skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>the perks (especially priority access, Lounge, preferred seats etc) actually make travel better and more convenient. So not putting all eggs in one basket then simply does not do the job.

For $1067, you can get a year of TSA Precheck, Economy Plus and United Club lounge access, which is about how much you might save by comparison shopping on just half a dozen flights. And if you are a "frequent flier" you are probably flying more than that.
> But as of a little more than a week ago I’m finally convinced that black holes exist, just as General Relativity suggests.

Didn't we know black holes 100% exist 20 yrs ago because of the orbits of the stars around the centre of the galaxy and before that because of quasars?
C++ needs this more than anything else IMHO. After you've worked with D or Rust for a bit, trying to incorporate external code into a C++ project is like running your nails down a blackboard.
Scientists pave way for new generation of superbug drugs
To your first point, I think that's correct when you reach a certain level of granularity, like specific issues. Very often what can happen when people lose the distinction between Party and Belief is that (as touched on in the article):

1. We can only think of two viewpoints

2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity;

In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit bias not against "People who Disagree with you on Issue C" but "The Word Republican/Democrat" and that this bias was also exhibited by Independents and Leaners.

To your second point, that the side-picking is mostly separate from everyday life, consider the last section of the Iyengar study, which finds that even in non-political contexts, like awarding scholarships, a signal on a resume indicating ties to a Party exerts a very strong impact on which candidate is selected.

The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," but I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized even when they don't completely agree on every single thing, and for us to perhaps make fewer incorrect judgements based on this organization.
Ask HN: Multiple computer connected to a Wifi restarting at the same time
So suddenly, all the computers in my office mostly Macs connected to the office WiFi just shut down at the same time.

I don't know what to do, is our network being compromised or is this just a WiFi issue.

Everyone is now suspicious.
SparkSQL: Query Planning and Code Generation
maybe the mechanism of "shutting down" these processors is not about ON/OFF behaviour, bur rather just disconnect from processing pipeline, not being in sync with other ongoing processes etc.

generally brain on psychdelics is in "overdrive" mode (confirming on myself), but maybe not everything is on turbo in same way, and works seamlessly in normal state doesn't work well anymore
How to fire half your team
I'm likewise not convinced that the fine structure constant and other constants of its ilk were obtained without taking measurements.

The units involved in the aspect ratio disappear because they are divided out. After that, we don't have to (in fact, must not) cite any units when giving the aspect ratio.
I've never been to Colorado so could be wrong. But this article makes me worry, especially for the kids. And, that you can't distinguish b/w a regular candy and one with marijuana in it. And, the concern that as time passes and this industry becomes big, and gain enough political muscle, favorable regulations would be made. All valid concerns.
To be fair the side ads were the least noticed by me. There were times when I even confused the top ad with the actual search result.

Slightly off topic but has anyone noticed the new side loading ads on a youtube video? I keep accidentally clicking on them when moving the slider. It passes through all ad blockers and obstructs part of the playing video.
I found the "gravitational crystal" concept and the following part interesting:

"But what about the three-body problem? The pictures above suggest a very different story. And indeed my guess is that the evolution of a three-body system can correspond to an arbitrarily sophisticated computation—and that with suitable initial conditions it should in fact be able, for example, to emulate any Turing machine, and thus act as a universal computer."

Building a complicated physical computer to simulate real-world similar to the one in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an interesting concept. But wouldn't designing that computer require even greater computational power?
Great work folks, looks fantastic, can't wait to give it a whirl. :)
Clickbait headline, apparently:

Update: Gates was interviewed on Bloomberg this morning where he clarified the angle the Financial Times piece. He said he was "disappointed" by the headline because it "doesn't state my view on this." Gates went on to explain that he supports a discussion to resolve the issue. "I do believe there are sets of safeguards where the government shouldn't have to be completely blind," he said. In other words, he's not siding with the FBI, but he does believe there are cases where law enforcement should have access, with the proper safeguards in place.
10 Top States for Tech-Salary Growth
wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own

It very much would be. This is another argument for federalism/secessionism: a laboratory of governments/social structures will provide better feedback as to what works and what does not for various populations.

I think it is also worth bearing in mind that "does better" is inherently subjective, since value is subjective. Some political units may be fine trading GDP for a better environment, while others may be fine trading sexual freedom for stability. The irreconcilability of values/moral axioms dictates that we either agree to allow sufficiently differentiated groups to develop their own political units, or we impose our axioms on them (or they, us.)
"Wall Street" as popularly imagined - the world of big banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs etc. don't invest in anything. Wall Street's role is threefold:

- Providing access to capital and dealmaking facilities for companies looking to grow or change ownership. That's IPOs, debt issues, mergers & acquisitions, spinoffs, corporate restructuring. Banks organize those deals and shop them around, acting as advisers.

