skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the medium term - the prices of stock markets are driven by capital flows. Even the price of a money losing company is going to go up if the pension funds[1] are buying it.

Central bank pulling liquidity out when they finally realise their monetary policy is only making the inevitable worse, will mean a lot less money to flow into various investments.

Therefore, avoid investments that have gone up in the past few years, that went up because of monetary policy (e.g. direct central bank buying, lowering of reserve ratios, lowering of interest rates). Avoid government bonds, avoid municipal bonds, avoid companies that have leveraged up for stock buybacks, ruling out S&P 500. Avoid companies whose stock prices are fueled by margin loans (e.g. tech unicorns). Avoid energy companies that have been limping along because they keep borrowing at low rates. Avoid companies with debt.

In January 2016, the only sector that fulfilled all of these requirements were the junior gold miners - the collapse of gold prices since 2011 has wiped out all but the strongest gold mining companies. They have little debt, high margins, lots of cash and very profitable compared to their share prices. The junior gold mining stock index GDXJ[2] has went up 111% in 3 months.

Of course, now that they're going up, margin loaning investors are piling in, and it's no longer as safe as a rock as it was in January 2016. I'd wait and see if GDXJ corrects back to the mid 20's, and then I'd buy more. (I have 130% of my portfolio in gold miners at the moment, so I'm biased.)

The next sector to look for is overseas iron ore and oil producers. When finally the collapse of iron ore & oil prices has wiped out all the highly indebted and poorly performing companies, you will see the strongest of the bunch go on fire sale shopping spree. Those will be good buys. I think it will happen in 12-24 months. I think we're currently still in the clean up phase at the moment - lots of dead man walking companies hanging on desperately. The Chinese stimulus plan that lit a fire on iron ore prices in the past 2 months is going to prolong this phase for a while yet.

[1] Pension funds are big.

[2] https://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GDXJ&t=1y
1. Much of it is held overseas so treating it as one big lump sum is incorrect and silly.

2, Leverage for loans and bonds.

3, Purchases, not of companies - of supply lines. They are the best in the industry at that.

4, Buybacks of stock (see 2)

5. Continued survival should the market change drastically and they lose their core profitable business (iPhone).

6. R&D and manufacture of new product lines. Cars, TVs, whatever. Takes capital - then also requires expenditure to lock up supplies (see 3)

5 is especially important as they've been there before - they want the ability to still move strongly even if they are not profitable in the same way.

Basically it's a 10-20 year view rather than Wall Street's 1-3 year view (and I'm being charitable, Wall Street is more like a 3-12month view most of the time, at least with Tech stocks)
The whole premise that bigger GDP is greater productivity sounds like BS. The economists say, If you got more money for the things you made/did, you must have been more productive.

But to use a computer analogy: 40 years ago, $100 got you the home version of pong (a primitive computer game) -- today the same inflation-adjusted money would get you something mind blowing.

Whoever produced today's game is in some sense a million times more productive than the creators of pong (as brilliant as those developers were for the time).

As far as I can see, GDP or cost is not the correct measure of productivity. Trying to connect GDP with productivity is like linking stock market performance to the outcome of the Super Bowl -- there might be a relation but it's very very very remote and tenuous.
Cisco Talos warns that Tuto4PC installed a Backdoor on 12M PCs
The Entire Facebook Family Is Now Officially on Windows 10
Japan's replacement rate is a worrying 1.9 children per couple.
I Made a Linguistics Professor Listen to a Blink-182 Song and Analyze the Accent
Ask HN: What are the important considerations in Lead Nurturing?
I have recently started a new startup firm with some great products. As I am new to industry, I want to ask, what are important considerations in lead nurturing? And what are the hazards that I should avoid?
Alternatively, if companies know they can't use Go for libraries unless they're willing to make their source readable, and there's customer demand for Go, maybe they'll give in.

A decade or three ago, it was common for all software not to come with source code. If you bought some server software, the client library was closed-source as a rule, if it even existed, regardless of how enterprise or non-enterprise it was. Now it's not uncommon to see even closed-source services have client libraries on GitHub because that's where they're expected and that's how people expect to publish client libraries. That change seems to have been good for the industry and good for the world.

The enterprise users will come along eventually. They always have; you can find articles as recently as a decade ago debating whether your company should allow the use of open source software internally, or have a blanket rule against it. The second option is now inconceivable for almost all companies, because you put yourself at such a competitive disadvantage. All Go needs to do is deliver a technically attractive product, and people will figure out how to be comfortable using it.
Where a scientist publishes papers can make or break their career. Historically for area A, journals B, C, D have the highest impact. If you want your work to be recognized as high quality you will publish in those journals and whether they are "open" or "controlled by a publisher" is irrelevant.

