skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
No I'm not "afraid of nerds". I am a nerd. These wouldn't be nerds, they would be to Einstein, what Einstein was to an average person. The distance would probably be far greater actually. They could plausibly be a different species than us.

What happened to this guy I was talking about, was high IQ defined his identity, what separated him from others. Fortunately most high IQ people do integrate fine into society, we all still have a lot on common.

But it's likely the superintelligent babies would not integrate well. They would only be able to communicate and find things in common with other supers, and not idenitfy with us normies. We'd be subhumans to them.
What do you mean by "current constraints?"

The properties of the medium (air), being the core constraint, is fairly well rooted in the laws of physics and observed experimental results.

What constraints are there that can actually be changed?
How likely do you think it is that a world war will break out?

What do you think people would have said in 1913? What about 1938? (Lest you think this is some rhetorical dogwhistle shit: don't worry. It isn't. Just an open question.)
> the largest ratings and reviews company worldwide

So, Amazon? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by this?
And if not, pivot to perpetual motion, like this chap:

https://vimeo.com/148032441
Buffet Backs Group Bidding for Yahoo Assets
That routine is part of the C runtime which is used in Julia too, so it doesn't cause any difference.
No matter what you accomplish, in America you will be remembered for being penniless and broke.
Once we are ready to do this, there would need to be many studies done to correlate genetics with diseases and abilities. We would know exactly what set of genes causes various mental diseases and could avoid them. High IQ people do not generally have serious psychological issues, and are on average better than the general population. But yes it's a possibility.
I just discovered today that our resize example is actually absurdly slow. Working on a better one. So far it's about 8x faster. The other apps are much better tuned.

(I'm one of the main Halide devs)
AV codecs are a patent minefield, and sitting on your hands waiting for a guaranteed free standard is a pretty shitty option for users. Even Firefox realized that.
I'm working on a fintech startup where the product is backed by a company with a ton of experience and cash. The complexity around moving money around and even advertising financial services is almost mind boggling. Doing this as an "outsider" seems downright impossible.
This FTC regulation might have more teeth if the definition of compensation included, for example, influencing the hiring or employment of a relative related to the subject of the post.
Nuclear power doesn't have to compete with solar and wind during quiet winter nights-- it gets to compete against batteries + solar/wind.

Grids with a lot of renewables are also dealing with a lot of stress on the electrical grid: http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-04-07/when-grid-says-no-wind...

It's a solvable engineering problem, but the meta operations problem is: "is it cheaper to have a grid that is 50% nuclear and 50% renewable, or a grid that is 100% renewables with a lot of battery-stations to absorb/emit the variances"
My comment is late, but the thing I take away from this (and I'm biased) is that the VC-first track is as terrible as it's been made out to be for years. Now they have a real business, helping people for money, and all the crazy shit they had to deal with as a start-up isn't a factor now. They've bootstrapped, successfully, and NOW would be the time to start working on a product.

I get it, opening another consultancy isn't the most glamorous thing, but man it gets you to solvent quickly. Then you build a product in your off time WHILE being your own boss. The flexibility is awesome.

That's what we did. Somewhat accidentally, but it's awesome. Now we are a product company with no investors and 100% equity.

Now that's not to say that someone shouldn't take money - but do it now, after you're a business, after you stop wondering where the next dollar is coming from.

It's not a bad way to go.
Developing a pepper plugin for video decoding is a pain in the butt.

Well actually, it might be okay on desktop.
That's true. What I should have said was "market size problems." The size of the market depends on how many parents think that this would be a good idea to use with their kids.
That's only because existing IQ tests aren't normalized past 160. IQ is defined by a statistical distribution, and that requires sampling the general population. People with more than 160 IQ are so incredibly rare, there's no samples to define that end of the distribution.

But that's irrelevant to this. Because we are dealing with the actual genes that determine intelligence, we can estimate the exact distribution of intelligence, and predict where a set of genes would fall on that distribution. See my comment below.
I should point out that time travel would fix the phone charging problem quite handily. Just send your phone back in time a few hours. Not sure if there are other applications.
Yeah, that does start getting complicated enough to change the code on either side.
As an US expat in Panama I say , this has nothing on the local "Diablo Rojo" us school busses with a second life as the pirate bus system.
Stick with docker if possible, you will get more performance among other benefits.

