skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>Its just that too many people expect more of the reward, for less of the work and never realized just how much work it actually took to achieve these rewards in the first place.

Businesses actively look for more work for less reward. I'm not sure why the other side shouldn't counter that.

Yes they will ask for those things and it's your job as a business to tell them no. They can reduce their demands or go someplace else.

I think wages have been flat anyway, so why wouldn't you expect some sort of push back when people start realizing that?
The difference is that post-war Germany was very much confronted with the gravity of what Nazi-Germany had done.

The US hasn't had that in more than 100 years.
Google Analytics for RevealJS
For those clutching their pearls, I'm fairly confident that you can find an order of magnitude more sugar and/or exploitation based relationships in any large field that depends on a stratum of youth and/or beauty, and involves tiered access to attention. (Music, modeling, acting)

Partially because sites like this are nebulous black-boxes, and partially because power corrupts.

Have fun stigmatizing.
Some people do that. You can save more, I guess (but the housing market in fr and de is already going up due to that). (You can also live in CH and go shopping abroad if you're cost sensitive)
Good write-up and experience summary. Nice to see that people from dynamic language backgrounds are able to pick it up.
WSJ are testing closing the loophole to see if it improves their subscription rates: http://digiday.com/publishers/wall-street-journal-paywall-go...

> A Journal spokesperson said the publisher was running a test to see if doing so would entice would-be subscribers to pay up. The rep wouldn’t elaborate on how long and extensive the experiment was and if permanently closing the loophole was a possible outcome.
Thanks! Good performance and instant search are two very important features of Skadi. For the next couple of weeks I'll be working hard to fix the bugs and implement missing features (e.g. searching in descriptions and comments).
I was being sarcastic. I don't find neither the charging nor the winding that bothersome at all.
It's a shitty century anyway.
Why would that be best? As opposed to for example finally figuring out fusion power and using that power to dig and sustain deep underground farms and dwellings?

There's whole lot of space underground that's currently inhabited by at most bacteria.
Actually government contracts can be very easy to overcharge.
Thanks for the link, it made me look for the corresponding podcast http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z1zdt
Not necessarily if income tax rates are offset to compensate. Also 2k/mo might not make much of a difference for wealthy people (so they'd still need to earn money to support their lifestyle).
Passions, Interests and Jobs
Both terms are much older than the 90s.
How to Migrate Your Parse App to Parse Server with Heroku and MongoLab
There are a lot of assumptions you have to make to get to the point where it doesn't have the capability to be dangerous:

* No improvement beyond human level (correlation between IQ and job-performance is variously estimated at around 0.5 and IQ largely comes down to executive function and working memory - so we have to assume an AI design that doesn't allow adding more working memory for some reason)

* No extra individual capabilities (eg human-level but with mental access to Google Scholar)

* No extra group capabilities (eg human-level but with telepathy between AIs - look at the difference the internet is making to human productivity eg Linux)

* No horizontal scaling over time (eg one human-level AI now, one million once Moores law kicks in - that's a lot of scientists/strategists/politicians/advertisers)

So in the situation where we make an AI that is somehow structurally limited to human-level intelligence and doesn't benefit from extra interfaces and we somehow can't afford to ever make many of them, then, sure, I can't think of a way that it could be dangerous.

In a few minutes of cursory thought I came up with four assumptions that were necessary for assuming that they won't be more capable than humans. What are the odds that all of those hold?

[EDIT isn't dangerous -> doesn't have the capability to be dangerous]
Because a human brain is not field programmable, and improving cognitive ability isn't as simple as plugging in another stick of RAM. The worry about AI is the bootstrap scenario, where an AI gains sufficient intelligence to modify and upgrade itself.

Sure, you're right in that humans don't understand enough about our own brains to perform such modifications, but that may simply be down to a lack of knowledge, rather than not having sufficient cognitive ability to comprehend the brain.

Additionally the hardware which an AI can run on is generally assumed to be significantly more malleable than our limited gray matter confined within our cranium
> the size of the salt is directly proportional to the amount of the message you want to consume (because, as you know, in food there's a certain fixed ratio of salt to other ingredients).

Hmm, where are you getting this idea from? It seems to me that the salt is meant to act as some sort of antidote and/or preservative:

> The idea comes from the fact that food is more easily swallowed if taken with a small amount of salt. Pliny the Elder translated an ancient antidote for poison with the words 'be taken fasting, plus a grain of salt'.