It just so happens that for most scientific areas, the high impact journals are all owned by publishers.
This ties into a vague idea I have bouncing around my head about viewing natural language works "structurally", especially in terms of premises, arguments, conclusions, etc.

Analytic philosophers are pretty good at this already, as well as good science writers and thesis authors.

They can present the high level "type signature" of their work: something like, I assume the premises X, Y, and Z, (see books 1, 2, and 3 which argue for these premises) and then deploy arguments of kind A and B in order to strengthen the conclusion C.

Interpreted with a programmer's vocational damage, that text would be a function from (X, Y, Z) to C, using A and B as implementation patterns or algorithms, and recommending books 1, 2, 3 as concrete providers of the types X, Y, Z.

(Some kind of hand-wavey metaphorical Curry-Howard equivalence extended to rhetoric?)
Those are usually covered under "reps and warranties". From what I understand, even if you do "lie" (no one really lies, they just bend the truth...if you do legitimately lie, it's fraud and it's a big deal) there's basically insurance against it (formerly called "representations and warranties"). No VC I know of ever purchases it, but PE do from time to time.
The problem here is that you have to use Typekit because you don't actually own the fonts.
33 World Class Experts Share Their #1 Email Marketing Tip
When Barack Obama told students in Argentina "Capitalism and Socialism are about the same" -- the part that is true is:

- in Socialism, there is an Elite group who get special rewards and at the very top, the money from the country's resources (Kim in N. Korea; Chavez; and Maduro, who recently sent hundreds of millions of gold out of the country to 'pay the country's debts')

- in Capitalism, there is an elite at the top who get special rewards

There are 3 kinds of people who want Socialism:

1) those in the citizenry who want the elite to share the money more, and manage the country so that it produces benefits more equally;

2) those in the elite who want the perks that come at the top of society and want to force the wealthy to spend their wealth on helping everyone

3) those in the elite who know Socialism fails but there's plenty of time to loot the country before that happens

In capitalism, the elite don't lie to you and say "we're doing this all for you." It's understood that if you add value (like Facebook, Tesla, Google) you get handsomely rich.

In socialism, at least part of the elite know damn well that the removal of incentives in Socialism (redistribution of wealth) will eventually cause an economic crash, and they lie to the population "this will all work!" to get the votes to redistribute wealth.

Meanwhile, they have time to ship gold out of the country.

The crux is there will ALWAYS be a jealousy-inspiring Elite. This is true in Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism.

When Barack Obama said ‘There’s Little Difference Between Communism and Capitalism. Just choose from what works' to an audience of Argentinian youth a few weeks ago, he may have been referring to this issue.

No system will result in equally shared wealth. Those at the top will do anything to retain their perks.

In Communism, the leadership kills those who threaten the leadership.

In Socialism, the leadership jails those posing serious threats to leadership.

In Capitalist democracies, we have mind-bending, emotionally-charged elections, and peaceful transfer of power.
Large apartment complexes need to be tied into a municipal sewer. That binds them to the outskirts where the vested players can deny access.
The struggle with image glut
> The EFF's own data on demand letters exposes their false claims about "patent trolls". [1] Only six patent holders on their list have sent more than two demand letters.

How did you reach that conclusion? As far as I can see, all that the data you cite shows is that only six patent holders on their list have had more than one recipient submit a copy of their letter to trollingeffects.org.

Lodsys, for instance, is only represented 3 times on trollingeffects.org, but they are known to have asserted those patents against dozens of defendants.

Most people who receive a demand letter do not submit it to trollingeffects.org. What most do is contact their lawyer, and their lawyer tells them not to make any public statements about the matter.
Reputation. The publishers aren't just printing presses. They own journals that have gained reputation over decades and serve as a measure of a paper's strength. There are so many papers being published that researchers can't possibly read them all (even in their own field), so they rely on a "caste system" of journals to rate them. For this system to be trustworthy, journals need to undergo the slow, often self-reinforcing, process of building reputation over time.

Of course, the editors of those journals could try to switch to another form of publishing, but they can't take the journal's name with them, and the move would require guts that, unless many do it, may not be justified. Think about it this way: the entire faculty of Harvard can decide to move to a no-name university, but the name Harvard alone would still carry a lot of weight, and every professor who stays behind lowers the effectiveness of the move considerably.
Basically, the same reason why it's easier to get a job offer if you already have a job at a great company: "Someone vetted him for us, he is probably good" - so much easier for those hiring this way than if they'd actually had to check your previous work.
The problem is that that you want to publish in prestigious journals and conferences and the ACM, the IEEE, and everyone else has made deals with publishers to publish the proceedings because the ACM et al aren't publishers. The deals made more sense in the pre digital age, when your only option to read the papers was to get a phone book sized book once a year, but now it's just stupid. Even at universities you can hit the paywall if the journal you want isn't on the whitelist. You end up googling the title and hoping to find it off the authors' websites.