Check excellent Phusion's base image [0] if you need (pardon me) "container like VM".

For the gui: Docker has native Kitematic app [1], but not sure about state on linux.
I would recommend you to check Shipyard project [2] as Docker Gui

Docker also support containerized X11 desktop apps [3].

[0] https://github.com/phusion/baseimage-docker

[1] https://kitematic.com/

[2] http://shipyard-project.com/walkthrough/

[3] http://fabiorehm.com/blog/2014/09/11/running-gui-apps-with-d...
Yes, I keep hearing the "What good is a pay increase if you don't have a job?" argument. To that, I respond: "What good is a job if I can't afford to live from it?"

I wonder how many businesses would give wage increases if they weren't forced to. I know mine wouldn't, they don't stick to minimum wage now.
I can get some meaning out of it. If I knew the context, I could get more.

May I suggest running it through HemingwayApp[1] yourself and seeing that this particular email is objectively hard to read?

Write emails (and internet comments) like the reader is a drunk 7 year old. That's about as much attention as they're giving your email.

[1] http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
> Engineering, product design, graphic design (these are not the same), marketing, and sales are all needed in various proportions, depending on the product, to make a "marketable product."

I'm well aware. I've done this many times.

> Between all of those roles you could easily chew up $1million in 1 year

You could easily chewup $100 million too. Does that mean we should go ahead and say we can't make a marketable product for $100m? Of course not. Constraints are a fact of life - whether that be time/money/whatever. The challenge is getting to market given the resources at your disposal.

> standard Silicon Valley compensation

The business in question is based is OR. Also, and I'm going to sound facetious here but I'm really not trying to be, most businesses are not based in SV.
>The actual engineers working on the project (including the one in this "spat") at some point realize the actual limitations of what is possible physics wise.

I read until here and would like to cut you off. So, at this point, can you tell me YOUR perspective on the alternate history where the company, exactly at this point, starts behaving exactly like Apple, consumer-driven instead of fundamental R&D driven, and simply pivots and enters some totally unrelated part of the power or battery market. Literally any other part of it - not just super capacitors (which were making the rounds around that time) but literally ANY part of the market, since they had obscene gobs of money in the bank for the stage they were at ($10M+) and lots of extremely talented engineers.

What would have happened? Could they have retained their goodwill, credibility, and name, and simply successfully pivoted?
Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful.

True, but screening tests are very useful. If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win. The fact that it doesn't always give you an actionable result doesn't make it useless.
I am by no means overlooking the work that has gone into determining the feasibility. Sorry if my comment came across that way. My point was really two-fold. The idea itself should not get discredited simply because of the method they are using. If you take the idea, wireless power at a distance, and separate that from the method, via ultrasound, the idea is game-changing.

The question then becomes how do you go about doing it. Ultrasound is apprently one option (I am by no means a scientist or have vast knowledge of this area). It is obvious, based on the research conducted to date, that ultrasound as a long-term solution is not viable, both from a technology and health perspective. So what is? Just because ultrasound is not going to work, does that mean the idea itself should be thrown out? Maybe, maybe not. But if we threw out every idea simply because existing technology was incapable of implementing said idea, we would be rolling around in Fred Flintstone cars.

If VCs want to gamble on developing the technology by throwing money at it, that is their choice. The real issue is that at some point, the VCs need to stand up and say enough already with the ultrasound theory. Instead they should be guiding the company more towards exploring the idea itself and finding viable solutions. More importantly they need to rein in the CEO, and hyperbole marketing claims she makes, to take the focus from wireless power via ultrasound to just the idea of wireless power. That is my second point, that people seem to be looking at this solely from the claims the CEO has made, and not from the idea itself.

Suster's defense of the company was a case of right idea, wrong words. He, in my opinion, through his choice of wording, made the situation worse. While essentially bashing Reynolds in one sentence, he completely lends credit to Reynolds statements. He acknowledges that Reynolds expressed doubts regarding the marketing and public statements.

