skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting. I sometimes mentor junior / aspiring devs on a site, and have seen that many of them seem to be trying to get on to the bandwagon you mention; some of them don't even have good experience with basic programming, and are still trying to do machine learning / data science MOOCs, bootcamps or courses on free sites. Some of them seem to be trying to learn programming at the same time as data science / machine learning. Don't think that is going to work out well for them. Many of them seem to in it for the supposed bonanza. Wanting to get a well-paying job is fine in itself, but many of them seem to be trying to shortcut the learning process, either due to ignorance or just because they don't want to spend a lot of time.

Edit: grammar.
"The Obama administration has proposed spending $4 billion to accelerate autonomous-car technology during the next decade"

Why are we using public funds to research something the industry is already developing due to market demand?
The invaluable service of TrollBusters
The UN chart at the first Google result [0] seems to indicate a negative second derivative. This would imply that human population, like all other populations of all other organisms, exhibits logistic, not exponential, growth. Of course, portions of logistic charts can appear exponential.

[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140918-popul...
When you put it that way, it's really interesting to think of it as a language shift rather than just a question of marketing honesty. If the average person describes the car he already owns as "self-driving", perhaps that will accelerate acceptance of real driverless cars.
I prefer the development order of make it work, make it correct, then make it fast. Expresses a similar idea, but in terms of priorities instead of "don't do that at all".
Interesting. I always interpreted it as, "Don't sweat the details yet- you don't even know if anybody wants what you are building. Find that out first."
It was stupid for this article to start talking about the $4 billion Obama has talked about for research.

This article is about features and not a real self driving car. If anything the features make this car very dangerous in the hands of people concerned with their phones and tablets and kind of proves the need for investments like the $4 billion.

To me it sounds like the free market is about to make the road damn dangerous for the rest of us. To quote the article, "For instance, some owners have posted videos of hands- and foot-free driving on YouTube and the car inevitably makes a mistake.".
Feature request: Only install dependencies once you've blasted them.
Combating Hate Speech Against Women Journalists on Twitter
... sorry but syntax highlighting on spoken languages for parts of speech would be CRAZY useful when learning to read that language.
* it's straightforward to write extensions in whatever language is best for the job--something really*

Although this is great, this sounds like it can cause a lot fragmentation, everyone writing plugins with their favorite language and consumers having to deal with the pain of multiple runtimes.

Is there a preferred language endorsed by the project?
In the case of MVP & Prototype development and maybe even the long run:

Clever architecture will always beat clever coding.

In the early stages premature optimization can engage too much clever coding and architecture.

There's no shortage of time spent building and optimizing a stack that largely introduces overhead to quickly iterate and solve a problem. I guess this perspective also keeps in mind you should likely throw away the first version of whatever you build because it uncovers how the architecture should be, and where, if anywhere the clever coding and optimization should be.

It's not to say optimization isn't worth thinking about. It's not just worth obsessing about at a scale perspective, and experienced developers develop clever architecture approaches and habits that buy their designs breathing room as they may grow.

The fundamental issue here is every piece of software is meant to break at a certain capacity, just like hardware. As the author very eloquently mentioned, understanding what you may come back to revisit and develop often may be one thing, and other areas you may not end up touching again, and may be worth a different type of design thought.

The mentors I have worked with have balanced the thought of being kind to your future developer self in the present, and that can mean not under, or over-engineering a solution.

Quite often the architectural design needs to be proven and verified before building a lot around it. Spending more time on the schema and architecture to ensure this is where I've found massive gains in baking in optimization to the bread with little development overhead other than planning and thinking a bit more.

Quite often if I want to dive in to build a throw away prototype, I'll stop myself and think of a plan. When I'm hesitant to build without a plan, I often let myself prototype lightly to aid development of a plan.

Developing for the simplest common denominator in the early stages to allow as many people to participate in the learning and direction of the solution is extremely critical as well. When problems reach the 10-100 million row level there will be a lot more to figure out than just optimizing it.

Quite often technologies get caught up in optimizing technical design and code, and not users, problems or solving them. Maybe users need to be the focus for Technical developers, and technical understanding is something to focus on for non-technical developers who trivialize technical matters.
As ben1040 put it, "the article blows [self-driving] out of proportion." Jklowden hypothesizes that WSJ blew it out of proportion in order to paint a picture that the government is wasting money at best and not letting the free market innovate at worst. It wouldn't surprise me that a publication like Wall Street Journal would advocate in favor of a free market.
I remember reading a submission here on hn about the problems with GPUs a while back.

No worries, I did not undertand it that way. I like it if users try to keep the awareness about potential security problems up.
How to Run a Usability Test with Your Target Users
Common engineering fallacy: "I could have done that in 2 months". Why not two weeks? Or "two days using frameworks x and y"?