> Pliny’s Naturalis Historia, 77 A.D. translates thus:

> After the defeat of that mighty monarch, Mithridates, Gnaeus Pompeius found in his private cabinet a recipe for an antidote in his own handwriting; it was to the following effect: Take two dried walnuts, two figs, and twenty leaves of rue; pound them all together, with the addition of a grain of salt; if a person takes this mixture fasting, he will be proof against all poisons for that day.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/e21.html

Fun fact: The word "salary" comes from salt, too– Romans greatly valued the stuff for its preservative qualities, and built roads for its transportation.
If you only eat Wagyu that might be true ;)

Switzerland is expensive but not THAT expensive.
Chemical-Induced Conversion of Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells into Pluripotent State
The very small stuff doesn't blow around like dust. For one once they stick on to something they're very hard to remove. Unlike normal "dust" you can't wipe them easily or blow them away.
I had a particularly awkward conversation with my parents about 10 years ago when a family friend had joked about a psychologist following me around in kindergarten.. It turned out to be true and no one had ever told me.
inflated salt?
Yes my hope of a simple standard would be that you could could choose any watch with any design and still have some smart features. I don't really like the idea of the big black flat screen watch, I want my smart watch to look more or less exactly like my dumb watch - which I'm admittedly wearing only as an accessory.

I'd prefer physical hands on the watch even if it meant the info display was limited. I'd be happy with a good looking chronograph that could just notify me of messages from apps, and display short texts. 2x16 chars lfs mono text would be enough to not ruin the design of the watch.

Edit: it's a thing! http://www.slashgear.com/hps-isaac-mizrahi-smartwatch-woos-l...
(Perhaps a bit blingy but just what I'm talking about)
Despite all the graphs, there didn't seem to be any real information in the article. Not one statement from anyone (older or younger) who has used the site. I would love to hear from someone who actually used the site. Is it purely sex? Is sex expected or even normal? After seeing someone else comment that the site is owned by the Ashley Madison people I doubt that there is much evidence behind those graphs.
Research research. Lots of money is wasted on regression analysis driven nonresults and other common errors. Best practices for research especially in the era of pervasive software augmentation are very much in question.
The problem with doing that is you keep reinventing the wheel. Use deep learning if that fits the problem, but keep learning about other things like how EM works, variational inference, graphical models etc on the side. One day you might find a problem where deep learning doesn't work as well as some of the other techniques. Sure there are data science jobs that can be done without much knowledge, but people tend to stop when they see math and are just happy to use some API. This IMO is a wrong approach.
Supercharge your API workflow
Slides: https://meetingcpp.com/tl_files/mcpp/2015/talks/James%20McNe...
The design of Britain's wall sockets
I like the headline, but I felt the rest of the article didn't really live up to it.

The setup is intriguing - for instance, the notion that micromanaged children will become excellent concert violinists, but may not become ground breaking classical composers (let alone the next Bob Dylan).

The example put forth in the article to support this assertion is... Itzak Perlman. A wonderful violinist and (I don't know him at all, this is what I've read) a generous spirit as well. But aside form a foray into jazz that I thought wasn't especially notable, Perlman's greatness is more or less as a concert violinist. Interesting to hear he was rejected from music school, but this seems a very odd example.

Why not focus on someone like Stefan Grapelli, who started playing at an older age, asked a busker in the paris metro how to play the violin (who laughed the question)? Why not look into the careers and lives of musicians who made their mark through creativity rather than virtuosity? I really like violin, from a lot of angles. I enjoy the amazing precision of the great classical musicians, but I do find myself even more intrigued by musicians like Steve Wickham (who played with U2 and the water boys, among others). I do tend to agree with the article that the micromanagement many young classical musicians go through in their quest to play perfectly may indeed vastly reduce the possibility that the musician will be able to put together an interesting track for "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or collaborate with a rock musician to produce something like Fisherman's Blues. These things may in fact be inversely correlated.

There's a lot here, unfortunately, I just don't think it was explored in interesting directions by the article.
Innovation requires failures, but it does not require shysters and fraud. Theranos is not just the system working as it's supposed to.
Hopefully this forces all UCB faculty to begin to use GPG for all email communication; then that in turn requires all the faculty contacts to use GPG; finally the GPG virus spreads nationwide due to this one selfish act!
Not as easy as you seem to think.

Dams = concrete, concrete = a whole lotta cement and other energy inputs; concrete production is one of our big unsung CO2 emission sources right now.

Turbines and generators = refined metal, including copper (dynamo windings) and steel (turbine blades) -- again, lots of energy required.

Okay, we can back it off a level and go for water wheels in rivers -- a Roman to mediaeval technology -- driving the dynamos; but it's still not going to work without refined metals (energy intensive) and waterproof insulators, which means gutta-percha or rubber or refined organic polymers -- all of which mean long-haul shipping or again, energy-intensive chemical industry.

These obstacles aren't insuperable, as long as we don't get knocked back to dark ages/monasteries preserving books and knowledge but no actual lights-on/wheels-turning infrastructure. If we get knocked back that far in a post-carbon-extraction world, it'd be devilishly hard to build back up again.
Vulkan was originally supposed to start shipping in Q4 2015, and there's still not more publicly available than 12 months ago.

