skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Kelly also said that the economics of the Nevada project will be aided by recent pricing trends at CAISO, which has been seeing negative pricing from over generation from wind power at night and from solar power in the morning. Under those circumstances, the ARES project could be paid to take power off the grid, Kelly said.

Its cheaper to keep running a Wind Turbine and PAY to put energy onto the grid, than to actually power-off a Wind Turbine. If those Turbines stop spinning, its very, very difficult to get them spinning again.

But someone needs to "take" the energy. This ARES project is going to be paid in both directions. They profit as Wind / Solar farms pay for the privilege for their excess energy to be stored somewhere, and then they profit later in the day as they sell the energy back to the grid.
You mean they didn't already?
> If the US had their way, they'd open up an law enforcement branch in every country and prosecute the people right there and then. I for one am happy that hasn't happened yet.

Please don't forget that the average American citizen does not support this kind of stuff.
It's all interrelated. Exercise may (it did to me) shift your brain into seeking other kinds of food and drinks. I'm much more willing to drink simple water after a long soccer match. Exception being swimming, which makes me wanna eat all cakes in sight.

It also leads to a different lifestyle if I may say so. Being sedentary means low amount of sensation, leading to the eating for pleasure reflex, all this without a way to consume. Sport will keep you busy, probably make you feel weird, sore then not sore = good feeling. Hinting your mind that you can have good times this way.
Android development was invented by Google to convert programmers who use Windows into programmers who use OS X.
Supposedly, this works if you eat fat and protein with very limited carbs, if any. For instance, I would gag if I had to eat those sticks of butter by themselves, but I can easily eat a lot of slices of cake. This all is the basis of a ketogenic diet, kind of like Atkins on steroids
Check out http://nodered.org/
Perfect Example of Release Notes
Ok, the fake O'Reilly cover w/ Jar Jar Binks earns you an upvote!
I'm not suggesting to dump all forms of interview but I think having a process with multiple hoops to jump through is a waste of my time. Through my experience it gives them way too many opportunities to find a reason not to like me and rejecting my application. The only time I accept hiring processes with more than two interviews is when I'm unemployed. While employed I ask about the process and if I don't like the process... I don't bother.

>Yea but he also might just be a person who only works on the stuff they like and shrek the other stuff.

Yeah normal interview questions can give answers to that.
As a child I received some Sea Monkeys as a gift, after growing them for a couple of days I started to notice the number of individuals shrinking and the remaining Sea Monkeys growing quite large, eventually I was left with just one "Sea Monkey" that was almost an inch long. Turns out I'd been given Triops, cannibalistic crustaceans, not cute little harmless Sea Monkeys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triops_longicaudatus
> The injected money (or I will admit more accurately injected value) comes from increased demand. The only effect of Tim Cook buying shares in increased demand for Apple stock. Meanwhile Apple buying shares will be coupled with a decrease in value of the company's assets. Tim Cook's purchase only provides upward pressure on the market cap. The buyback provides downward pressure as well.

Sure, the buyback applies some downward pressure on market cap in addition to the upward pressure. In theory it all evens out anyway. If cash is valued correctly by the market, then a buyback has no effect on price at all.

> Personally I would say doubling your ownership percentage is meaningful.

That was a mistake on my part. It's only a 50% increase, not a 100% increase.

> But like I said earlier the whole thing relies on the insiders having $150 billion in stock + cash which they almost assuredly don't and likely can't raise. You keep on ignoring that condition.

What you're ignoring is that the buyback is irrelevant if you assume Tim Cook has access to absurd amounts of loan money. If he can get hundreds of billions of dollars to buy Apple after a buyback he can certainly accomplish it before the buyback.

Frankly the initial "insider" status is also irrelevant. Tim Cook can spend 150 billion before the buyback for 33% of the stock or 150 billion after the buyback for 50% of the stock and the result is the same assuming the market values cash on hand correctly. He spends 150 billion and ends up with 50% of the smaller company.

You also keep saying 150 billion as if it's somehow sufficient to buy the company. It isn't. It isn't even close. If you assume the market cap will drop to 300 billion after the buyback, 150 billion gets you majority control. But to buy you need 300 billion plus a premium over the trade price so you don't get sued to death. So call it 360 billion total (20% premium). This is not much lower than simply buying Apple outright before the buyback for 600 billion (20% premium). Cancel out the cash and you're at 400 billion. So all you've done is erase the 20% premium from the cash on hand (which the market would presumably do for you anyway).

Or to put it another way, the buyback is irrelevant.
> The most accurate title would be "Don't exercise in order to earn the right to eat junk food later". Which is the meager point they're actually making.

Except that's not the only point the article makes. You might disagree with the title, but the article does attempt to back it up.