- Facilitating trading of securitized instruments (public stocks, bonds, derivatives) by making markets or otherwise connecting buyers and sellers to exchanges or other counterparties. These buyers and sellers are the funds actually investing in individual companies and retail brokers servicing individual investors. The bank is neutral in its view of the issuers of the securities being traded, it just wants to see trading happen. (Sometimes this involves creating a specific instrument for one client and selling offsetting instruments to others, but again the intent is that the bank is not taking a position in that client.)

- Providing banking services to corporate clients. Loaning them money, helping them manage exposure to foreign currencies, and so on. The kind of stuff any retail bank does for its individual clients, but scaled up.

> Idealist me thinks that Wall Street should invest in those companies they believe in and wish to assist in achieving their business goals.

Your idealist premise is also a bit frightening if you think about it further: you're suggesting that an industry with a purely facilitatory role - i.e. offering access to public markets - should use some sort of qualitative moral judgement on who it should provide services to. That's a dark path.

Fortunately your industry does exist: it's called the buy side, and there are fund managers out there who will happily take your money, pool it with others, and invest according to a thesis they are legally obliged to share with you and stick to.
We do, but the camera only captures a picture of the speeder at the place where the violation occurs which constitutes a valid cause. So it's no usable for tracking (unless the target you're tracking is speeding through every radar trap). On top of that, once the ticket is paid the data is supposed to be deleted. (whether that really happens is yet another discussion)
It also breaks Gettysburg down into four battles—Gettysburg itself, Pickett's Charge, Little Round Top and Big Round Top. I guess that's one way to do it.
Do note that in a corporate setting, this obsession is primarily due to Project managers, Implementations, and even Sales who don't have a hand in the actual development expecting projects to be finished quickly, and to "just work."

When these groups hear the words "Agile Development" which was a common buzzword in recently past years - they take it literally - "moving quickly."

I completely agree, and it is often the cause of absolutely unnecessary bugs, stress, inefficient code, and developers often precipitate this bad obsession. But it comes from, and is ingrained from, somewhere else.
Yes, this is very naive. They're actually asking for a forensic instrument - asserting that it is for a one-time use is absurd on the face of it. The most thorough deconstruction of this argument I've seen is here: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645
Thank you for de-clickbaiting the title
Ratios and Quantities are completely different things
Bill Gates says Apple-FBI fight is not black and white
Yes except the FBI wants to send the phone to Apple to do the hack and remotely access it so the firmware never leaves the building.

Apple's claim is that this 1) may be abused by authorities through subsequent requests and 2) is too dangerous to create because "cyber criminals" will try to hack them and steal it.

Abuse is definitely a concern, although one would hope that could be resolved through democratic oversight, rather than shutting down the ability of law enforcement to obtain digital records under most circumstances.

But as for the concern about getting hacked, I wonder if Apple is being a bit coy. They already possess the private signing key. That's already a super valuable secret that would allow criminals to install their own malcode. That danger already exists. It would be harder if the hacker also had to hack the firmware, but probably not harder than hacking Apple to get the private key in the first place.
But it comes with free Frogurt
If everybody that just don't like telemarketing (count me in) just politely stop the caller and don't buy the service everything you just said would happen, without burning the poor minimum wage employee that's in the middle of the hate.

It's not a matter of effectiveness, it's a matter of ethics. You don't spam the spammer. You don't fight an evil with evil.
Funnily enough, as far as I've ever been able to tell, the phrase "LOL colours" would mean "these colours are stupid".

(Of course, as I no longer 14 years old, who can say for sure that I've inferred correctly? And I couldn't figure out the right search terms for urbandictionary, which is ordinarily helpful for this sort of question. But I imagine it's somewhat related to this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lol+theory)
Uber Says Kalamazoo Driver Had 4.73 Rating, Completed Over 100 Rides
> i-whatevers have some sort of "trusted computing" bootloader or something... so can only boot a digitally signed version of the OS.

Yes.

> So even if the FBI dumped the firmware from the phone and found just the right branch instructions to flip to disable the time delay and data erasure... they couldn't deploy the firmware because it wouldn't boot.

Correct.

> Wouldn't that mean that Apple is 100% correct in saying that creating such a firmware would allow "law enforcement" to do this to any phone in their possession.

Only Apple knows the answer to this with 100% certainty.
> Germany.

Heh, I was born in Juelich. But I've lived in the U.S. since I was 5 so I'm culturally American.

> I guess it falls back to Puritanism again

Yep, pretty much.

> I also find Puritanism far more appalling than any swearword or expletive.

I can't really argue with you about that. Nonetheless, I think it's important to be judicious in one's choice of occasions to break societal norms, even when those norms aren't rational.
Neat. Note that this technique will work on any system that has a high-speed I2S bus that can be operated by DMA, which these days is quite a lot of microcontrollers.

