skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's the difference between a vitamin and a pain-killer.

You want to make pain-killers, because people need them.

Vitamins can be helpful. But people don't usually need them.
Customers know their pain. Don't expect them to innovate and create the solution for you, but get them to describe the problem. You can then go back in other rounds offering potential solutions through prototypes. Try to keep moving towards getting them to commit (i.e. pay). Ask what it would take to make them buy, what they'd pay, etc.

It may not be easy to do, and I agree that people don't know what they want, but it took these guys 10 months to do any research. They shouldn't have built a thing, but should have put prototypes in the hands of customers ages ago. Then they might have learnt the things 10 months ago they're only just learning now.

There's the old adage from Ford "If I'd have asked customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse". But that's asking them for a solution. It's your job to come up with that. But the customer is the one who knows the pain. And if they can't describe it, it's not big enough to solve anyway.

Nail it then scale it (www.amazon.co.uk/Nail-then-Scale-Entrepreneurs-Breakthrough-ebook/dp/B0055D7O1U/) describes a practical product development process that puts research at the forefront.
Lovely. This should be top comment, fools, fools as far as the eye can see.
I would imagine it's absolutely thinking that far ahead. That said, it can't possibly search every possible solution, just needs to find an adequate one
The pop-up without a close button was a bit of a deal breaker.
Monitoring Microservices with Synthetic Transactions in Go
It's more that there are different styles of winning, and a human will tend to specialize in such a style. But generally, someone who is consistently stronger will win over someone who is consistently weaker, regardless of style.
The epic collapse of American soda consumption in one chart
> the "intelligent species" can sometimes work really intelligently towards a goal that wasn't quite what you had in mind.

That's called programming
Adobe After Effects CS7 Full Crack and Serial Key Download
6 Ways That Machine Vision Can Help Museums
"Every time you make accessibility a design goal in a technology/product/building/service, it makes the design/production more complicated than it otherwise would be. It bloats the product spec. Makes the implementation more complex, which in turn makes it harder to understand and maintain in the future. It makes the manufacturing more onerous."

It also makes it easier to use for just about everyone. It's the same tradeoff you have to think about whenever you are building something for other people to use instead of just for yourself.
Are you sure you're attributing that advice to the right person?

Because it's orders of magnitude less valuable advice that "offer a paid version of the product". (Which you'll notice Patrick saying quite regularly about open source projects using charity as a business model.)

Selling software you've built is a proven way to make money. Selling consulting for software you've built is also a proven way to make money. But only one of those require you to actually do additional work in order to collect the money. The smart choice should be obvious to anyone with a fully formed sense of laziness.
I don't know what subjunctive means so I don't know if you are right about that, but I am a native Spanish speaker, so I can tell you that those examples you gave using "washing" (a gerund, I think) would use the corresponding tense "lavando" in Spanish:

It's good that I am washing myself = Es bueno que me esté lavando.

(That's a literal translation: I don't think anyone would use "lavar" for washing yourself, more likely "bañando" [bathing] or "aseando" [cleaning] --at least not in Mexico, but what's idiomatic does vary quite a bit from country to country. Although for "wash your face" you would say "lávate la cara", using the verb "lavar".)

I am washing it = Lo estoy lavando.

Here are some sentences where I would use "lave" or "lavé":

Dile que lo lave mañana= Tell him/her to wash it tomorrow

Lavé las cortinas con agua caliente = I washed the curtains in hot water.
It's the same fungibility argument though. The market for sheet music for Willie Nelson's catalog isn't affected by the availability of other music, is it? If I want to play On the Road Again, there's only one IP owner for that.
Huge difference for me. Put it up at $273k. A bit more than double what it was.
I don't believe there is a relation between the improvement of computer chess and the reduction in the availability of in-person chess.

I also played chess as a kid and the allure of both local and national tournaments was that you could play with a multitude of different players, as opposed to the same 4 or 5 habitual chess players in your family/school/circle of friends.

But now, with the internet, at any second you can play with different people from all over the world, different strengths, styles and whatnot.

Hence now, instead of looking for the local chess club in the weekends we can play, any time of the day, any day of the week, anywhere.

Sites like the excellent lichess [1] are even free (in this case, free both as in beer but also as in speech) and, at any moment there there are 9 thousand, 10 thousand players enjoying this magnificent game.

[1] http://en.lichess.org/
I mean a static website can't put up cloudflare? It would rather redirect to a picture of balls?
so true.
It's easy to get people to complain. The drone is probably able to produce far better data assuming the main problem is pothole triage (ie you're only going to fix ~30%, of which around half will be patched quickly and the other half properly re-tarmacked. Which ones and in which order?)
Not really. Them being cloud design patterns says nothing about being able to to be used outside the cloud, just that the people who made them designed them for the cloud.
SkyWall 100: An anti-drone bazooka
This. Also, any interview where the candidate pairs with an employee lets both of them see how they like working together.
Those apps ain't going to write themselves.
Art is more personal though. There is no single path to "winning" in art, and "good art" tends to mean different things to different people.