The frustration is a bit understandable.
Looks much better than others, thanks. Still think it's overreaching though. I don't want apps, I already have those in my phone! A simple low power radio link could relay the message "Meet joe" or "Your Uber is arriving" from my phone without the watch needing anything smart at all.

What I'm thinking of is something that all watch makers could add to a dumb watch design and only add $100 to the cost of the watch.
This was an interesting quote.

"I worked weekends, I didn't really believe in vacations," Gates says of his early years at the helm of Microsoft.

"I had to be a little careful not to try and apply my standards to how hard [others at the company] worked. I knew everybody's licence plate so I could look out the parking lot and see, you know, when people come in. Eventually I had to loosen up as the company got to a reasonable size."
That doesn't seem to fit the common usage.

The salt accompanies the message when the message should be treated with some amount of skepticism or something like that. If no skepticism is needed, no one mentions taking salt with it.

The amount of salt mentioned then increases with the amount of of skepticism needed.

So, if much more suspicion/skepticism is needed, we see that people mention much more salt.

The salt is like an antidote for the questionable sources, not just a flavoring.
It took a very long time the first time. Having knowledge, and having the resources to make use of it, are far far apart.

To drill for oil, you need drill bits. They require exotic steel. That requires high-temperature furnaces. Which requires 100 other things - ceramics, high-density fuels (not oil!), presses and breaks and grinders etc that in turn require other exotic machines to make and ingredients to find or make.

The chain of dominoes can be hundreds long. And there you are, standing in the rubble with a rock and some sticks. And you're hungry. And so is everybody else, and they want your food.

I can imagine another thousand years to get anywhere near where we are now. And it'd look completely different - combining photolithography for circuits with steam engines and slavery. All the inventions of history combined in ways that the new reality required.
>"underthreads" could result in a unbalanced system where one thread does most of the work while others are waiting

Underthreads is a mechanism I propose to speed up the slowest top thread in cases where this can be done. Like, you benchmark the program and see that one thread is holding it up. This thread has a workload that's easy to multithread, so you use underthreads to (hopefully) speed this thread up and fix the bottleneck.

>Do different threads really want to write the same variable during one timestep?

No, they are not allowed to. Every shared variable has an owner thread which is the only thread that can write to it. Hence there's no need to worry.

>what could convince a user to switch to this one?

Hopefully nothing. It's useless as it is. It's meant more as a contribution to public thought about hard real-time languages. If someone decides to use my code for anything then that's cool, but that's not important.

Every search for Scade ends up pointing to Esterel Technologies, which confused me, I guess. Didn't really know about it. Signal sounds interesting!
Intel SGX Explained
Nice project, I was looking for something similar to Trello but self-hosted, but there wasn't anything interesting out there :)

By the way, the entire "sensitive data" argument is not valid, since you're distributing a compiled binary. Do you really trust compiled binaries for sensitive data? I won't until I'll be able to review the source code.
You're right! The article concerns Ultra-Fine Particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafine_particle

A HEPA filter will still do some good, though, and 0.3um is about as small as can reasonably be found on consumer-level filters.

See http://sentryair.com/blog/tag/hepa-for-ufp/

Edit: From the article:

As you can see in the photos the 3D printer produced over
190,000 particles of varying sizes.

After the Model 300 pulled the particle-laden air through
its HEPA filter, the scanner detected 0 particles at the
unit’s air output.
From the BBC source program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z1zdt

"Hopefully make it [polio] the second decease ever, after Smallpox, to be completely eradicated"

Wrong, it would be the third decease ever. Rinderpest was the second.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/health/28rinderpest.html?p...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinderpest
Amazon explained in one chart
I wonder if scientific progress speeds up in wartime because scientists stop worrying about who gets credit and how things will affect their career and just learn to collaborate until victory is achieved.
i mean shit, id be down to have a sugarmomma. that stay at home dad life, 10/10.
Cool story! Need to tell it to my wife who deals with kids professionally.
I vote for dynamic. I left C many a year ago for dynamic languages, mostly to avoid C++. Now I'm back with Rust for a while now, thoroughly enjoying it.
Is it just me, or is using Rust for web apps kinda odd?
No worries, indeed. Good to know!
I remember at Waterloo using mC++. Is this the same ? It was pretty fun way to learn about different concurrency paradigms.
Similar to how people mention the Terman study didn't enrol two future Nobelists because they just barely missed the cutoff and so this proves IQ tests are bunk.

It would have been much better to cite the SMPY longitudinal results for a meaningful idea of how child prodigies fare.
An interesting point, but I can't see how it could happen.

The industrial revolution was sparkled not by sudden availability of raw resources (they were always there, including coal), but by advances in physics and philosophy (probably the most important person founding the change was Thomas Aquinas, who defined the separation between secular and religious pursuits, and declared that scientific understanding of the world is actually something good in its own right — but it took nearly 500 years for his ideas to finally take off). The coal, on the other hand, was equally available in 1200 as well as in 1760.