Many paragraphs are dedicated to explaining why for many people, exercising might actually be harmful to their weight loss goals, due to how we tend to overestimate how many calories were burned and other factors (such as studies showing that the body may attempt to balance energy output in other areas).

In that sense "Why you shouldn't exercise to lose weight" is precisely the thesis that the article is trying to support. You might disagree with it, but I don't really think its egregious clickbait. Even if the title is meant to be catchy and provocative. They clearly state why exercising could be detrimental to weight loss goals for some people.

Things that the article title doesn't say:

- You should never exercise to lose weight

- Exercise is bad for you

- You can only lose weight by dieting
Oh, well in that case, I can't argue much. I fed the dog canine Prozac, but not without first thinking, "I already feel that antidepressants are overprescribed, and I'm going to feed some to the dog?"
The problem with your line of reasoning is the counterintuitive results mentioned in the article that came from examining primitive cultures that lead a much more active lifestyle. Despite engaging in activities that were far more active, they didn't burn more calories.

This is one of the many problems with the calorie in, calorie out line of reasoning that seeks to treat the human body like an automobile that uses fuel solely based on pressing the accelerator. What we're finding is that this isn't the case. For one, the body isn't 100% efficient, so a lot of calories in are lost in ways that aren't "burned." It's also likely that the body of a sedentary person is burning calories fairly inefficiently, so a change to being more active without altering diet will just cause that body to be more efficient in how it burns calories rather that burning fat or muscle reserves.

Calories in, calories out is an attractive concept, especially to scientifically-minded people who love the simplicity of deriving the answer by applying a fundamental law of thermodynamics. But the more we dig into the subject, the more we're realizing that it's a wrong-headed approach. The body is much more complex than that. We need a much more nuanced approach to nutrition, though "carbs are bad" seems to be a pretty good approximation of it.
Thanks for the memories. it never worked as well as you imagined it would. there are plenty of videos on youtube of it. just search for 'baking soda sub'
Yes! It's incredible how many things we think we need to do that we don't actually need to do.

1) Finding a better solution and 2) Finding out you didn't need to do it at all are two great outcomes from procrastinating.
I have been using the free tier of Mailgun for this.
http://www.mailgun.com/

I use routes and rules to create throwaways on my own domains when necessary.
If he wanted a holiday he should visit http://gotahoe.com
If you're not in into the anaerobic zone, I don't think you're really weightlifting. You're dropping the weight so low that you're just doing cardio.
Your attempt at character assassination is an out of context joke about my CPAP machine? Seriously? Wow.
I'll piggyback on this and ask what HN is using to block those pesky disposable email addresses.

I offer FREE stuff in exchange of an email address (which can be removed immediately after), but I still get disposable emails, which is kind of aggravating.
I think you're nitpicking the article's message. You're saying that exercise caused you to eat better, but the article (and the data) are suggesting that it was eating better, not exercising, that led to the weight loss.

We can agree to disagree regarding what decision gets the credit for shedding those pounds, but in any case, congratulations on your weight loss. That's a real accomplishment.
Oh well, Canada is also on the list:

> After being on the Watch List for some time now, Canada did not do enough in 2015 to get back into favor with the U.S.

So I think it's a case of, "So what?"

If there's any example of a government agency or program that Congress ought to defund, here it is.
> If people are concerned about the gem installation (and not the promotion itself), I can suggest that you promote harrow differently. Maybe put it as part of some command's output. Like "Cap by codebreaker (thanks to funding by Harrow.io)" or similar.

Actually we wanted to ping people once not on every time they use the tool, this is the lesser evil, it also allows us to push something to turn off the integration without having to bump Capistrano's version for no reason, simply by deploying another (noop) version of the integration gem.
Came here to say this too (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11598339)

Forgot to mention what you did, 45 mins of continuous activity will trigger endorphins. Cheapest way to feel euphoria (even in low intensity).

Just last week I walked back from the grocery store, taking random turns, with a steep hill at the end. Google Fit[1] tracking some data. 5 miles only, but I felt sweating in a good relaxing way.

[1] Google Fit is a very low barrier way to start tracking your exercises. It interprets accelerations good enough to distinguish car, foot or bike move. And you're happy when you get that notification buzz telling you did your planned distance|time.
download: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/bd5fd4cd-61b6-...

works fine on x64:
TESTING ISOGENY-BASED KEY EXCHANGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curve isogeny system: SIDHp751

Key exchange tests ........................................... PASSED

BENCHMARKING ISOGENY-BASED KEY EXCHANGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curve isogeny system: SIDHp751

Alice's key generation runs in ............................... 45806658 cycles
Bob's key generation runs in ................................. 53532976 cycles
Alice's public key validation runs in ........................ 58980241 cycles
Bob's public key validation runs in .......................... 64155209 cycles
Alice's shared key computation runs in ....................... 42940225 cycles
Bob's shared key computation runs in ......................... 51437446 cycles