I don't know anything about the author but if he worked on this nights and weekends for a full year it seems about right to me (and great job)!

Though, maybe I'm not 10x enough to know better. :-)
> People pay for RHEL, SUSE, Windows, Mongo, MySQL, etc.. support even though they may be part of a company perfectly capable of resolving any issue with the software.

Regarding those examples:

1) For RHEL and Windows, paying is not optional
2) Mongo is so buggy most people need to pay for support in production
3) MySQL works well, but don't expect anything more than "forum answers" from Oracle support. Only 1 in 1000 companies paid for support according to the former president of MySQL AB.

Actually, companies are reluctant to pay for support for Open Source products, hence the business model tweaks of Redhat and the Open Core models of Nagios and other smaller Open Source vendors.
In this region: Movies are not available legally, and so people pirate them. When those people come to HN to say why they pirate movies other people say "just buy the DVD", or "just go without".

"Just buy the DVD" doesn't work for the reasons given; just go without is dumb for the reasons you give.

I don't think I'm arguing for the position you think I'm arguing for.
> If the smartest people at Badoo are most comfortable with PHP

That is a sad, albeit realistic thought.
The special frames are ones where people have voted that it demands extra attention (e.g. text to read) that wouldn't be possible at multiple FPS. Debated just appears to be that there are significant yes votes, but insufficient to make it special.
I think it dies give some protection. Sure when swat comes to your house, guns will not save you. However in a extrem case were masses of people feel threatened by government and their is real civil unrest, the cost for the govemnet to put this down by force will be massivly higher.

In that sense its the same as encryption, it all boils down to an argument of economics.

When the NSA wants to hack you, you are fucked. When the FBI wants to arrest you, you are fucked. Only in mass can either of these measures have a large impact on government policy. Both things stop the goverment from some actions that they might take.

I agree that guns have larger everyday danger effect then encryption. However Im not convinced that, its sufficantly good argument outlaw guns.
I am not particularly opposed to their argument (crony capitalism is evil, after all) but their omission of decades of handouts to fossil-based businesses, as well as variety of present-day deductions crafted specifically for those industries makes the argument hypocritical or incomplete, to say the least.
I've got the same car and you're dead on.

I really wanted the automatic cruise control but the truth is it's a hassle in the city on the highway. I don't want to constantly adjust the distance between the car in front of me and my car as conditions change so I end up just managing it myself without cruise control or setting it 'classic' mode where it doesn't use the radar.

That said shortly after I bought the car I drove it across state and the automatic cruise control and lane keep were FANTASTIC. I know the lane keep seems kind of lazy but when you're driving across the plains with heavy cross winds it makes things SO much easier. Really a road trip feature.

The 'you must steer' alert is fun. I've discovered one or two places near my house where the street is straight enough (along with the alignment on my car) that it will briefly trigger some times. Note that it's ALWAYS active (unless you turn it off), it's not only in use when you're using the lane keep function.

EDIT:

Also, sadly, Honda doesn't have a full-stop automatic cruise control like some other brands. If the traffic gets too slow it will disengage and warn you that you're in control. It's never something you could use on a standard street, highway only.
That's not really an analogy, it's an assertion without a shred of evidence.

I'm torn about the blackbox thing. On one hand, it's important to understand the underpinnings of a model. On the other, we utilize a multitude of things in our daily lives of which we have no fundamental understanding; that's abstraction in a nutshell.
Thanks!

So what we are saying is that a neural network can be used as the implementation for the q-function? I.e., a q-function is by definition only a mapping of (S,A) pairs to an expected future reward. We can do this using a traditional style like value iteration or back propagation, or we can use a neural network? And it's just a matter of implementation?
>Or alternatively how Badoo could have saved $1.9M by coding in a compiled language.

Assuming you don't include the cost of converting their 3 million lines of code to a new language and the cost of learning a new language. Of cause they did need to "port" from PHP5 to PHP7, but I feel that it's cheaper than going to a completely different language.

You're not wrong, but the $1M saving is much cheaper bought than the $1.9M. PHP is a weird language though, it's easy to get started with, pretty efficient at this point, and yet somehow people use it to write ugly and sluggish code. I haven't written PHP in a long time, so this may have changed, but it almost like the language is missing ways of structuring the code in a sane way.
Show HN: DaBi – data binding library that keeps it simple
3 millions lines of code for a dating website ? Hopefully they don't decide to create their own OS !
I really enjoyed this one: https://work.caltech.edu/telecourse.html

As stated in another comment, the basics haven't changed much. The libraries you will use have evolved though. My impression is that that is where the innovation has been.
> I don't see how it is drastically simpler. Yes the logistics would be easier. There still needs to be an infrastructure for identification of passengers and dispatch of vehicles that is completely independent of what is driving the vehicles themselves.

