skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> without making any substantial change to civil (non-military) aviation.

Having known a bunch of aerospace people: this is in the works, it's just that we won't see it come out for a while because civil aero moves really slowly in an attempt to guarantee safety. Not "high probability of safety", not "we're pretty damn sure", guarantee. The levels of paranoia and conservative use of technology they get to are unbelievable. It's been roughly one military design generation, and only half a civilian generation, since the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes. The military just got done deploying the delta-winged and fully-autonomous fruits of the 1998-2000 crop of X-Planes, which means that civilian aerospace is going to start working on it in another two or three years, will have designs in ten, and will start selling in fifteen.
Ask HN: Anyone using Rails 5 beta?
Has it been worth using the beta or would you recommend sticking to 4 until an official RC is out?
I just looked at HN right after pulling up Wu-Tang on Spotify. I realize that it doesn't fundamentally add much to note that, it was just a fun coincidence and I thought I'd share.

It is fun to think about the meta-art of manufactured scarcity. It's fun trying to articulate a rigorous reason for the value difference of Wu-Tang making an album that only one person will get to hear versus me (a decidedly untalented non-musician) making one, when they both sound exactly the same to all of us (unless that dick Shkreli is reading).

That said I would trade all the idle but-what-is-value-really-man musing for Shaolin monks or an unscrupulous Fed to exfiltrate and share the album soonish.
This is probably WAY more than you want to know, but this is a very nuanced issue that can't be addressed briefly to do it any kind of justice, as made obvious by the headline of the article we're commenting on describing us as a "warm, fuzzy, safe space." I'll copy paste this from a post we made on our site that elaborates on our community policy where a lot of this is also located, then summarize some more:

> You are welcome to express your opinions, even if they are offensive to some users. We want honest and open discussion to happen on Imzy from all sides. However, these opinions cross the line into malicious speech when they specifically incite violence or hatred, or make people fear you will act against them in a violent manner.

> Don't encourage violence or hatred on the basis of things like race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

> Don’t harass others. Harassment is defined as "a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person". Do not engage in or provide a platform for harassment of users or communities. Harassment will not be tolerated.

Paraphrasing the rest of our post so this doesn't get too long:

Things like "I think all [race/religion/gender/other demographic] are [rude opinion]" or "You’re a [rude comment here]" is okay, but "All [race/religion/gender] should [have something terrible done to them]" or "I’m going to [specific threat against an individual]" is not. And even in the "okay" examples, if you continually and repeatedly engage in these actions against an individual and follow them throughout Imzy to do so, this crosses the line into harassment.

Beyond that, there's a big gray area. We know there are things that will come up that we won't quite fit anywhere in the policies we've written, and we'll have to make some things up as we go and refine our policies and understanding as the community evolves. And yeah, we're human, and we'll probably make mistakes sometimes. But we're working hard to set a tone of transparency and fairness so that our users will always know why we're doing things and be able to give feedback on how they want Imzy to function.
Edward don't like to use iPhone.
Quick Fix Solutions to Sleep Disorder Come with Some Side Effects for Sure
Yes, if Google and Apple thought it was a winner-take-all game, they would be throwing a lot more money into it.
It should be noted that "The packages and ports collection does NOT go through the same thorough security audit that is performed on the OpenBSD base system." -- http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html
No, actually what I said it's that it might be reasonable to argue that (since Marxism is a real thing defined by the works of Karl Marx, and Leninism and it's descendants are defined by key differences from Marx's theory, starting with abandoning the prerequisites of an advanced capitalist society from which the Marxist Communist society is built), but that it would in any case not be reasonable to do so with Communism in the place of Marxism, given the more vague boundaries of the term Communism compared to Marxism.

That being said, there probably aren't any capitalist societies today; capitalism was the dominant system of the advanced societies if the 19th century, so banned by various Socialist (including Communist, Marx in particular) critics of that system. Most advanced economies today are mixed economies which retain some features of Communism as well as substantial departures afford specifically to address the problems identified by critics of the system. While it is neither, the modern mixed economy resembles a form of socialism a much as it resembles capitalism. Actual advocates of capitalism, of which there are many on the right, seek significant changes to undo the departures from capitalism introduce offer the last century and a half or so.

We've tried capitalism and Leninism and various variations on the modern mixed economy, of those Leninism and the modern mixed economy each have some (but not the same subset) of the features that differentiate Marxism from capitalism. You could as well say we've tried Marxism and it proved better than capitalism (based on the modern mixed economy as a form of Marxism) as you could say that Marxism was tried and failed (based on Leninism as a form of Marxism.) But really, capitalism fell, evolving in a direction similar to -- but still distinctly different from -- that suggested by Marx.
Pure black screen on mobile
There's no memory-to-memory XOR in x86. A XOR swap will need one register, the array address itself will take another, and the "single integer variable" one more. Then you also need the absolute value of the variable; there's another register.

