skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That sounds like utter garbage. The article itself gives plenty of examples of the convoluted processes and restrictions that were applied on scientists.

Kristi Miller-Saunders, who was the principle author of the paper on Salmon death, wasn't allowed to speak to the media, but her non-government co-authors were.

And there is the giant hole in your argument. It's so large I could fly a jumbo jet through it. Scientists in universities are free to speak to the media! These scientists are employees of the university. They are not controlled by media departments. That is truly gagging debate!

It's funny how the government was happy for political media officers to control the message, officers who didn't understand the research as well as the lead author or researchers if scientific studies. Yet that is what you consider unbiased? I mean, your entire argument is that the government must protect the general public from misinformation yet it is the government who is deciding what the scientists can and cannot say... If they stop a scientist from speaking because they believe they are inaccurately explaining their own work, well that's absurd.

If the government is concerned that scientists can't communicate to the media, then I wonder when they might decide that scientists published papers might be potentially misleading and require a media officer to vet them. Peer review by public relations, if you will.

As for the slime mild story, could you tell us more? I don't see any mention of that in the story.
How much of a parsing stack can you build atop of Ragel? I gave Ragel a good look over recently when checking out parsers for Ruby because Ragel has a Ruby binding. I chose A Ruby PEG† library (Parslet) because I decided that there was too much of a gap between the low level finite automata machinery that Ragel provides and the parsing generation that I was looking for. Was I wrong to decide that, I wonder.

† On a related note, I'm finding it difficult finding (fast) GLR or GLL parser generators for Ruby
I think the thread is counted if there is at least 1 mention of nazis in the thread.

Therefore it is possible that there are multiple mentions per counted thread meaning that at least .00078 comments mention nazis, but in all likelihood far more comments mention nazis.

Edit: after reading the article, I don't think that this observation stands.
Yeah, using the GPU makes a huge difference. It's also incredibly finicky because the hardware and browser support varies so much.

Basically I represent an n-qubit superposition as a 2^(n/2) x 2^(n/2) texture with each pixel being an amplitude (with red=real, blue=imaginary components). Then I use fragment shaders to operate on all the pixels in parallel when applying a gate.

For example, here's the GLSL in the main method of the "UniversalNot" gate's shader [1]:

vec2 xy = gl_FragCoord.xy - vec2(0.5, 0.5);
float state = xy.y * outputWidth + xy.x;
float hasBit = mod(floor(state / bit), 2.0);
float partnerState = state + bit * (1.0 - 2.0 * hasBit);
vec2 uv = uvFor(state);
vec2 partnerUv = uvFor(partnerState);
float control = texture2D(controlTexture, uv).x;
vec2 val = vec4(texture2D(inputTexture, uv)).xy;
vec2 partnerVal = vec4(texture2D(inputTexture, partnerUv)).xy;
vec2 outUncontrolled = vec2(partnerVal.x, -partnerVal.y) * (1.0 - 2.0*hasBit);
vec2 outVal = (1.0 - control) * val + control * outUncontrolled;
gl_FragColor = vec4(outVal.x, outVal.y, 0.0, 0.0);

(The UniversalNot gate isn't possible in reality, but it's easy to implement in the simulator. So I have it implemented, but hidden away. You have to manually tweak the URL to contain a "__unstable__UniversalNot" gate to use it. But then you can use it for FTL communication shenanigans. [2])

1: https://github.com/Strilanc/Quirk/blob/master/src/circuit/Ga...

2: http://bit.ly/1roNMCE
> Now, this doesn't take into account getting away with insider trading, of course.

More importantly, it also doesn't take into account that there are investment opportunities that are not as directly (i.e., without intermediary layers which extract some of the returns) available to passive investors, so that the passive/act groups aren't splitting the same universe of alternatives. (E.g., passively investing in any given index fund is on average better than actively investing restricted to stocks in that index, and you can probably even extend that to passively investing in index funds in generally being better than actively investing in investments that directly held by any combination of index funds, but not every investment vehicle in the market is directly held by index funds.)
> Word of warning: on a long term graph, today does not look like a good time to start investing, in fact looks like a really good time to sell and stay on the sidelines. This is not affected by passive vs active investing.

Could you expand on what you mean here? Do you mean, that for every day, "today does not look like a good time to start", or do you mean that on this May 4th, 2016, you expect that investments made today, will seem like a bad investment on May 4th 2066? (Or whatever is considered a "long term graph")?
Edtech through the eyes of students
Given a sane zoning regime, the supply of housing will increase in response to increased demand.
If your changes are generally-useful to the userbase, your code is fully tested, and it doesn't break any existing features, I'd just submit a pull-request to get the conversation going.

You never know, someone on the main team might have had the same idea for the feature long ago, but never mentioned it or had time to implement.