I don't think anyone expects it to be drastically simpler overnight, but when you look at the value proposition there is every reason to expect that someone will figure it out, package it, and sell it as a service.

Several major automakers are working on this, as well as Uber, Lyft, and a number of startups.

I do think it will be an iterative process where the first few attempts may backfire, and I do think that there will still be a large number of people who want a non-shared car; On the other hand there may also be a very large number of people who would love to have a "free" car that other people get to use when they are not using it.
Cinemagraph Photoshop Action
Examples on either side abound.

I know I've certainly done enough optimizations that left the code clearer and shorter (despite often being more verbose with naming), while being more performant due to shedding whatever messy, tortured approach was in use before. Enough small gains like this have come out of code where I was the original author that it isn't a case of conceit.

Clear and simple code can frequently beat clever code, regardless of which metric you choose to apply from the "performance or understandability" bag.
[Infographic] the Complete Checklist for Choosing a CPC Ad Network
That article gives no hard evidence that bloodletting is actually beneficial for the treatment of anything, correct? Observing that some tiny subset of the many things treated with bloodletting can be helped by something that shares some things in common with bloodletting -- but with no evidence that even then the benefits are wouldn't still be swamped by the large negative effects of bloodletting -- is not impressive. Nor is pointing out that some current medications haven't been shown to be beneficial in some situations.
I'm impressed Honda is offering it on all models (LX, Sport, EX, EX-L, Touring) instead of saying "Sorry, Touring only".

Now that I've had Honda Sensing for a few months I really like (in a rental right now and miss parts of it), but I'd like real blind spot indicators and the cross traffic alert.

Either way, serious upgrade from a 'dumb' car.
Why should I trust this site with my email?
I got a mazda that does the same thing.
Just like with encryption, it might be the state actors you want to be protected from. So that argument is totally nosense.

If you buy that argument you could also argue that govermnets should be trusted as a holder of cryptogrphic keys.
Get Rich or Hack Tryin’
> It seems one of the least developer friendly languages possible on a large project.

That would depends largely on your developers. I know it's weird but PHP developers tend to be really productive in PHP.
Well, yes, I was describing supervised learning (as what doesn't happen) where labels are not present is unsupervised (which makes things much more difficult). Reinforcement is more like a special case between supervised and unsupervised. Difficult like unsupervised because the labels aren't known, but with some feedback that is not a direct answer. Sorry for the confusion. There is very little in the way of purely unsupervised learning. I think the distinction between unsupervised and reinforcement is not very well defined. I would argue that even a "pure" unsupervised algorithm like k-means has a kind of reinforcement in the group means.
You can't use traditional servers to scale in lots of cases without a lot of additional development work. You can use Erlang servers to do so. Therefore, they're not the same - Erlang covers a broader range of use cases.
Cabbie pay is huge compared to the depreciation of the car. Medallion systems create deliberate taxi shortages to prop drivers' daily income up somewhere near a livable level. It might be viable to have a self-driving van on every block if they could idle with nearly zero cost.
There's a related joke about engineers at an aviation software convention. This one might even be true.

At a talk to an audience of avionics programmers, the speaker at one point asks: "Tell me truthfully; how many of you would be comfortable flying in a plane where your team had done the software?"

Onlt a couple of people put their hands up. The speaker targets someone at the front. "You have that much confidence in your work?"

"I'd be fine," they reply. "If my team wrote the software, the plane would never even leave the ground."
When in doubt, use your head.
Not quite.

* OP is arguing that optimisation is usually problematic from multiple perspectives. Here's the full quote:

Optimization often involves making code less clear, more brittle, or with a more pasta-like organization. Frequently optimization requires writing code that if looked at out of context, doesn't make sense or might even look wrong.

* I am arguing that these assumptions cannot be made so easily.

Yes, they qualified the statements with "often" and "frequently", but the tone is clearly negative. It shouldn't be, and we shouldn't shun writing fast code out of the belief that it's at odds with readability or robustness.
Another possibility is that if self-driving taxis take over, cars might get a lot smaller. Most of the space in your car is wasted most of the time and is only there for the occasional time that you need it.

Although, I'm not arguing whether self-driving cars will be a net good or bad from an environmental standpoint, I'm not sure.
> However in a extrem case were masses of people feel threatened by government and their is real civil unrest, the cost for the govemnet to put this down by force will be massivly higher.

It didn't seem to stop them at Waco. Since they're getting army surplus from actual warzones I'm not sure the civilians can put up much resistance.
I buy proprietary software all the time from respectable entrepreneurs many of whom are independent developers. Personally, I find people accusing them of being unethical for doing so rude and mean spirited about something that's frankly none of their business.