The single-expression abs that you specify needs at least two registers, one to hold the shifted value and one to hold the original one. Two alternatives which do not involve multiplication and are 3 instructions is here:

https://www.strchr.com/optimized_abs_function
TAKEASY: first instant live human translator/interpreter
Do you want to communicate with foreigner and make friends without language barriers? Do you want to read all signage in airports, hotels, stores or scenic spots when you abroad? Do you want a personal secretary or assistant to translate language anytime and anywhere? Do you want to speak to a remote live human translator with voice, text or photo services which even Google Translate or iTranslate cannot provide? Do you want to understand Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian or Spanish etc. without a dictionary, phrasebook, traditional interpreter or immigration?
https://itunes.apple.com/app/id935607375 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iol8.te
TAKEASY is the world's first remote on-line real-time & instant live human translator & interpreter, your personal secretary & assistant helps to translate different languages for travel, study or work throughout the world!
Highlight of TAKEASY (Translator/Interpreter) New Version ###：
Live Translation/Interpretation:
Contact Us ###：
Please email your feedback(s) or suggestion(s) to support@itakeeasy.com OR - Visit our official website: http://www.itakeeasy.com/ - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/takeasyapp - Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/itakeasyapp
What Do Women Want at Hackathons? NASA Has a List
A bit tangential, but something fantastic it mentions is electronic payment. In China it's already like living in the future. Most shops accept WeChat or Alipay. Everything from chain supermarkets down to the old lady selling vegetables on the side of the road. They've really penetrated the market from top to bottom.

If you find a shop that does require cash, you can stop a stranger in the street and trade cash for WeChat money. Or as the article said, the shop staff themselves can sell you cash using their personal accounts.

I'm sure these services have to deal with their share of fraud but the system is fundamentally more secure than credit cards which rely on trust. So there's the potential for lower costs and wider availability. Who needs the expense of PCI compliance when you never have access to your customer's payment credentials? It seems bizarre to think that in paying by credit card, you're effectively giving the merchant the username and password to your bank account and asking them to please not take any more money than they promised to.
Yes, but you won't gain much given the prevalence of references.

You will need to decompose the classes across multiple arrays, thus leading to very hard to maintain code.
Jane! Just bought my little sister Speaker For The Dead. \m/
>cabin for a weekend, and rewrote the whole frontend.

The problems with big bang rewrites don't manifest in rewrites that take 2-3 days. Even if your rewrite burns a full week, if it fails you've only lost a week. Rewrites are problematic when they are expected to take months or longer. That's when the amount of code is high, the complexity is high, and the estimates tend to be bad. Losing many months of forward progress to chase a rewrite can kill a company. If a single lost week can kill your company, you're probably doomed anyway.

I've successfully done the "big bang" rewrite myself for things that needed a week or so of rewriting. I don't believe for a moment that this experience is relevant for large scale rewrites. I've only ever seen those fail spectacularly.

Anyone who tells you that a 1-week rewrite is never appropriate is just cargo culting and probably not worth listening to in general. A one week rewrite to avoid weeks of refactoring can be a very good tradeoff. A one year rewrite on the other hand is likely to end in disaster, not least because it guarantees a year of lost forward progress.
Curious what you mean by the quality of service dropping? I use both Lyft and Uber pretty regularly (multiple times a week) and have had only positive experiences in SF.
This is actually what we're doing on Imzy! We ask people their interests and then show them what communities they may want to join based on that. Then they choose which ones they want to join. Hopefully by doing that, we'll decrease the circlejerking and increase the quality of conversations, since people only get there if they actually care about that topic and want to talk about that thing.
3D models of trees for 3d max design
Is it ethical to disclose offers?
I don't think the parent was saying that you shouldn't take over a subreddit in response to moderator behavior. The thread has been saying two seperate things: that you shouldn't try to take over a subreddit for how its users behave, and that inappropriate moderator behavior is a problem on reddit. If you can convince a subreddit's subscribers that the moderators are shit and you'd do a better job, then you should certainly take control of the subreddit.

Usually it's easier to just make a new subreddit and convince people that yours is better.
Personally I don't find inline-asm with gcc to be all that bad. It is definitely a very nice way of accessing other-wise inaccessible CPU instructions - and those tend to be generally trivial to implement (IE. Single asm instruction, along with some input and output operands). I admit that on the rare occasion that I do use it, I almost always go reread the documentation. But still, the compiled end result is tons better then having to call a completely separate function in your code every time you just want to use one single CPU instruction.