I'm sure soon (if not now) AI can easily create art that regurgitates popular trends in the past, and perhaps some artists may find a way to use AI / other algorithmic techniques in a way that complements their personal vision. But AI is a long way off from replicating the quirks of human nature, the unique personalities and personal visions of humans. Until that happens, I can't see terribly interesting art emerging from AI alone.
That's the definition of special rights. Giving them something normal people don't get.
> These are huge problems

Sure. I think they will be solved in the next 100 years though.
FBI could force us to turn on iPhone cameras and microphones, says Apple
Maybe I still just don't "get it", but this explanation didn't really show me how a graph database is any better than an RDBMS, apart from a somewhat simpler interface (which in my opinion is still no better than many ORMs).

For good performance, it sounds like you still need to make good decisions about what to index, as well as putting hard limits on your data - even if not strictly enforced by the data model. And if those kinds of things affect performance, then surely changes to the schema (or whatever you'd call it here) will result in a need for migration/reoptimization. The trouble is, when that needs to happen, I personally would rather have tight control over when and how it happens (with a migration), rather that rely on a black box that supposedly makes everything simple. I'm assuming graph databases have ways to control that process, but that kind of proves my point - you don't get greater performance, simplicity, and flexibility for free, especially when you compare it to something as mature as the current RDBMS's. So what problem is it really solving?

Also, the comparison is a little unfair to RDBMS's - this makes it sound like you'd need separate join tables for every kind of person-media relationship, when you could certainly just use one join table with a column for various relationship types. And the complexity of TV shows with seasons and episodes? I'm pretty sure those distinctions would still need to be modeled in a thoughtful way with a graph database, but I could be wrong.
Poker remains unsolved (except for 2-player "Heads-up" limit hold'em[1]). Poker has many different variations and a player's strategy can change significantly based on many factors. The University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group has already used counterfactual regret minimization in their Cepheus AI. I wonder if they could work with DeepMind to apply some of the techniques used in AlphaGo to poker.

[1]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145
Six Must Have Metrics to Quantify Predictive Performance of Recommender Systems
The same thing happened in chess. Computers play in a very "computerish" way that was initially mocked, but became hugely influential on how humans play chess. Computer analysis opened up new approaches to the game.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2010/02/11/the-chess-master-...
Aim an EMP beam at the enemy's anti-drone EMP's... then unleash hell.
Having a machine that gives you feedback in the middle of the game perhaps could be used to describe what is the weak point of a decision tree, and in which situations the method is good. It could detect some situations in which decision trees are good, then use that decision tree to understand what is happening and with that new understanding devise a new method in the middle. We could train a decision tree using new very powerful information about the value of the game in the middle of the game, that is new and powerful.
I can only speak from and engineers view but my hope is that I have a good enough relationship with my manager that we can have an open dialogue. You should also have pretty wide berth in what you can say, even if the complaints or comments are unjustified, sometimes people need to vent.

If I was scared to vent to my manager I would be looking for a new job.
The terms that are presented and (quasi-)enforced by the javascript returned with that 200 OK.

"This site is not supported on browsers that block ads. Please switch to a different browser or disable your adblocker to proceed"

Those are terms. You can choose to ignore or circumvent them but they're still terms.
As a competitive speedcuber (Rubik's Cubes) this makes sense. If I watch a fellow cuber solve a cube, I understand their process even if it's a different method than the one I'd use. But a robot solving it? To my brain it looks like random turns until...oh shit it's finished.
Android N brings split-screen multitasking apps
Not quite true, Satya led cloud and enterprise org. before stepping into CEO. Many of the initiatives at Azure started with direct involvement from Satya. He also pushed for open Microsoft long before becoming a CEO, its just that now he is the CEO, he can make it happen.
Personally, I don't need to be shown how simple a graph database can be. I need to know how it will interact with real world data.
Spoof the Chrome User-Agent.
One on ones are one of those things which don't terminate with satisfaction from both sides. They are necessary but they are unfair. (necessary because of imperfect information).

This lack of resolution stems from the power dynamics. The one on ones don't go through a drone (powerless) proxy. They are lower level employee to higher level manager, if not manager, influencer, lead, etc., not someone equal or on a lower rung, so they are inherently asymmetric therefore most employees always (if they care) have to wear a mask and couch things and pretend.