As far as new-branch vs master branch, go with whatever precedent the repo has laid out. (Review recent pulls, and any guidance the authors have laid out in the docs). It's a personal preference thing for the authors, there's not really a right or wrong way.
> In this post, I’ll only try to find out how many Reddit comments mention Nazis or Hitler and ignore the context in which they are made.
Use of the term should just throw a flag and information the user that users able allowed to filter comments based on keyword and if there comment will not be viewable to XX% of the community. Second, mods should still be reviewing the community for inappropriate behavior.

While I'd never use the term, it's a good reminder that what words you choose often define you.
Technically not correct. The OP only looks at threads w/ 1000+ comments.

The vast majority of threads on Reddit have less than that. (see: http://jeroendelcour.nl/blog/Reddits-attention-inequality )
You're not being a hater. You are attacking the original poster's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine the argument. You are being ad hominem.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Hiring should be the sum of a "Skill" score and a "Culture Fit" score.

"Diversity" shouldn't be apart of either of these scores. It shouldn't matter what race, religion or color you are.
It's amazing that my bank asks me to write amounts both longhand and in numerals when writing a check, even in amounts as small as a dollar, but that doctors scribbling out dosages of medications that can easily kill people has been standard operating procedure since the whole thing started.
it's also interesting that r/socialism , r/anarchism , r/gamerghazi which are respectively socialist , anarchist and anti-gamergate forums are on the top of the list.
Not if you pull the license of repeat offenders. F* up once? It happens, medicine is hard (EDIT: Document what went wrong, put a process in place so it doesn't happen again, issue a notice to all other medical facilities offering related procedures). F* up again? You're out of a job.

No different then how the FAA and the NTSB operate.

EDIT: Medicine can be made safer through the same processes used to ensure air travel is the safest transport method in the world. It can't be as safe, but we can do better.
>
When a random person searches for a company, it's probably > 100:1 odds that they're interested in the company's product, not in a job at the company

Really? There are companies that have very few customers that pay lots of money for very specific machinery or services. Customers which might be banks, large businesses or large manufacturing companies. How many among the visitors of their websites are the decision makers that are evaluating their products and those of the competition in view of a purchase? You say 99%.I say 1 out of 1000.
HN threads don't go above 1000 nearly as often as Reddit, without any regard to the differences in audience, or the size of the audience, or the scale of the content availavle to comment on.
Just learn to use argumentation.
I don't watch trash. It's precisely ourselves that any threat will come from; I expect that the current environment of political upheaval will only get worse.
That's good to hear. Thanks.
Sure but is there really a big difference between these sentences:

"And in the end anyone who feels like that reminds me of the Nazi's"

"The Nazis did that and you see what happened to them"

"The way he makes comments it's like he's a grammar nazi"
There's a third, which is what was often mentioned by Netflix and others during discussions about EME on W3C lists: casual piracy, where people just download a file and send it to a friend. It sounded like that was the sort of piracy that the studios were predominantly wanting to block (because they fundamentally don't think they can affect torrents, because they know that things will likely get broken)—the goal is to make it sufficiently hard that people won't do it trivially). Targeting stolen keys is, as far as I'm aware, mostly dealt with through key revocation and the law: I don't think anyone's ever really proposed a particularly technical solution to it.
Unlike Reddit, invoking Godwin's Law in Hacker News will get your comment killed.
because what happens to the data.

What could possible be more sensitive than DNA records? You have to assume most of these places will suffer a data-breach sooner or later. In light of the fact that you can fabricate[1] DNA evidence I think it's a bad idea if any kind of company can request data from the general public in exchange for a kit that isn't even FDA approved. If you look behind the scenes and consider where the real money in this business is the data and not just the sale of the kit.

[0] http://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be-...
But are you fluent in those languages? Sorry I am not trying to come off a presumptuous, I am just trying to emphasize the distinction because I think it is important to bear in mind. If the goal is fluency, do you think that traditional education has succeeded for you?

Also how long have you been studying languages? I ask because I am curious if you think that the web, and later, apps, like Duolingo for example, can make a huge difference versus the pre-web era of language learning. Pre-web, I would agree with anyone that yes it would be extremely difficult to learn a language on your own unless you had traditional schooling. But today there is nothing a traditional course in German could give me that I couldn't get from Deutsche Welle, for example (but I also realize there isn't a 'Deutsche Welle' for every language).

Sorry if this is going further than you wanted, I am just trying to get different perspectives and it seems like you have a good grasp.
It's important to remember that civilized intellectual Westerners relatively recently democratically elected leaders who shovelled intellectual, sexual, and racial minorities into mass graves based on magical theories.
> No, the hypothetical assumes that 50% of all assets are passively-investable.