That said, for longer pieces of code, I definitely avoid inline-asm and just use a separate assembly file. There's no debating it's a cleaner solution when you have more then one or a few lines of assembly. And really, besides those obscure CPU instructions, your written assembly is usually not much different, then the stuff generated from some C code. It's worth using C wherever it's viable.
I've lived in Beijing for the last 8.5 years working in tech. We all thought the last decade was when everything was going to happen, and most of us were disappointed when it didn't. Granted, when I first moved here, the pollution wasn't as bad, the censorship wasn't as bad, but things changed. Perhaps China might start on an upward opening up trajectory again, but it has been closing up since 2008 (great if you want to be sheltered from foreign competition, bad if you want to practice your world game in an open market).
Someone could judge the original poster for not saying "Mandelbrot". In turn, the original poster can judge whoever discovered it for wanting to put a name to pure math. That is the cycle of judgement. Without ego, I can refer to it as "Mandelbrot Set", or the full equation. Ego is a qualitative limit upon mankind, as much as lack of vocalized language was. We talk sometimes of the Singularity here. The Singularity is the moment we remove ego. I can somewhat envision what is beyond it, but I think others cannot.
The reason I'm going with Scala.JS is to have UI code shared by web, mobile and desktop platforms. ScalaFX needs JVM for UI code, so it can only run on desktop and possibly Android.
Yep. So does Wal-Mart.
The huge plane is the Solar Impulse solar-powered airplane. It just flew in from Hawaii, completing the last leg of its flight across the pacific.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36122618

For future reference, you can check flightradar24.com to see what planes are around you, no need to ask here. Click on the planes for more info, e.g. http://i.imgur.com/nfPHqLC.png
Are you suggesting this wasn't completed because of the GPL?
where our thoughts get piped directly to Alexa/Siri/Cortana/Now

...and around the same time, they'll probably also figure out how to pipe adverts directly into our brains. I guess you could call that the scary side of "seamless" HCI.
I don't think I deserve it either but I am not surprised or particularly offended. Pop scientists like Dawkins and NDT are rightly mocked when they say things like this because we can safely feel superior to them, but a tech golden boy like Aaronson can do the exact same thing and since he knows about quantum and does computer science it doesn't matter what he says or how far out of his depth he ventures any comment about him which doesn't border on hero-worship is verboten.

Downvotes or no it's worth saying. Defending any social science or humanity at all is hard work on a forum like this, but I think it's important.
> We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare

Frankly, not an arena where NASA is needed.

In Europe turbo-diesels are popular for retrofit because they happily consume Avtur ( kerosene ) which is cheap and plentiful. I've seen a few 172s with Thielert TD engines. There was also a project to install a TP100 turboprop but I'm not sure how that's progressing.

The fact that Cessna is still hawking a derivative of a 1947 airframe with an engine that isn't much fresher is more indicative of their attitude than any lack of advances in low-end aerodynamics. Look at the Stallion to see what they could be delivering, instead:

http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html

200 kts for 2,200 nm, seating for four people.

At the small-end we need disruption of the big-three ( Cessna, Piper, Beech ) manufacturers, with technology that exists but they don't bring to market. Projects such as the 177 and Starship show that they had the technology, they just didn't have the incentive to change.
Thanks so much for the response - appreciated.
Just going after the title, "folk aphorisms" are such pseudoscience, it's not even funny.

Not that they don't apply, they do. But "many" of the times, not "most", let alone "all of the times".

And you have aphorisms that are exact opposites of each other, like "birds of a feather flock together" and "opposites attract".

The end result? people use them more to support their opinions or gut feelings rather than uttering them after a careful analysis of the situation.

In terms of rigor, they stand at the same level as anecdotal evidence, meaning something that adds practically zero information to an ongoing situation.
> Godel explored this exhaustively and concluded (though did not prove) that this is not possible

While I agree that Aaronson's take on philosophy is not very original or profound, I don't think that Gödel concluded anything of the sort, and if he said something in that vein (assuming you're referring to the discussion on mechanism in the link you're provided), it is more an expression of his faith that any problem can be solved (and since not every problem can be solved by a machine, the mind is more powerful than any machine) -- hardly a conclusion.
96-year-old Sprinter, Healthiest Man on the Planet Has Tech Dreams
What exactly makes this condition appeling to you. I, personally, think it would be a big downside to life.
In my more depressed moments, it seems to me that high speed air travel, like all mass transport, is dead. :-(

There are too many religious/political idealists. When they get serious 3D printers, it should be possible to build metal objects (like the framework of luggage) around explosives, including batteries. Put the resulting metal object in bleach and rinse for a week. It should have no detectable explosives and be immune to X-rays and most other radiation.
>In cases like that the software artifacts are a liability; it's better to use the assets you've built up (domain knowledge) and develop a new product in parallel. Put the old one in zombie mode and spend two years building the new product with feature parity.