TESTING ELLIPTIC CURVE BIGMONT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BigMont's scalar multiplication tests ........................ PASSED

BENCHMARKING ELLIPTIC CURVE BIGMONT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BigMont's scalar multiplication runs in ...................... 5950262 cycles
You can find a wealth of information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
I disagree. It's pretty obvious

ok. It wasn't obvious to me lol
This problem is quite similar to the GAI problem: the more automation we have, the greater damage an attack can have. The question is whether there is any way to limit the biggest attacks that can happen? I don't think, but I wish there would be a solution.
You're proposing changing the traffic pattern to look like a liquid instead of a gas. Guess which state has a higher viscosity?

If we all computerized cars that introduced 0 stochastic motion, this might work. But if one deer gets a dumb idea you're going to have a multi-kilometer pileup.
Or if you're into something more modern, Delphi 7 will do. And it'll probably run on modern Windows.
Well, I would kindof consider that to be an implementation of that approach, if you think of NaN as an error return. The important part is that you don't return a value that is arithmetically incorrect for the expected semantics, but not recognizable as such by itself.

I think the approach of Rust is stupid because it makes the fast but insecure option the default for all the code that's written without thinking about it too much that isn't in any way performance critical. Most arithmetic operators in code are not performance critical, only a few that are executed often, are, so it doesn't make much sense to make the behaviour that you need in that case the default, when that also is a security risk. And overflow checking only in debug builds is kindof useless from a security perspective.

Having different types instead of different operators also is weird. You don't have "additive integers" and "multiplicative integers" either, where the former's "+" operator does addition, while the latter's does multiplication (which is a form of (repeated) addition, after all!). If you have the same set of numbers to operate on, the obviously sensible thing to do is to have different operators for different ways to map pairs of those numbers to single numbers from the same set.
I sympathise with how you're feeling super wronged. I think it takes a special level of "pissed" to post something like this out there with your name on it.

But my 2 cents if you're interested.

No one is going to care. The company that you're angry with, least of all. They will just try to screw you with legal action. They will likely succeed considering you are an individual and they likely have a big legal warchest to punch you with. Developers will continue working for them, customers will continue giving them money - but the same can't be said about you or your small consulting firm until this blows over - if ever. Take the perspective of the company and their clients, bitter as it may be. You just look like someone who didn't deliver and are now making lots of excuses and raising a hullabaloo on the internet. Try to make a settlement with them and get this thing buried forever.

You have a very strong emotional connection to your work - you love writing code! This is great. Just applied in the wrong place. Contracting isn't for you my friend, it doesn't always engender itself to this kind of emotion and you have to be able to live with that. Your options are:

1. Become less attached to your work code. Do what you are being asked to do, no more and not less - and never set the criteria yourself. Work on other stuff.

2. Go work for a startup (or start one) where your emotional connection to doing high quality work (per your perception of quality - unit tests are no guarantee) - is highly valued.

Most important of all, like everyone else is saying - please take a break.
PCI Standard Adds Multi-Factor Authentication Requirements
I read "Internet Book Piracy" recently about this issue and the author, Gini Graham, has valid points and suggestions for reducing piracy; this was one of her suggestions.
I have no problem with Elsevier crying wolf when there's none. They had it coming. I'm concerned about the actual cost to authors.
We need a new model that puts the authors and their readers as first priorities and facilitates the movement of information, not hoarding it. Publishing companies did that for a while, then they declared themselves custodians of our common knowledge and hoarded it from us.
I'm thinking of ways publishing can be made what it should be. Gini Graham has good suggestions that I'd like to see tried out.
> My understanding of this phenomenon is that only people with extreme views comment.

I believe so too, we have much more positive feedback from new customers from the exposure this post has brought than we have negative.

In either case I'm glad for the opportunity for HN to discuss how to monetize FOSS, to see what people consider fair and unfair and to learn a little bit more about people's standpoints.
Oh, definitely. I've lost upwards of 30 pounds over the past year and a half. Much of it is related to changes in my diet, but exercising regularly has definitely helped my diet. Personally, I'm much less likely to eat in excess after exercising because I don't want to "waste" my efforts.
When I started exercising, it made me hungrier. But my crappy eating habits made me sanna stuff my face with more crap. Developing better eating habits, then adding exercising, works better for me.
The linked treatise on JavaScript sounds almost satirical to me[1].

> Our tentative policy is to consider a JavaScript program nontrivial if:

> it makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request,

Sometimes I think RMS would be happier if the web had just stopped development after the release of the Mosaic browser.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
I think we should distinguish "whiteboard problems" and "whiteboard coding", while the latter is terrible, the former seems legitimate to me.

