Key and Crack
I really like this. I was about to ask what makes it better than bootstrap, skeleton, foundation etc. But it's really straightforward, so I can focus on raw code instead of thinking of nice formatting.

Sometimes I just want a page to display data. This works perfect for that.
I think I've never seen Hebrew. Or maybe I've seen it and didn't recognize it as Hebrew. Do you have an example?
That is no different from the days C was only meaningful to UNIX users.

The languages have to implement the OS ABI, whatever that is.

Lisp Machines had Fortran, Ada and C compilers available.
Does Antarctica have "The Thing"?
Here are some things that make ML (and OCaml in particular) a desirable language for mobile development.

1. Sound, static typing prevents entire classes of errors. This becomes even more important when you are shipping an irrevocable binary to users which you cannot update after the fact.

2. That same static typing can prove safe the removal of data boxing, and run-time lookup in order to increase performance.

3. OCaml (`ocamlopt`) does not run your program in a "Virtual Machine" like Java - instead it compiles your code more directly into machine code like C++. Many (but not all) of the other functional languages compilers produce a byte code, and then rely on a JITed Virtual Machine to (hopefully) optimize your code at runtime. `ocamlopt` compiles your program into assembly and you can inspect that assembly ahead of time in order to understand how it will perform. There's always tradeoffs with this approach, but the benefit is that you do not need to wait for (or hope for) a JIT to optimize your code (or re-optimize your code when usage patterns change).

4. OCaml is strict (as opposed to lazy), fairly close to the metal, and maps to lower level instructions in a fairly straightforward way - you would not be very surprised if you were to inspect the assembly. OCaml also has two ways to create bindings to C code. One way is easy and automated, the other way has better performance.

5. OCaml has a reputation for being able to allocate tons of memory at an impressive rate. To the extent that is true (and I've not yet observed anything to the contrary) I would imagine that would make it well suited to building UIs that are rapidly re-rendered.

6. OCaml has an Objects type system extension which makes it easier to create bindings to platform APIs (which tend to follow an OO design).

7. OCaml has two compiler modes: `ocamlc` and `ocamlopt`. Both support separate compilation, which is indispensable when building UI applications, where tweaking/reloading is very common. `ocamlc` would be ideal for that rapid development phase because, although it produces slower programs, it compiles them significantly faster. `ocamlopt` is ideal for shipping because it produces faster executables.

8. OCaml does not require that you write only pure programs. This makes it much easier to integrate with existing platform/mobile code which is also typically not pure.
hmmm, good point. i think the copyright issue would be fairly complicated here ... and you'd need a good lawyer basically. it'd likely hinge on how you constructed the argument.
The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware.

You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.
Also see the publications of Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer about this topic, e.g. in his book 'Gut Feelings Intelligence'.
There is also Frank Lawvere: http://formandformalism.blogspot.com/2011/09/lawvere-on-math....
Several comments mention Skeleton as possible alternative to Milligram. Unfortunately, as pointed out, Skeleton appears to be dead, i.e., no project activity for a year.

I've also used Skeleton in several projects though it required customization of UI element sizes, max grid width, etc. On the whole Skeleton worked well enough and sufficiently lightweight.

For all Skeleton users, the project was forked a few months ago and now lives on as skeletonframework, available here: https://github.com/skeletonframework/skeletonframework
I have to strongly disagree. Humans are innately creative--just watch any child play if you doubt this.

What many people lack is not creativity, but the confidence and skills to creatively express themselves. The majority of people do not have that spark they were born with nurtured, they have it squashed.
I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper.

I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.
https://github.com/polm/dupdupdraw
I have yet to see any convincing criticism of Bayesian reasoning when performed using priors derived from the Principle of Maximum Entropy [0]. By incorporating all information available and nothing more, such a prior neither makes unwarranted assumptions nor throws away information (as is very commonly done with other methods). In principle the process of generating such a prior demands absolutely no subjectivity, rather it it the result of a logical deduction from all information available. In practice some information may be difficult to specify or incorporate, however this is automatically accounted for by the Principle of Maximum Entropy as it guarantees that nothing is assumed that is unspecified and being unable to incorporate some information will merely result in all possibilities being considered without bias. In the very worst case when you have no relevant information which can be incorporated this regresses to an uninformative prior (such as the uniform distribution) which are easily and rigourously handled by this principle even in far more complex cases where other approaches fail entirely. Furthermore, given a different prior this process can tell you exactly what additional (unwarranted) assumptions are made.