In two years your devs should be able to understand the existing code, fix the auth problems, and excise the worst of the code and hodgepodge framework mess. If they can't, then they certainly can't maintain the old system while building a replacement.

If you can't understand the old code, you can't replace it. If you don't understand the requirements, I'm not sure you can even maintain the existing system. It shouldn't take two years to add auth, or remove an unsupported framework.

This is the textbook case of when a rewrite will fail, because the scope is not just too big, but unknown (because you don't even understand the requirements). The choice to rewrite in this situation is not logical. It's emotional. The existing system is a mess, and the fix seems so difficult. But the rewrite estimate is likely poor because you don't actually understand the system you're rebuilding, and even if it's an accurate estimate you lose two years guaranteed just to ship feature parity. You can make a whole lot of improvements to a codebase in two years while also shipping features.
While value judgment of any sort requires perspective I don't think it's wrong to prefer our own. Rejecting all value judgements of any sort would simply leave us without anything to converse about.

I think the kind of things people can do have more value than the sort of things a dog can do and further that it's only the dogs limitations that prevent us from appreciating it. Our abilities are nearly a superset of theirs.

Finally survival beyond the scope of your biosphere ultimately requires intelligence of the human sort and that is certainly worth something.
I'm curious, what do you think could make this better/possible?

An obvious first step is removing downvotes so you can't completely obliterate someone who crosses sides to try to have a conversation, but after that, what else would help?

In my mind, some kind of code of conduct would help further those conversations, because it doesn't prevent people from expressing their opinions, it just makes them express them civilly. And if they express an opposing view without being overly antagonistic, then hopefully the other side wouldn't start insult slinging, and if they do, then that's what the COC would be there for.

I think there's a difference between having a "wrong" or "offensive" opinion, and expressing it in an offensive way. Do you think there's a way to achieve that balance, so that people can feel comfortable to express their opinions on either side, regardless of right or wrong, without it devolving into mudslinging and pure animosity on both sides? How do we accomplish that?
How is that different from "lack of oxygen"? Altitude sickness is just a name for its symptoms...
I discovered that aphantasia was a thing, and that it seemed to match me, a couple of months ago.

May I ask if you feel embarrassment when you think about an embarrassing event in your past?

The adjustment is quite an odd feeling. I use mostly the same language to describe things as other people. I will use terms like 'mental image' or 'yeah i can see you wearing that', but to me it was far more metaphorical. I had the same realization about counting sheep. Now I feel a bit uncomfortable when I use some terms. I'm used to using them but that was when I thought everybody else was using them in the same way as myself.

I had wondered if the Text popups in the TV series Sherlock came from someone with without aphantasia trying to understand a description given by someone with aphantasia. I could describe what I 'see' when I think about something as a cloud of facts relating to the subject, If someone who inherently thought of such things visually tried to interpret my viewpoint I could quite easily understand how they end up with the effect used in Sherlock. It's not what I see of course. I don't see words floating in space. I see nothing. To some the idea of not imagining things visually must seem just as impossible.

I think it's different to imagination though, I can't visualize but I can imagine.

I tried this experiment:

Imagine two identical closed cardboard boxes. In one of them there is a duck.

I can't see the boxes but I can imagine them, and the box with a duck in it is distinctly different to the one without. My friends say they can visualize the boxes and they do indeed look identical, but strangely they still seem to know which one the duck is inside.
No country has free speech. But in choosing a country, you can choose which types of speech you want to be allowed to make freely and which types you want to be protected from other people making.

America gets its free speech by defining the word to mean any communication that's permitted to be free. If the law disallows something then by definition it's not speech anymore, or it's an exception that's so obvious nobody mentions it. Examples: Flag burning, copyright infringement, libel, slander, threats, incitement to violence, child pornography, false advertising, revealing state secrets and trade secrets, violating NDAs, sharing insider information about listed companies. Wow, there's quite a lot of things you're not allowed to say in America!

It's a bit like Athenian democracy where everyone could vote. Of course women, children, slaves and foreigners obviously weren't part of "everyone" so there's no need to mention them.
Here's a great article that explains how IP in China works --- it's definitely more sharing-centric than the West: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297

If it could be summed up in one sentence, it would be "Everything is a derivative work." Instead of trying to claim complete exclusivity, they implicitly realise that everything someone creates is always built upon the knowledge of others.