Packing up and creating a new open access journal is possible, but it's hard, because essentially you need a critical mass of the highly regarded members of the community to go with you, because the real power is in the the reputation that the community provides. It's hard to do, but is possible. Linguists are moving from Elsevier published Lingua to a new open access journal called Cognition.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/elsevier-...
It's not clear to me how (and if) Occam's Razor should necessarily be applied in this context. We are not choosing between a very simple, and a vastly complex alternative. Rather we are choosing between an unintuitive and probably complex option (contraceptives are causing less copulation - this does not sound at all like a simple suggestion to me), and admitting that our models and data may not be complete. Either way we need more research to be able to more clearly identify the root causes.
Memory management in C++ is not automatic. You have to choose between unique_ptr and shared_ptr (among others), and getting it wrong results in use after free, which can be exploitable. Not using weak_ptr in the right place results in memory leaks. And so forth.
That was my impression, too. If I were given that kind of talking to, I would immediately start looking for a new job so that I could avoid being officially fired.
Then you're creating a per-page accounting system where you still don't need one, with all the tracking and privacy invasion that entails.

Measure share of readership, and you're largely set.

You're re-iterating (best I can tell) earlier arguments, made and dismissed. HN's "only show the immediate post being replied to", particularly on mobile, makes referencing your GP comments all but impossible, but again: I and others far more intelligent than me have considered and rejected the micropayment arguments and pointed out further inequities they ignore.
I think Google Toolbar was his idea.
But is the happiness produced by playing Angry Birds (or other modern games) any higher than Pong? I'm sure that people had just as much fun playing cards in the 1800s as they do play video games now. In that sense the overall productivity is far lower, since modern games take more work to produce.
Journals becoming free would probably vastly more to the economy than the rents extracted by the journal publishing industry. Sci-Hub is one way, but perhaps another way would be either a philanthropist or government buying the companies out, or applying eminent domain to the research.
Well, you have to replace the battery after about 10 years.
And yes, maybe the resale value is more important.
Crazy diamonds
Personally, my mental to-do model consists to a pretty large part of recurring tasks with more or less vague "deadlines."

For example, at home, taking out trash, watering plants, stocking up on groceries, paying the rent, etc.

However, almost all to-do systems seem to be aimed at scheduling one-off tasks.

So I would like the to-do system to more accurately model my real to-do model, which would probably mean having a special item type for these circular, Sisyphean tasks.
Thanks, got it - so it's the equivalent of signing to a major label instead of releasing your album on Bandcamp.

However, and I may be very naive and idealistic here, shouldn't academics be able to rate and value a paper purely on quality rather than the medium it was published in?
I'd vote for him. He'd help pass so many people-friendly laws that undoing his reforms would take decades. :)
A brief glossary of annoying expressions in science communication
> When has something (in software) been invented by building on some text in a patent filing?

Hah! That's a great way to put it. Patents are supposed to be an exchange of (1) opening the idea to the public for (2) protection. Software patents, to my knowledge, do not do (1).

Arguably, other industries suffer the same trouble. Patent filers these days go to great lengths to disguise their meaning so that they are ambiguous enough to cover many things, and presumably, difficult to actually understand and borrow ideas.
I think so - Pong was only available on the arcade machines at first, and cost a coin for each play, and real estate to hold those machines. Angry birds is available on people's phones, 24 hours a day, and the only real estate it needed was a few offices. I'd argue it produced a lot more amusement value than Pong, compared the real capital it used. Card games could only be played with people, whereas Angry birds can be played solo, on a train. When the value of playing card games is higher, people still play card games.
This is very philosophical and also entirely unresponsive to my points.
Some people look at career advancement like it's a race along the highway -- you pull over and put your career on hold, I keep going faster and staying ahead of you. That kind of thing.

I think it would be prudent to look at it like trying to build your own sandcastle, and everybody does it in different ways and at different speeds. There is no reason my progress should impede yours.

That said, I think the article is spot on. Firing can be a positive experience and it need not imply a negative progression, but simply a lateral adjustment.
You'd require some (substantial) investment, but you can always just mine them. Tunisia should have some fairly cheap electricity. Not sure how you can get the Asics there though. Maybe contact one of the sellers directly. They'll probably accept btc.
Bitcoin works exactly the same, except settlement times are significantly shorter.

You authorize (sign) a transaction, broadcast it and the network confirms it.