No, it assumes that all assets are passively investable, and each asset is half held by passive investors and half held by active investors. Under any other set of assumptions (particularly, if its just a 50%/50% split of initial market value across all but not each individual investment), the equal-returns conclusion does not hold.
I am not surprised and I don't find it alarming. More comments means more fights and words like "Nazi" are bound to appear because it is basically a slang for evil.

Forget reddit, a quick look at American politics itself shows very liberal use of phrases like Fascist and Nazi when in reality people probably mean just evil.
I would think that generally one means different things. Specifically, a diversified portfolio would hold stocks and bonds.

Or, if one is of the "stocks don't go up over the long term" persuasion, it means stocks + shorts (for a net market neutral portfolio) and bonds.

So no, popular index funds are not diversified. There are exceptions, of course.
Up and to the right: April's biggest valuation jumps
> This is also about the millionth post I've read which assumes that companies simply throw money at advertising and don't run any statistics of their own.

Well, anecdotally, they do.

We just took over PPC advertising for a chain of regional businesses. When we got access to their existing PPC accounts, I found that they'd spent about $75,000 over the last year on PPC, and nearly all of it was wasted.

The only conversion path on their site was phone calls, and they didn't have any sort of conversion tracking in place.

Initially, I expect they got some real clicks and calls. But then over time, without any focus on conversions, they just kept optimizing for the cost per click. That meant leaving the search network for the display network, and focusing in on poorer and poorer sources of clicks. Until over the past several months, nearly 100% of their clicks have come from what look like very shady websites and mobile apps.

They cut their CPC by about 75%, but in the process, I expect nearly eliminated any ROI. $75,000 down the drain.

To be fair, I do think Google's AdWords Express tool is a good antidote to this behavior. Someone with very little PPC experience could setup an account, and run a successful campaign. And once you're spending enough, you typically get a call from a Google employee offering you tips on your campaign, and I've found Google's reps to be generally helpful.

But people who don't take understand the AdWords platform, or can't be bothered to learn, can throw away tons of money on spammy or outright scammy clicks in AdWords.
For ergonomic reasons your work should be in front of you. If you're staring at a side monitor long term that'll wreak havoc on your neck.
A "fulfilling" professional life is rather hard to define but the economist article seems to take the very narrow view that "fulfilling" means to maximize the ROI for time/money spent in education by optimizing one's selection of major.

The fact is people do just fine majoring in things such as studio arts and literature. It could very well mean that they don't end up working professionally in those fields, but that is OK. Some of these people end up working in the same companies as their peers, some end up in menial jobs after college, some become your boss (and some do all or none of these).

And I am not even mentioning the fact that at age 18, many many students have yet to find themselves and settle on a major, let alone a career path.
In the context of the class (The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs), I feel like this is not such an outlandish view. It sounds to me like the field of software engineering has simply evolved since the 80s.

Don't get me wrong, if you are going for post-graduate studies such a course will always be relevant, but it sounds like he is talking within the context of undergraduates. And in the context of undergraduates, I too would be circumspect of how useful it would be for preparing you for your first job as a Software Engineer.

Their choice to go toward a Python-based course at the undergraduate level would also seem to reaffirm this view from afar...
You're right. Too right. The Nazis are a rightfully perfect metaphor for these times and many others.

But there are always exceptions. Nobody is wheelbarrowing carts of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. Race (and the idea of inherent superiority/inferiority) is viewed much differently, in fact until the 70s it was generally accepted that Neanderthals became whites, Homo Erectus became Asians, and so on. And if the post-Cold War era has taught us anything, there is no "End of History" where humanity converges along the One True Path.

No analogy is perfect. American slaves had little relation to Roman slaves aside from being owned people. Too much has changed since the 30s to be an exact repeat.
I would describe being fired if you f* up again as being held liable. Liability doesn't have to be monetary.
you have a very strange format to your communication.
many times you stick the tail end of one sentence into parenthesis, only to close them after entering another sentence.

where did you learn this?
It is quite intriguing ( and a unique thing. But really not ) for people who notice such things.
There's no point in letting diversity trainers in your door. They are unemployable leeches with made up social science degrees. And they themselves are racist. The good thing is their hypocrisy is easy to detect by anyone with a solid rational outlook on life and business.
Ha, the things I've seen shader compilers do. One of the funniest (or so I think) was how the NVidia shader compiler messed up its intermediary assembly code:

The NVidia GLSL compiler (which is based on the Cg compiler), to this date, first compiles from GLSL into assembly as specified by the GL_ARB__program extensions plus extra instructions specified in the GL_NV__program extensions. Nothing wrong with that. But what's wrong is applying the LC_NUMERIC locale onto floating point literals emitted into the assembly code, because if your system happens to be set to a locale where the decimal separator is a comma (,) and not a period (.) the following assembly stage will interpret the commas as list separators. NVidia's beta drivers of November 2006 for their then newly released G80 GPUs had this very bug (it also happens that I did report it first, or so I think); NVidia got the report just in time to apply an in-situ workaround before the next non-beta driver release (at least so I was told back then).
Nazi is an easy shorthand for evil.