See also Fabrice Bellard's DVB-T broadcast using XWindows: http://www.bellard.org/dvbt/

It's a kind of reverse "TEMPEST": rather than detecting a computer's accidentally radiated emissions, deliberately radiate emissions in a particular pattern to produce a radio signal.
The end of social commerce 1.0
Searchkit 0.7 Released UI Framework for Elasticsearch
How indie developers build out multiplayer games
http://cdecl.org/

const char *foo

declares a pointer to a char that is constant.

const char * const foo

declares a constant pointer to a char that is constant.
'If I'm going to be forced to eat a pile of shit for my lunch, I'd rather it be my own'

No thanks.
> So has legalization been a plus or a minus?
>
> “Yes,” Colorado Senate President Bill Cadman replied with a laugh.

"Yes" is not an answer to the question. WTF?
This is why functional programmers get so grouchy - it's great that Swift has picked up this kind of functionality, but ML family languages have had it for 40 years now :/. Worse is when a feature gets dismissed as "incomprehensible" for years until it gets picked up by some fashionable language and then suddenly everyone's excited about it.
It's nice being a United Global Service member--that "secret" level among 1K. It really helps when there's irops.
You've got the right intuition here. The unitless part is key for several reasons. It means that the number itself is meaningful. In your example, the ratio of 1.7 long/wide would be the same no matter what units used to make the measurement. (Obviously, the units DO have to actually cancel cm/inches doesn't work). The number for the speed of light (299 792 458 m/s) is a defined property, so that number doesn't mean anything deeply. However, 1/137... itself is directly meaningful. This is why people who work in fundamental constant research use dimensionless ratios.

Now for a piece that's more interesting. The fine-structure constant (alpha) is the coupling constant that sets the strength of electromagnetism. This means that its value is the thing that matters in the equation: e^2/\hbar c. Each of the other values is a derived quantity. Further, to speak a bit loosely, only changes in alpha matter -- in the sense that if the speed of light (c) changes, but the other constants (e and \hbar) change in a way that keeps alpha the same, then you wouldn't be able to tell with an experiment that anything has changed.

Contrast this situation w/ a change in alpha -- a table-top experiment would be able to detect the change (given that it's large enough, and we have methods of measuring changes on year-time scales that are a few parts in ~10^-18 (Rosenband, 2008)), as it would mean that physics has changed in a fundamental way.

http://phys.columbia.edu/~millis/1900/readings/Science-2008-...
I apologize if I'm incorrect, but I believe English is not your first language. There is a difference between opposition and conflict. It's a bit subtle but it's very important in this context.

When you say a "malicious client" you are misunderstanding the purpose of my analogy. A malicious client would be "the enemy". I'm talking about a client that is interested with engaging with the service, not just shutting it down. The client may like to have all the information and resources the server has available to it, (for example, perhaps a facebook user might want to see when people look at their photos, not just like/comment) but the server needs to consider the experience of all the clients and users, not just the one. So there is opposition (but not conflict!) between the two. The client will not be allowed to have this information, even though the server has it. Conflict would be manifested by the user abandoning the service (or attacking it, as in your example) because of this incompatible or insurmountable difference.
Security is all or nothing. There are no in-between states.
If there's something to get from all my posts, is that we need to learn to operate with the assumption of compromise in mind, plan for failures and learn to rebuild, rapidly. Rust simply solves the wrong problems.

For a language that certainly has the mindset, look at Erlang.
Unikernels and Erlang will do more for actual security than a million
monkeys cranking out perfectly safe Rust code.

"Decreasing an attacker's surface" is pragmatically, bullshit. No competent attacker (and that doesn't include just nation states these days) will be deterred by a decreased attack surface.
From intensive but still hobby usage for the past 10+ months I get a feeling that I have a lot /less/ bugs, and if I do have one it is an algorithmical error rather than some UB.

This is of course just my view and is heavily skewed towards what I usually do, which is Games and Web Apps. It also depends on how you qualify a bug. (Is a panic a bug? Might or might not be.)

To continue that train of thought: I have a feeling Rust will change what one would consider a bug (inside the Rust ecosystem at least). Since you do not actually corrupt memory most of the time (minus unsafe shenanigans) you actually do not get a lot of cases where you get a crash and you don't know why. RUST_BACKTRACE always told me where something panicked which is pretty much always sufficient to debug since you just have to verify your invariants you thought were correct when you for example 'unwrap' or call panic! yourself.
Build an Arduino IoT Project on Google Cloud and InfluxDB
I know that it's used for more than just C programs, but it still seems a little perverse to rewrite the C standard library in something other than C. Imagine if someone had a preference for writing his Python libraries in Perl that emitted Python bytecode. Or if C++'s Boost was the output of a Haskell program.
Just curious why you would use that imperative example with Racket, and not an imperative language like Python, or even Haskell? You parenthetically mention (match) (ha!) but to someone who doesn't know the languages, give the impression that Racket can't do pattern matching.