The problem I see with this whole issue is that everyone, from the company executives and VCs to the media, is hyper-focused on the method (ultrasound), that they have lost focus on the idea (wireless power at a distance).
Veteran Network Coder Provides Troubling Analysis of the Division's Problems
Aren't you the winner?
Pretty amazing. Considering that I've only really taken 1 online class so far excluding tutorials that I've done. I wonder if one day how this would be used for real responses for a real professor someday
I know people at most of the larger algo trading firms in nyc, they all have all excellent reputation for how they treat employees. Sounds like you have algo trading confused with big banks like GS.
Pfizer acts to stop its drugs being used in lethal injections
7 Things to Say When a Conversation Turns Negative
Here is the author answering a similar question: https://medium.com/@oscargodson/the-whole-concept-we-were-se...

(in short: a mixture of "that's not what people liked about the concept" and "not big enough of a goal"?)
Skipgram isn’t Matrix Factorisation
The Six Qualities of Good Feedback
I'd say C is the bicycle and C++ is the motorcycle. Both give you plenty of chances to kill yourself.
I can't tell if you're being serious. Are you? It doesn't seem heartbreaking to me at all, it seems goofy in a very typically childish way. It's a $20 bill, not the death of a pet (or a grandparent for that matter), or a parental divorce, or some other genuinely heartbreaking event.
Not entirely true, I work at a bank and many of the most critical core banking systems don't have an admin account at all. Yes there are accounts that perform critical system functions, but they dont have passwords and can't be logged on to interactively.

We make changes to those systems by setting up very intricate situations where the changes are all in the right place at the right time and a bunch of approvals sytems have basically got flags indicarinf changes can be made. Then the changes get included as part of the systems normal operations, as in once it gets a bunch of signals for vaious places it pulls in whatever is in a specific clearcase stream.

Obviously the above description is a huge over simplification, but the only way to social engineer that is if you can convince multiple system managers to approve a change which has already been promoted by tech leads in various departments.

Admittedly it makes "hot"fixes a god damn nightmare because 'oh shit, no one noticed a spelling error in the legal disclaimer sent to business customers? Lets get all 150 technical sign offs again... And get me the number of that lawyer who said that we had to include that!'
> Generally you double an engineer's salary to arrive at the total cost to the firm of retaining their services.

It's a fair point thought I do think 1-3 engineers is still plenty for "most" startup products to get to MVP (not universal but general rule of thumb).

> You also need to realize just how new and unproven Lean Startup ideas are in the larger context of business. In that world, a million is just getting started. Most software products in the world took much much more than a million dollars to make. You have to pay the project managers, creative team, etc etc.

Established (and assumedly) revenue generating software is not the topic of the discussion. The comment I was referring to was that $1m is needed to make a marketable product. Its a bogus claim.
Venezuela Is Falling Apart
There's also Osper:

https://osper.com/

Which is MasterCard rather than Visa.
Yep, a lot of people are confusing the impossible of eg. "We can never go to the moon", which was actually just an exaggerated infeasible - it was possible, but only at great expense - with the literally physically impossible.

The moonshot wasn't about the laws of physics, it was about the laws of economics. A scale-up problem in terms of money. Whereas this charger is about trying to evade some very difficult laws of physics.

Even if you exclude the extreme physical improbability of the device, it still has massive problems in terms of practicality. It would require installing a large number of expensive ultrasound emitters in every coffee shop and fast food joint. Then installing recievers in every phone. And it will still be massively inefficient power-wise. Whereas the alternative is to install comparatively low power, more efficient wireless charging pads in every table.