It's often that, but it's often not only that. It's often a shorthand for extreme political ideology leading to authoritarianism. It's a shorthand for a particular affective/mental state groups of people can enter into. (1) The country that became Nazi Germany was highly educated, western, democratic, and industrialized. Germans are ordinary people, just like you and me. There is nothing peculiar or special or demonizing about them, or Russians or Chinese or Cambodians or Americans or any other group containing members who have enacted mass killings and genocide.

Our species' brain is wired to enable us gang-up together, feel solidarity, and take action against other groups. The way this happens fits certain functional objective patterns of behavior, and Nazis are a very prominent mental "attractor." Unfortunately, "Nazi" has such a strong emotional connotation, it renders rational thought about such group dynamics difficult in any public communications medium.

The Nazi-accuser shunts the Nazi-accused into a digestible category that needn't be historically comparable at all to be rhetorically effective

It's also often used to talk about attributes and events that are historically comparable to the activities of the Nazi party in its early, obscure days, before it had political power. The same group dynamics that applies to them, applies to other groups of people all throughout history. Unfortunately, the comparison it has such strong emotional connotations, the irrational feelings drown out useful rational discussion.

From what I've seen, invocations of "Godwin's Law" are often used by people who are subject to the beginnings of the same group-dynamic negative-affective death spiral -- precisely to shut down discussion of the phenomena they are subject to. This culture sorely needs a way to calmly and meaningfully discuss such group-dynamics. If society was 1/10th as savvy about group dynamics as it is savvy about the cognitive bias caused by love and sexual desire, we'd be vastly more advanced.

(1) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11630275
>Summary: not discriminating against applicants before speaking to them based on where they're from, where they've worked, what school they went to, how long they've been in the profession, and who they know that you know is equivalent to "lowering the bar."

So, suppose you had to fill an open position for a developer and you had two candidates: an MIT grad with years of experience at Apple and Google, and a homeless guy who never went to college and never worked in IT before.

You're honestly going to try to tell us that you have no idea who might be the better candidate?

And if hypothetically you could only interview one, you'd what? Be totally stymied? Flip a coin maybe?

There's no possible way you can actually believe what you're saying.

>In addition, pretend like not ruling people out before you've spoken to them is equivalent to not reviewing their work, or giving them a "diversity" grade boost.
[points 1,8]

I don't recall him mentioning ruling people out before speaking to them, although once you get to a certain scale that has to happen at some point since if an individual manager gets 1,000 applicants for one position on his team he can't speak to them all. Or is math racist too?

The scale requirement becomes much smaller when talking about reviewing someone's work, because that is much more involved than a resume scan or even most phone screens.

Giving them a diversity grade boost is the definition of racism/sexism/*ism. Funny how youve managed to find yourself on the same side as someone who gives a buxom under qualified blonde a second interview because "we don't have any hot chicks in this office."
No. Most people think that they are Alan Turing, Linus Torvald, Steve Jobs; are not.
Inside the World of San Francisco’s Millionaire Uber Drivers
How about the Nexus users who get the yearly updates immediately? I'm pretty sure they care, I know I do.
That just gets to how silly the idea is that you can map policy opinions onto a single principal component and get good separation.
Or, a more productive thought: "We shall have to work faster." (From http://www.yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda)
Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12 hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do?

This article is arguing against the wrong point. If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. Some people would be lazy, because humans are inherently pretty lazy, but a lot of people would work on things they're passionate about.

Work sucks for most people:

“Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.” -George Carlin
What exactly is wrong with the current passel of immigrants to the States?
This is a strawman that doesn't even attempt a charitable summary of opposing arguments. There is one link to an actual opponent's arguments and it's some random consultant/speaker's blog, not anyone actually being paid to advise on tech hiring diversity.

Here's an attempt at a charitable characterization: Lots of heuristics for quickly evaluating programming skill may inadvertently toss out qualified applicants or give an undeserved boost to unqualified applicants who tick off superficial traits. Instead of leaning so heavily on heuristics that might disproportionately favor white men, let's try to create hiring systems that fairly evaluate people on their merits and give people full opportunity to demonstrate their talents. We should also try to make people aware that humans can make unconsciously-biased decisions based on some deeply-hardwired evolutionary heuristics around race and gender, so they have the awareness and mental tools to recognize when unconscious bias is influencing their decisions.