Anyway, this is the analogous `map` in racket:

(define (my-map f lst)
(match lst
['() '()]
[(cons hd tl) (cons (f hd) (my-map f tl))]))

It's a 1-to-1 correspondence, and is arguably the idiomatic way to define `map` in Racket.
FWIW I have had a manager complain about it.
Same feeling. Apart from the occasional Wolframism ("my Rule 30"), this is a really informative read.
I absolutely agree with you. My idea is that perhaps the worst thing about a site that claims to report news but doesn't do good journalism is just that it claims to report news. I don't think people would or should stop reading sites that don't have the stamp, I just think there are ways to allow for macro-organizations without suggesting that "the way we do it is the only way, except for complete government control."
Justinmind New Release
AMD is more than welcome to write better Linux drivers. And hopefully Vulkan makes that a bit easier by its low-level nature.
This is only true if you can be sure of your starting axioms, which is not the case in social organization. Experiments simply add specific metrics to your set of axioms.

It all comes down to heuristics, and differing heuristics are not mutually exclusive.
Will there be a day when organic results will fall below 20% CTR?
> To me, your advice comes across as condescending. Maybe you need to work on your communication skills too?

And now we've come full circle
You should have your eyes checked. Halos around bright light sources may be caused by cataracts.

Cataracts generally affect the elderly, but young people may also have it due to genetic factors or medication (such as corticosteroids).
You may have astigmatism or some other more "mundane" issue there. I see them partially too, but it's astigmatism, because when I put on my glasses they go away. Some do it more than others, but that may be related to the spectrum of the light, which varies quite substantially.

(On that note, here's an old HN post I recall about how to cheaply and easily see light spectrums: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=971413 Of course you can't do that with car lights very easily, but you can still check incandescent vs. florescent vs. LED, etc. fairly easily, and perhaps learn to correlate which is which when you see the "rainbows".)
That will never happen. It's all posing. In my experience they are most likely obsessed with the privacy of others.

Let's not forget they are the country of the Stasi, where your own colleagues will report to your manager about your little Facebook habit, where people yell at you on the spot for not recycling properly and where landlords demand intrusive credit records before renting.
Robotboy Ruby dances a dubstepic tribute
Buffer overflows seem to be a pretty recurring theme in these security issues, yep.
I don't mind a bit of work travel, but I am also picky about the routes I take. Anything in Europe, it is SFO to "somewhere in Europe, not Heathrow" and then from there. I've usually had status (Gold) but my wife and I also travel enough privately where taking advantage of a travel credit card that gives you status (and extra miles blahblah) helps.

I've not done a milage run, nor will I do multiple hops just to get a few hundred (or a thousand) extra miles. The only exception to that is if the alliance I prefer (Star Alliance) doesn't have as direct as say One World, I'll still take the Star Alliance route for the miles.

About the only airline I travel with more than UA/other star alliance partners is Alaska because I head up to the Pacific Northwest frequently.
And more and more we see those methods are quite fallible but sold to the public as proof positive: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028133944.h...

The point is the government is already not respecting the rule of law with all the 'secret FISA court' stuff nor does their foreign policy seem capable of making us safer. I am loathe to give them more weapons against activists, politicians, journalist and the discontented when they have greatly earned our distrust.
The Scala compiler is excruciatingly slow for me. I frequently rely on polytypic programming techniques to prove (with a small "p") that my code is correct. The compiler simply can't keep up with me.

The end result is that my state of flow is continually interrupted, or at least under assault. Bobbling my head to trance music while implicits are resolved is the only antidote that I know of.
IIRC the predecessor was injected as malware into MITM'ed software downloads.

So if the police wants to deploy it against a suspect they first get access to their network traffic and then work from there. It was intended as an alternative to breaking and entering to deploy surveillance equipment or gain physical access to hardware.

Of course this approach has several obvious limitations (e.g. encryption) but there may be other approaches in use. That's just what I remember from when the original trojan was reported on a few years back.
Thanks, we're excited to show it to the world.
With even the same parallels that consuming marijuana while underage was illegal before and will be illegal after. You may as well publish articles about the effects of alcohol on underage brains (which is actually quite detrimental) as an argument for prohibition.
Very little productivity will _ever_ be conveyed if you're stuck using a low-res HDMI display connection!
A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2
As mentioned in another message, you may have astigmatism. I get triangular spikes off of relatively point-sources at a consistent angle of about 10 degrees clockwise from vertical from my astigmatism. Your angle will vary, of course.
Very cool. Is there a getting started tutorial somewhere?