Once the priors are specified, the actual process of Bayesian Reasoning is formal logical reasoning generalised to the case when you possess incomplete information. It tells you exactly the degree of belief you can assign to a proposition given some information; and given this information assigning either less or more belief than the precise amount this deductive process tells you are equally grave mistakes.

For further information on the Principle of Maximum Entropy I recommend reading Prior Probabilities (1968) [1] and chapters 11 and 12 of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science [2]. If you are unconvinced of the theoretical validity or universality of Bayesian reasoning I heartily recommend reading chapters 1 and 2 of Probability Theory: The Logic of Science [2].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy
[1]: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/prior.pdf
[2]: http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf
You can put together a site with hardly any PHP knowledge. Just place reusable componenets on pages, or widgets that connect to ready-made backends... but then you don't really need this framework.

But if you have some basic PHP knowledge, you'd create more pages, and perhaps some backend actions.

As far as the PHP and JS knowledge, see http://qbix.com/platform/guide

The more PHP and JS you know, the more you can do. Unlike React and Angular, though, everything is named in a super-straightforward way, like Q.page and Q.Tool and tool.children() etc. So you just go ahead and build your site and Qbix does a ton of things for you, like dynamically swapping out css/js as you navigate pages, takes care of history and routing, activates and removes tools and their associated events, lets you subscribe to exctly the events you need, and documents conventions you should use to play nice with everything else.
Critique of ‘Debunking the climate hiatus’
I don't think we need to scan 100% of the brain in molecular detail in order to read & preserve the information. It should be possible to observe the circuitry at a higher level and recreate an approximation -- though it'd be just that, an approximation. Additionally, much of the information could be compressed to a much more lightweight format than digitizing the physical neural networks of the brain.

Digitizing a static physical model of the brain is problematic in itself. Many regions and structures in the brain are likely structurally dynamic. That is, the neural circuitry could change structure from day to day and this is definitely true over longer timescales. So it'd be much easier to read the data from the brain into another format rather than emulate the physical structure of the hardware.

I've thought a bit about information could be read from MRI scans such as these. In the absence of higher resolution data, I don't think there could any memories retrieved. I don't know the low-level details of how MRI data is encoded, but I do know it is recorded in slices. To retrieve memories, you'd need to read 3D regions from the brain. And it'd need to be much more high-resolution.
The Evolution of Discrimination, Cooperation, and Perceived Fairness
I guess I'm in the maker/enthusiast camp, but given how I think about these things, a lot of consumer IoT just seems crass and not that well thought out. Ill designed solutions to problems that aren't there.

Actually, think of that awkward in between period for land line phones when LCD screens seemed like too much of an expense, but you could finally embed enough computing power to add several dozen layers of features whilst keeping the 9-10 button layout for cost reasons, which meant that almost all those features went unused, and necessary features became impossible to discover. Yeah, there was a manual, but who remembers all those numeric codes?

We took something simple and made it harder to use applying computing power to it, which is quite the achievement. And now there's IoT, and I'm counting on the same thing to happen. Bosh deciding to replace manual affordances with WiFi? Please, no. Kafka please. This 'boutta be worse than OEM androids.

Mentally I've put IoT in the same camp as VR and (soft) wearable electronics. Lots of excitement because it's living with the Jetsons stuff, combined with little awareness of the technical and economical challenges behind it, which limit potential applications to some carefully engineered niche products (say the Echo, Occulus, and maybe the fitbit. Notice how the Echo is "Internet of thing" for the most part, the Occulus big and wired and expensive, and the fitbit a bracelet because copper breaks when bent regularly, so you gotta have a solid piece) and hobbyists.

I'm sure there'll be a killer app coming out some time in the nearish future, but your altair basic still ain't quite the PC. I'm miffed at schlep blind tech people pretending it is. Y'all ain't got no demo, y'all got Techcrunch tellin' you bout the promised land is here and no engineer to slap some sense into you.
With our current understanding, such tasks are comparable to trying to break the speed of light. However, we could probably get incredibly close without any internal data extraction. Our personalities, while highly complex, can be approximated into some simple traits (e.g. 74%
'passive-aggressive', 47% empathy) and replication of our knowledge isn't strictly necessary. Find 10,000 interests and create a int_8 each of how much someone is into it. Et cetra.
Thanks for mentioning POPFile, good to hear my old code mentioned on Hacker News. I wrote the original code for POPFile in Visual Basic(!) in 2001 (it was called AutoFile back then) as I wrote it initially for my own use without Microsoft Outlook. I got the idea of using Naive Bayes for my email classification after seeing the ifile extension to exmh(1). ifile dates to 1996.