I buy music from artists that don't release the scores for their music free and without copyright. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with them. It's unfathomable to me where this righteous sense of entitlement comes from. But that's just me.
At least in that case example.com is a reserved domain name
http://www.iana.org/domains/reserved
As someone who works for a company whose main business is IoT/M2M/Connected Devices/Embedded Stuff on the Internet, it already has been and it almost meaningless.
It doesn't seem to be as simple for cross platform support, I have had to use different settings for Linux and OSX
> but it almost like the language is missing ways of structuring the code in a sane way.

Sounds like you haven't touched it in a while - it's quite different from even 8 years ago.
As far as I can tell Wall Street has always had a penchant for pedigree in addition to skills. Large companies are often the same. People used to talk about all software engineers needing CS degrees in the future. Again in Wall Street and large companies you'll see this, but there are still plenty of well paid, talented software developers with no formal CS training.

In my experience hiring and chatting with other people hiring data scientists, there's the same trouble as there is with software engineers. No matter how many people have the training there's still a dearth of applicants that are truly talented and can actually do things. PhDs fleeing academia for a promise of easy employment and money are a huge bulk of new data scientists that I've seen and most of them have a very hard time taking deep knowledge and applying it to solve real-world problems.

At least in tech I think the future of Data Science lies in the perpetually small group of people that will have a proven track record of coming into companies and actually solving problems, just as it has been in software development.
Supermarket sues banks over chip card shift, says it lost $10K in 4.5 months
>This is why majority of sane driverless vehicle talk has concluded a human driver must always be in the driver seat, ready to take control.

And people who do research in this area have concluded that this doesn't work. People let their attention drift (even if they don't actively perform some other task) and, even if people are more or less paying attention, they haven't been driving and switching modes in that way is difficult.

We're definitely reaching the point with assistive driving systems where there probably needs to be more discussion about how much assistance makes sense if no one is willing to fully turn over control.
Best places to find freelance projects
Interesting. To be honest, a static data set would be perfectly fine for a first batch processing attempt.

> that could be used to get the kind of data you need.

Cool. Would you be interested in sharing or exchanging data?
Yeah but no proposed gun control law, not even the most extreme ones from the "gun ban" lobby would've prevented her from owning a handgun or in this case shoot by a toddler.
I've gone cold turkey on caffeine a couple of times - usually I crave chocolate (presumably because of the caffeine). What I've learnt is to be sure to drink other things as otherwise the dehydration makes the headaches far worse.

When I worked in an office I'd drink coffee as an excuse to take a break, switched to fruit teas (careful they're not all caffeine free). Ginger cordial makes a lovely hot drink too.
> Blood letting was benefitial, it saved many limbs from amputation.

What is the evidence for this?

I'd say, in contrast, that chemotherapy is analogous to amputation. Both are crude and horrific treatments, but both have and are used with strong evidence that they are beneficial to the patient. Bloodletting, on the other hand, has only weak theoretical arguments that it may have been very slightly useful in a tiny minority of cases, but was definitely ineffective or harmful in the vast majority of cases.
The key difference is control and convenience.

The big advantages of driving vs. flying are that the trip starts from your house, whenever you want it to start. There's no sharing space with passengers. Bathroom and food stops are at your convenience, no-one else's.

You lose these with a bus.
Looks pretty cool, but doing RPC over RMQ is quite expensive. I would rather see good abstractions over ZMQ - that would be really cool.

Also as many people here pointed out, RMQ is a single point of failure which might be acceptable for some cases. To me, the problem is that by design this architecture has a bottleneck which is really hard to get rid off.
Wow- this think tanked quickly off of the front page. With 35 points submitted 4 hours ago, it is on page 7- below a story submitted one day ago that only has 6 points. Is this an intervention of the mods?
Avoid Sharing Key Pairs for EC2
In case of caffeine addiction tests, I would argue that a life-long trial of fewer people over a short-term trial of many people would produce more statistically significant results because the impact is accumulative over a long period of time. Consider asbestos or even smoking. Compare the results of 10 lifelong smokers vs 1000 smokers who tried it just once.

Anyways, did you read the article on wikipedia? The prisoners were twins and their rations was the same - 3 intakes per day.
The media, at least, has a standard to fail to meet when it falls prey to bias, becomes a mouthpiece for the government, or panders to sponsors or corporate interests. Even if Stewart, Oliver, etc. do call out the media, government, and corporations for their hypocrisy (and they deserve to be called out) they have no standards to meet other than to be funny. They have no incentive to be honest or fair about what they do - arguably, their incentive is to be dishonest and biased if doing so meets the expectations of their audience.