On the other hand employees should be flexible enough that things should not become problematic. For the most part people working together should be able to resolve internal team issues. If something needs external influence bring it up for resolution using the channels available.

To add, the employee for the most part has to subvert themselves to the manager's style else risk being interpreted incorrectly. To be redundant, one on ones are useful, if the constraints are understood, till trouble arises at which point one on ones become useless vehicles for resolution.
And you'll find it in the AlphaGo paper. It's not a contentious claim.
AMD XConnect wants to make external GPUs easier to use
Programming Experience 2016 (PX/16) Workshop
Employees often don't want regular 1:1s because their managers suck, not because 1:1s aren't a useful instrument. Even if you consider the primary role of managers (per another active thread today) to be clearing obstacles and empowering doers to get things done, that by itself is an excellent justification for regular, personal meetings.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. You must have been burned in the past, or known people who were. That's too bad, and I hope you voted with your feet and found a better manager to work with.
Because they are laced with a highly addictive substance? Why else would HFCS be added to fries or a burger, to make them sweet?
>the amount they can produce annually without reporting to the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons)

I'm probably ok with saying I'm not producing whether I am or not...
How to Get Your Bot on the Slack App Directory
But if you were paying attention he was talking about being able to stockpile chemicals without having to tell anyone.
Many managers could interpret it as a bad attitude or lack of motivation. As an engineer, I don't like having a financially risky conversation every week or two weeks. There's too many variables and ways to screw up.
Is Chastising Build Breakers Correct?
The actually values in the NN depends on both the algorithms and the data input during training phase. You cannot find how these algorithms are strategically weak unless you've seen all of what NN have seen.
>Well first you were saying programmers may hesitate to create an AI singularity because it may cost them their job.

The line about programmers fearing automation only once it affects them was actually an attempt at a joke :P

The argument I'm trying to make is a simple inductive argument. Once something gets automated, it rarely to never gets un-automated. More and more things are getting automated/solved, including things people said would never be automated/solved. What's to prevent programming, including AI programming, from eventually being affected by this trend?

The argument I laid out is not meant to make a point about wait times, only feasibility. It's clear people aren't good at predicting wait times--again, Go wasn't scheduled to be won by computers for another 10+ years.
please give the definition for a set of deterministic calculations.
Jeopardy strategy, such as it is, is 99% about buzzer control.
NYT (re-)review of Amazon Echo
Microsoft contributing to OSS is too much like a US Federal Tax return for my taste.
> Not doubting your situation, but pretty much every job I've had has told me, "40 hours, unless it's vital!", followed by much apparently "vital" work.

Thank you, I was beginning to think there was a gigantic industry conspiracy against me and my friends, while the rest of you are off sipping martinis at 5 p.m.

That said, I can readily believe the 40/hour week situation is different in Europe. However, on average, European developers do get paid significantly less than N. American developers, so it's not like everything is totally equal here.
eatsimply.io - nutrition and meal planning app, hope to launch a prototype in a month or two, similar to the idea behind eatthismuch.com.
Connectomo - smarter marketing automation for startups and small businesses (http://connectomo.com)

It's awesome because we're building a marketing automation platform that learns from customer preferences and behaviours to build a better customer experience.
I didn't think it was overly fancy or confusing at all. I'm not even a particularly techie person and I found the presentation and material to be very palatable. I came away from the video wanting to learn some more about graph databases which I'd say was probably your goal. Very nice job with this!
Sounds like recursively prime pussy.
This is interesting. Could you (or someone else whose had this experience) elaborate?
Emcien | C Programmer for Data Science Product | Atlanta, GA

https://github.com/emcien/jobs/blob/master/Software-Engineer...
I beg to disagree.

I am part of the team developing Russian CAD system [0]. It uses what one can consider a hypergraph db (relation includes many objects), but that DBMS system has queries on par with SQL. And they prove themselves very useful in development of CAD.

What you describe can be explained with development inertia. Most CADs are C/C++ and these languages are not very well suited for changes that go through all code base (change of storage engine and data model).

I also made experiments during a dev of graph analytics engine in one part of my experience. The relational model (actually, linear algebra model) has proven itself very competitive. It allows for easy distribution of data, the operations over distributed data are close to optimal, etc, etc.

[0] http://dd.ru/
Not a typo. It could have been split into two assignments:

errno = SABOTAGE; // 0 or ENOMEM
p = errno ? NULL : malloc(size);

but this would have made the preprocessor code a bit trickier.
The Google car was moving at around 2mph; "Slams" is pretty clickbait-y.
Rock 'n Poll – Polls explained with interactive graphics
So don't block their own ads? Admittedly the whole situation is clearly devolving / heating up now. It's going to be interesting.
I may be in the minority here, but I love 1x1's both as a manager AND employee.