I rewrote POPFile in Perl and made it work with generic POP3 servers (hence the name) and later with IMAP and more. It is still actively maintained by a group of people I've never met(!) with the last release in December: http://getpopfile.org/

(1) http://qwone.com/~jason/papers/ifile00.pdf
The Laravel Survival Guide
Webinar “Introduction to FlyElephant”
Because it doesn't deserialize protocol buffers, but protocol buffer descriptors. Descriptors are serialized protos of this type: https://github.com/google/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/pr... . Each descriptor is a parsed representation of a ".proto" file, including the message names and field names.
Lol completely abanding dokku over having to disable ssl seems overkill... Not to mention... Shouldn't you be using Sal anyways?
I disagree. As soon as it became as easy to create video as it was to draw, people created video content, not just consumed it. When sharing (youtube) was easy, the levels of creation have grown unbounded.

The amount of media in all forms that is being created today is astounding. That's digital drawing

If coding was as easy as writing we would find at least as much growth there. I know dozens of people who have ideas that would try to code, if it was as conceptually easy for them to do as is writing a memoir.

Such a revolution could definitely happen.
Impressive! It would be great if we also get an Android port... would be the first sane cross platform mobile framework.
Economics Simulation
Url changed from http://www.edankwan.com/experiments/touch/, which points to this, which gives more background.
Letting go of traditions is a hard thing to manage. Employees who've been in a company a long time don't appreciate the change, especially if the traditions are seen as a "perk" for working there that's being taken away, and stopping buying something sends a signal that the company can't afford it any more.
Or... now I am not that sure anymore. What if Person A believe in H0:97%, H1: 2%, H2: 1%, and Person B believe in H0:97%, H1: 1%, H2: 2%. They have quite similar beliefs, at least by some measures. But if H0 is ruled out, then suddenly their beliefs will be very different.
For me it is the fact that they receive punishment for stock outs, especially in a company in such trouble!

Why would you only look at stock amount and not stock turn. I would be concerned at "in stock, sold zero".

This whole story is a clusterfuck.

"We are going to have a new product, it ships on June 1st, no matter how ready it is" has never been a wise choice.
I think the more common name for something like this is "boilerplate". (Sorta how html5boilerplate.com doesn't pretend to be a framework.)
> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist?

If you're talking about mundane things like a slider on a phone lock-screen - than obviously nearly nothing.

On the otherhand if you are talking about a result of research that might have taken 5-10 years - than patent protection is a big deal and very few private companies would be incentivized to engage in such research without a patent system.
It does exist! https://github.com/whitequark/opam-android
Great... it's probably time for me to do some mobile stuff :)
That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.
It only works with qwerty :(
... It takes some getting used to. If you've programmed in a functional way before, try shifting perspective in that direction a bit. Rust isn't pure functional, and pure functional programming won't work well in Rust, but the style of programming has some similar parts.

It's a really bad idea to try and write stuff in a "C++ way" with tons of mutation, Rust encourages a rather different discipline in handling data which is at odds with the regular C++ style of programming. But this takes time to pick up. Once you've programmed with it for a while it feels pretty natural, though, especially since it's very easy to reason about data in this model.

Here's why Rust has this model: http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem-wit...

As geofft mentioned below, you can get mutable references to multiple fields if you want.

In more complex situations, use Cell<T> (for copyable types, this is zero cost though it can prevent some optimizations) or RefCell<T> (this works for any type, but has a slight cost) for more fine-grained mutability control. You shouldn't need these often, but they exist
Some of the most popular games get the least respect from game enthusiasts
Previous discussion (april 2015): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9402297
I agree with you that businesses shouldn't excuse themselves, but I don't see that happening here. Let's not mistake a personal post by an employee with official communication - at least I like that one can still talk about the company we work for without speaking on their behalf.
If you consider subjective priors to be a problem, this can be addresses to
some degree using so called "objective priors". They are objective in a sense
that if two people agree on underlying principles of how priors should be
assigned, then they will get the same priors. Catch is that you must decide
what principles to use, as they are not objective themselves.