Signing a transaction takes only a fractions of a second, and to the merchant it's a significantly stronger guarantee of settlement than a credit card authorization.
I'm ideologically primed to favor free access to information (especially if any tax money was involved which is true for pretty much all research) but I think a middle ground of moving scientific publishing to a nextflix/itunes/kindle model would solve a lot of issues. Access a paper -> (micro) payment to the journal (who could in return set up another (micro) payment to the actual author).
The biggest issue is the pricing model (35$/paper when a researcher typically needs to read 100+ papers per papers he/she writes) and the lack of a single point of access.

Like iTunes for science. Go do it someone. I won't envy you, I'll expect you to fail but if you pull it off I'll be forever grateful.
Memory safety without garbage collection. (While still supporting dynamic allocation.)
The first three paragraphs of the article clearly tells what is wrong with the system - "Publishers are overcharging for content".
Basically, they just continued their business model from the printed-book era to the e-book era without much change.
The publishers should think of allowing individuals to subscribe to the content and charge them (nominally) for what they use, rather than putting the load on the Universities and making them subscribe the entire spectrum of journals.
The Pay-per-view model of Elsevier currently charges an individual researcher (a staggering) "$31.50 per article or chapter for most Elsevier content. Select titles are priced between $19.95 and $41.95 (subject to change)." [0]

[0] -https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect/content/pay...
Feynman later proposed this interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time in his 1949 paper "The Theory of Positrons".[2] Yoichiro Nambu later applied it to all production and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, stating that "the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past."[3]

This sounds like SciFi material.
It has been broken for a while. API calls are returning errors even when used with the official bookmarklet. API support for extensions (the real reason why Delicious was successful) apparently has been deprecated? Whoever is running this doesn't have enough technical expertise.
The reason we started using it at work was we could target both Javascript and Flash from the one codebase.

However, we finally don't need to support flash anymore... so now there's no reason to not just write in javascript.
That's easy: Pat Selinger. Oh wait, she won this very same award in 1988 for much more important work, and yet you've never even heard of her.
He's not "donating 99% of his stock to charity."

He's setting up a non-taxable charity vehicle that he controls.
Publishers probably cannot keep up with the current revenue levels, especially since the university library funding is constantly decreasing.

And besides Scihub, there are emerging institutional solutions to this problem, like research funders demanding that research paid with public funds must be publicly available, and universities setting up academic repositories where papers published elsewhere are available in open access form.
I think this is a really cynical article, hate speech is incredibly dangerous and we need to do more to protect our minorities and fringe citizens from its destructive effects. If this means giving up some rights to live in a society with more safe spaces for everyone who can argue with that?
If you make good use of move semantics and return value optimizations. you can avoid using pointers in many more cases in the first place.

Using pointers only where really needed reduces your risk of memory leaks.
> In practice, academia has effectively voted no-confidence and bypassed the legal system entirely.

Yup. Seems like civil disobedience from the research community. Pretty interesting to see a civil rights movement happening online. Who says you can't sit at home and be an activist? ;-)
Okay, but the article has almost nothing to do with that, which is a subset of what macros are used for. It is about CL lexical binding, Rebol's definitional scoping and evaluation of data as code at runtime.
Non-dividend stock is frequently purchased with one goal in mind - sell it later at (hopefully) higher value.

You're right in questioning the practice - the vote multiples and various share classes bring opacity to otherwise transparent concept of equity investing. Does the board want CEO to have 10x the votes? Issue him 10x the shares.
Share your internet connection with Hardware Network Starter
And a huge pile of cash, right?
> But it makes some sense here. Look at how well Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have done

or Zynga http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/14/zynga-s-ipo...
Haxe is really a formidable little virus. It does a lot of small things nicely, but doesn't have a single knock-out feature that you can trot out during language comparisons.

However, all those little features add up over time and become addictive. You start really missing them when you go back to other languages. In the back of your mind you think of how you might solve something simply with abstracts or macros, or how you might easily reduce the file size or execution speed with dead code elimination or inlining.

I would choose Haxe over Perl because of Haxe's expressive type extension capabilities. I could add useful methods to string or array types, and make the resulting code short and sweet (although perhaps less readable for others).

I would choose Haxe over OCaml and I would gain Haxe's superior compiler error messages. I would also get to move seamlessly between functional and imperative programming styles, and still get to use ADTs.
Oh this is a huge pet peeve of mine, it's unbelievable.

Granted, a lot of work goes into these standards, and they don't come out of nowere, still
I am aware of a few companies that deliver source, alright.

But they do so, by delivering it encrypted and decrypting it on the fly when it gets used.

Or they hide it on a server that their customers never get to see, besides an incomprehensible junk of minified and encrypted JavaScript.

Which companies are doing successful business selling software for embedded, desktop and mobile platforms with source code available?
Your brain on podcasts mapped