If there will be no more coal (doubtful — at least 600 years of proven reserves exist), humanity will find the replacement. Energy resources are so cheap that we have to actually restrain ourselves to limit our footprint on the planet (otherwise, nobody would care). Oil is dirty cheap and still actually flows right from the earth in some lucky places. Uranium is so cheap we are happy with ~1% utilisation rate in "classical" nuclear reactors (breeder reactors would allow full utilisation, but they cost more — so why bother if uranium is so darn cheap? With breeders, we have enough uranium for MILLIONS of years with our current energy consumption rates).

It is knowledge that must be preserved, but utter destruction of human knowledge is no longer a "boring" apocalypse scenario. It is quite interesting how this can possibly happen, and what can be done to prevent it.
GPG and HTTPS are just band aids over a far more serious problem. They don't protect meta data. Knowing what sites you connect to and who you email and how often is more than enough to seriously undermine privacy and chill discourse. The real solution is a political one, not a technical one.
It's because we were designed to look like 'God."
Those four assumptions have nothing to do with danger and everything to do with capability.

I think a more interesting question is "how do we make an intelligence, artificial or human, that isn't potentially dangerous?"

Humans have a bunch of low-level primate aggression that seems to be wired in; we can modulate it (we're largely self-domesticating) but we can't totally get rid of it and more importantly, we can't look at a baby's genome (and nurturing environment) and say "yup, this one's going to grow up to be Hitler", or "this 'un's going to be a pacifist, altruist, and general benefactor".

On the other hand we can probably add a bunch of monitoring code to any AI we develop rather than grow: if nothing else, consider the possibility of simulation runs looking for an empathy deficiency.
I posted almost exactly the same comment back in November.

I think boredom and unstructured time without any parents around was one of the most important parts of my own childhood.

Kids are so good at entertaining themselves with basically nothing! Its uncomfortable for kids to be bored but they quickly learn the entertain themselves, especially when around other kids. Its actually kind of amazing.

They never learn this skill if they aren't given the chance.

Scott Adams (Dilbert guy) says that boredom is what gave him his creativity.
> I had to be a little careful not to try and apply my standards to how hard [others at the company] worked.

The hard part is to avoid applying them to friends and family. They will resent you for all those sideways glances and scoffs when you're working at home and they're relaxing on the couch.

They also won't be happy when you never have time to do things with them.
Ok, I can see why you might be jaded about it! I've had very different experiences, and, as you say, it probably depends on the people who are implementing it - the discipline is very important, and perhaps we were fortunate in that regard without realising it, because it was something we implemented as a group rather than being imposed on us from above.
Wow this is gorgeous! Nice work.

I have a product in a similar space, Beaver Builder (https://www.wpbeaverbuilder.com). A few differences being that it's an in-browser tool and it's a WordPress plugin.

Who is your target customer? Are you hoping to improve workflows for frontend developers or enable non-developers to build web pages? Also, what are your thoughts on maintaining a Bootstrap Studio site?

FWIW, we hit a nice niche with freelance web designers and web agencies. Drag and drop streamlines the development process and it also enables more tech-savvy clients to jump in and make their own edits and updates.
Expecting to hear more Vulkan details from Khronos at the Game Developer's Conference 2016 in March:

https://www.khronos.org/news/events/gdc-2016-khronos-session...
>coldtea is a known pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft shill who has no problem lying in an attempt to make Apple look good and make Microsoft look bad.

Sorry, but what is this kind of Reddit-level BS?

First, "shill" means a paid lackey. I don't think you know me, and I sure don't know you. So that's not just rude, it's insulting. Even more so "has no problem lying".

Also "known pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft"? What are you, 16 years old? If you have issues with Apple take it with the company, not people you don't know in forums.

I'm 40ish, not some corporate fanboi in their parents' basement -- which yur kind of arguments seem to be meant for. I've used and am using both Apple and MS products. And Linux and FreeBSD. In fact I've cut my teeth on SunOS, back before there was OS X and Gnome. So, I could not give LESS fucks about Apple or Microsoft. I just tell it like I see it.

Microsoft has been trying with their tablet for decades, and I know because I was in the IT sector all those decades. And it was always subpart, in a crude PC with a detachable monitor way.

So, after nearly 2 decades of them trying, I wouldn't call making 1.3 billion revenue in 3 months with the latest Surface "impressive". Especially since Apple just made 40% more with a new product category, and with a first-generation product in only 6 months -- as opposed to after 16 years of trying to make it with the same product category (and losing money all the while on it).

How is 1.3 billion in 3 months for Surface impressive, when its competitor, considered "declining" still managed to do 4-5 times the number in its last quarter?