1) I think fast, direct, and consistently timed feedback is crucial to developing myself professionally. Rather than waiting until the semi-annual performance review where everything can come at once and possibly surprise me (either in a good way or bad,) I'd rather have regular measurements and course corrections as necessary.

2) I also really appreciate 1x1's with mentors to learn about how to get to the next level and/or understand broader context with an outside perspective vs. my direct manager or reports.

3) I can understand your point on saying the "wrong thing" -- certain cultures might be a bit more politically charged than others. I try to find mentors or other "work friends" that allow me to have free-roam discussions without concerns of judgement. Some might say this should be your significant other / non-work friends, but I think someone with context of your company/industry would provide better feedback and challenge you a bit -- rather than just provide positive validation that what you're saying is always right.
I sometimes wonder how feasible or expensive it'd be to:
1) institute trash separation for all waste before it enters landfills, so that recyclables are separated out and processed, since obviously people are not very good at disposing of recyclables separately themselves, and
2) dig up old landfills and process the trash as in #1.

Of course, there's also the problem of things like the garbage gyres in the oceans, and of course litter on the land. The latter is solvable I think through cultural changes. In first-world countries litter isn't that much of a problem any more; it became socially unacceptable to litter, just like it became socially unacceptable to smoke indoors.
Possibly something like the "priming mods" used by police while on duty in Greg Egan's Quarantine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarantine_%28Greg_Egan_novel%...
Interested to see how it pans out. Just signed up.
I wonder if they do. Maybe someone who uses opera can comment.
This is assuming the limitation is mostly processing power.

From what I've read, more processing power would allow the AI to calculate possible outcomes for each move further into the future but that does not mean the AI's overall success rate will go up at the same rate.
I could see an AI with huge access to data and a database of existing publications finding potential correlations in disparate datasets, generating hypothesis and the experiments required to test them, and forming conclusions based on the results of those experiments. At least Go/Chess/Sports/Art have value in both the action and observation of the act, but when human-driven research can't keep up with AI-driven research, scientist might need to rethink how to explore new forms of science.
Opera versions 12 and lower had built-in native ad-blocking. You could right-click on any element on a page and block it by exact URL or a partial URL. This feature was only just now reimplemented for the new Opera that's based on Chromium.
Do we need heart to heart talks about why someone charges for a service or why people need money to support themselves? When I buy cereal at a grocery store I don't need the clerk to huddle with me and explain how they arrived at the price or why there's need for a price at all. Just put a price on it and we'll pay it if it's worth the price.
Eliezer Yudkowsky on the Singularity, Bayesian Brains and Closet Goblins
Twitter Bets on Payouts to Rein in Talent Flight
Being in that kind of environment is stressful. If you can't trust the person above you to have your back you're going it alone. I hate working in places you have to feel unreasonably guarded.
> he will later point out to as achieving very good results some 20 moves later

This. It's a fairly common feature of any AI that uses some form of tree search/minimax, and the effect is very pronounced in chess. Even the best human players can only think 6-8 plies into the feature versus ~18 for a computer. What we can (could?) do is apply smarter evaluation functions to the board states resulting from candidate plays and stop considering moves that look problematic earlier in the search (game tree pruning). AI tends to use very simple evaluation functions that can be computed quickly. They do so given that 1) it allows for deeper search, and a weak heuristic evaluated far in the future often beats a strong one evaluated a few plies prior and 2) for some games (like Go) it's really hard to codify the "intuitions" that human players speak of.

Because search based AI considers board states __very__ far in the future, the results are often completely counterintuitive in a game with an established theory of play. Those theories are born of humans, for humans.

The introduction of MCTS some years back was the first leap towards a human level Go AI (incidentally, MCTS is more human-like than exhaustive tree search in that it prunes aggressively by making early judgement calls as to what merits further consideration). AlphaGo's use of deep policy and evaluation networks to score the board is very cool, and the next step in that journey. What's interesting to me is that, unlike chess AI, AlphaGo might actually advance the human theory of Go. It's possible that these "strange moves" will lead to some very interesting insights if DeepMind traces them through the eval and policy networks and manages to back out a more general theory of play.
so, is it not possible to get the log of its thinking and take a look at why it took certain step later?!
Any plans to sell a self-hosted version?
More on that:
http://www.cmswire.com/analytics/tableau-gets-hyper-with-ger...
Mirror, if you can't bypass the paywall: http://archive.is/GdD5V
Yes, Microsoft Patterns & Practices were there from 2002/3 onwards i remember patterns on app move from Unix to windows instead of linux and MS has Services for Unix posix 1.x compliant at that time so all basic linux tools (ls/sh/awk/sed etc) and api worked on WIndows 2003 with NFS and NIS compatibility