Updating multiple times on the same evidence can be bad - as it overstates
evidence you have for some hypothesis - but you could do much worse. Instead of
discovering that H implies E, suppose instead that you conditioned on H, which
as later turned out is logically inconsistent. This is in general serious
mistake regardless if what you are doing have word "frequentist" or "Bayes"
attached to it, but consequences are not necessarily always the same. Larry
Wasserman in chapter titled "Strengths and Weaknesses of Bayesian Inference" of
his "All of Statistics" have an example concerned with estimating a normalizing
constant. He compares the two approaches, frequentist one which works just
fine, and Bayes one which fails miserably. There is no additional commentary so
I always wondered if he never realized that derivation makes inconsistent
assumptions, or he realized that but intended to show that frequentist comes
out just fine. Ex falso quod libet.

Regarding the raven paradox, the underlying reasoning and conclusions always
appeared to me to perfectly natural and reasonable. I think it is to great
detriment for mathematics and statistics, that people come up with catch names
with word "paradox" in it, for things that are merely unintuitive to them. For
example Simpson's paradox is a simple observation that: probability of an
event, is not a simple average of event probability across all groups, instead
those within group event probabilities should be also weighted by relative
group sizes. Whats paradoxical about that?

Regarding negation of H, not being a real hypothesis -- this is only true if
you claim that you somehow consider all alternative hypotheses. I don't think
people claim that. I seems to me that it is rather taken to represent only
those alternative hypothesis that are under consideration given your modeling
assumptions. Then it is perfectly fine and valid. I like how Jaynes avoided this
kind of misinterpretations by conditioning everything on background information
used and other assumptions. Let all of those be represented by B. Then you
would talk about P(H|B) and P(~H|B), which makes it clearer that you don't
talk all unknown unknowns.
I'll pop my head up to say I did something similar with https://github.com/Lerc/stackie

blogpost guide at http://blag.fingswotidun.com/2015/09/stack-machine-generated...

I like the idea of a twitter feed to give examples. It satisfies the "Show me it working." urge nicely. I wonder if the idea would work interactively. Say "@dupdupdraw render: 16 128 0 // x sin - - sinh y 0 xg 16 sinh sin + swap swap % y di sr dup 16 32 512 16 di 512 @ + ish " and get it to reply with the image.
Sounds like they got played by Walmart too.

"Raise you $1.6bn"

"Raise you $1.8bn"

"I'm out, enjoy Canada"
> Checking with the fridge if I need milk on my way home, may be.

Still parent makes a good point with "benefitofmeaccessingXremotely(X) - costofotherpeopleaccesingXremotely(X)*riskofthathappening". I'll add the "amountofdataimgivingaway+showingmeads"
reminds me, i once coded a webcam2favicon streamer in literate coffeescript https://github.com/franzenzenhofer/webcam2favicon so basically the readme is the code.

it's from 2013, still works in FF, chrome seems to have changed the way they handle changes in the favicon.
İstanbul Escort, İstanbul Escort Bayan, Escort Bayan
One time on vacation my wife's purse was stolen. We had to call the bank(s) and get them to kill all of the credit cards. Then we recovered the purse. For the rest of the vacation she didn't have access to a credit card (unless I was with her) and had to use cash for everything. It would have been much less of an inconvenience if we would have had the ability to easily lock and unlock the CC.
The author talks about a recent "onslaught" of precipitation. Hardly. In Silicon Valley we've had a few mildly damp days, with sprinkles here and there, and a small handful of days with real rain during part of the day. Compared to some rainy years in the past, this year has been remarkably dry given it's supposedly an El Niño year. "Onslaught" it is not.
> I believe that all digitized information past and present will be inevitably become known & public post facto.

The Distaster Recovery/Backup&Restore industry would probably disagree with you.
Correction: Google runs a single repo with everything from Search to Gmail, not a single branch.
By some appropriate government agency, I assume.
There are a lot of conventions in physics and math and they come to the rescue. In the CONTEXT of gases, it's easy to realize that V must be volume, T must be temperature, etc. The formula PV = nRT is for physicists, not for "anyone else".