I do it with candidates and I have no problem going through it as a candidate. It is fine when you whiteboard system architecture to solve a "real world" problem. Usually I just use the most recent project/feature I worked on and lay it out as a little scenario: "The product owner would like us to add this feature to the product, how can we do that?" Of course, if it's something really complex that took me 3 days to solve I wouldn't expect the candidate to solve it in 30 minutes.

Back to "whiteboard coding" I personally go with option 2. When scheduling the interview I try to find out what's gonna happen and if they mention whiteboard I explain that I'm not interested. If once on-site an interviewer asks me to do it I just decline and interrompt the session right there. Most of the time they try to back off and say "ok it's fine, we don't have to do it" but I just remain firm and explain "if this is how you've interviewed and hired the rest of the team, I'm not interested".

Something I've done once too: after being asked some stupid algorithm to do at the whiteboard, the interviewer asked "do you have any question for me?" "why, sure, let's say I give you a file with 1 billion integers and you have to... can you write the algo for that?" the guy was literally staring at me for 10 seconds. My reasoning "I'm trying to assess if I can work with your team, I need to know if you guys are good. And since balancing binary trees seems to be the core of the work I want to make sure you know what you are doing." It was hilarious. He didn't do it though.

My other favorite: stupid brain teasers. Again, my policy is to refuse to answer and just put an end to the interview. Sometimes though I play stupid: "How many soccer balls can you fit in the Empire State Building?" "well, what's the brand of the balls? can I open the windows? Can I empty all the offices? Am I allowed to tear down walls? etc" Sometimes it can go on for 15 minutes like that with me asking stupid questions, and they just run with it.

Anyway, my point is: with such a hot market, the only way to end this stupidity is to refuse to put up with it.
The majority of the sites on the web are non-free software that you interact with -- the browser is effectively a remote terminal. Whether or not large JavaScript is involved seems secondary. I understand the distinction between code running on a remote server and code distributed to me and run the browser but that seems like a more of a technical distinction than a moral one.

(In terms of my own raw time, the percentage of open source[1] software the web I interact with daily is surprisingly high)

[1] Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software.
Rovi Buys TiVo in $1.1B Deal
>Such are the risks of naming your company after a common word that describes the product.

What? Not at all! Infinit has a trademark and will almost assuredly destroy Dropbox in court, including getting an injunction against even using the Dropbox Infinite name during the case.

The real risk is on Dropbox: Not doing their homework and attempting to name a product something that happens to be legally too close to a trademark from a competitor.

What you're saying is that it would be acceptable for me to make a Googol search engine, since googol is a real word and it's Google's fault for picking a name so similar to a real word.

EDIT: Also consider that Infinit is as close to the word Infinite as iPhone is to the word "phone". Do you think Apple assumed the same risks you bring up by naming their product 1 letter away from a common word?
And rocks tend to be not toxic and can be sourced from near anywhere.
Is there any reason for this? Do cables seem appetizing to squirrels?
This is kind of going back to the root problem.

You previously post advice on buying drugs safely. Then you compare a sleep device to snorting coke. Even if they have NO relation and you are a 100% clean and sober individual, what are people going to think about you?

It is just showing a pattern of poor judgement. Which is fine, we all make mistakes. But use them as a learning experience to better yourself. Maybe posting a blog after getting fired from a job is not a good thing to do next time it happens?
Not really, a lot of Siri query types are served by Bing and there is no way to change that.
WW3 UK AND US GRUMBLES VOTE OUT THE NWO
Yanis Varoufakis Talks with Chomsky about Greece's Hobson's Choice with IMF/EU
Actually the latest insider build (14332) removes all options to disable Cortana. Before you had to opt-in with "get to know me", now it's on at first boot and can't be turned off.
I really wish TV mfgs still offered dumb TVs, even for like $20 less. The features on the many I've played with (access to a lab with hundreds of smart TVs) range from "unbearable delay changing the volume + UI crashes randomly trying to switch set off" (yes this seriously happens on a newer production Samsung with the little click stick selector on the back as the ONLY physical button; turning it off requires clicking then scrolling to "power" and clicking again) to "noticeably slower but not unbearable when changing volume".

I really preferred my TVs to be as dumb and as responsive as possible, but I know that many people won't buy a dongle for the "smart" functionality of their TV has it built in, even if the experience is awful, upgrades are few and far between, support ends after a year, and the internals powering the smartness are non-upgradeable low-to-midrange smartphone boards on their new >$1000 set. Also, getting a >$10,000 TV doesn't get you much better software or much better smart guts, which surprised me at first, but I guess it makes sense; they're not going to spend millions in R&D for the products that sell in small numbers.
The Streisand effect is when trying to hide something becomes publicized and the thing becomes more popular.

This is not that.