So even ignoring the physics, this was going to be an incredibly hard sell.
Slavery conditions in chicken industry show robots will take this sector too
Well, I am sure there is some overlap between the two, but I know you meant the focus of the article.
Amazon is not strictly a ratings and reviews company. I don't know in total how many reviews they have.
I guess after Mallory Ortberg took over Dear Prudence at Slate the writing was on the wall. The Toast was a deeply weird site, too bad its gone. Reductress is the closest substitute.
> Obviously static/strong typing is winning.
...
> I think dynamic typing has its place

This is why I wish Groovy with it's combined static / dynamic typing abilities was a) better and b) more popular. Its ability to interweave static and dynamic typed code is really spectacular when it works. Unfortunately there are a lot of holes and it can still be quite painful when in static mode, so I mainly only use it for performance rather than as I would like to - as the default mode.
You've discovered that social media is mostly used for getting attention. Congratulations, that was very clever of you.
Deadspin is actually pretty good. Sports journalism is kind of the opposite of tech journalism: smart things written about dumb people.
You could take that concept pretty far. There's no computer system that doesn't involve a human element (CS101). And yet some of the most clever people spend their time finding ways to hack the machine element. Their work inevitably gets understood and integrated into software, either through voluntary submissions through bug bounties or otherwise.

Social engineering has been understood for a long time, and yet we can't develop defenses in the same way we can develop defenses in software. So we have an underpaid workforce of software hackers uncovering vulnerabilities which get patched and an overpaid workforce of social engineers exploiting unpatchable vulnerabilities in the human condition.

Who is really being exploited here?
Keep an eye on Alliance of Open Media ( http://aomedia.org ). Basically Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla and Netflix got fed up with the licensing model of H.265/HEVC which is even worse than that of H.264 (dual patent pools which different licensing terms where you have to pay both).

Intent is for it to be royalty free, open and supported in major browsers and devices.
Sorry if I was being vague, but what situation would you re-run a short computation by executing the whole program again instead of using subroutines? Are we talking about a data scientist performing initial, exploratory analysis on a very small subset of data?
Professors hate online education. To save colleges, they have to love it
I don't know of any studies (do you?). Do people only look at the star rating? We have done some statistics and found that star rating only tells a small part of the story. Anyone with a background in statistics knows this, though.
> If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win.

That's the fundamental problem. It turns out with a reasonably accurate test, a low incidence rate, and a large population, the "definitely X" class will be filled with people who aren't actually X. Going back and trying to separate the two ends up costing more and causing more harm to the non-Xs then just waiting until there's a problem. I'd encourage you to take a look at the link I posted since it takes a very clear look at the problem in the context of mammograms and breast cancer.
Reminds me of knox payments which seems abandoned
I'm not entirely sure either side is lying. It's pretty tough to go around a CEO to the board or investors with concerns like that. I don't think it's necessarily fair for Suster to say "Hey I talked to this engineer and he never voiced these concerns while I worked with him" based on that reason.

Mark is an operator and knows that most people do respect the CEO chain of command unless the behavior is unethical or the situation extreme.

On the other hand, what's the bloody point of the engineer coming out in a secret blog to raise concerns on the tech. If the team can't develop a solution, the company will not be able to raise money and fail.

If enough people read the blog and get concerned reading the blog- the company fails because of litigation around fraud etc and everyone loses their jobs and the company for sure fails to find a solution.

Either way, if all of our goals is to see innovation, it's not a very constructive approach.
This has been my approach to following the news as well. Bias can be subtle and poor reporting isn't always easy to spot until you see another piece. But if I follow a couple specific people, though, I know how to place what they say in context. It helps.

What I find interesting is that the Internet has been long acclaimed for it's ability to give anyone an equal voice and to remove focus from authority and context put the focus on just the here-and-now content. But here we are lamenting the fact that context and credibility of the source are actually incredibly useful.
People who work remotely are happier and more productive, study finds
Blockchain would be great with the robosigning scandal, or anything else where the chain of actions has to be maintained.

Also, somebody got all the info and then wired Bangledesh's money to a private account. It's an inside job, hard to stop those.
If the FTC contacts you directly, expect your corporate lawyers to ask you to prioritize resolution over pretty much anything else.
There are two approaches to this concept:

1) One heavily rooted in Physics, Math, and well understood Mechanical properties that says it is not feasible.

2) One heavily dogmatic approach that boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of Engineering and it's limits.

There are things that can be done, and there are things that cannot be done.

Examples of things that can be done:

1) Human travel to Mars - It's hard but very feasible

2) Economically Positive Controlled Fusion - It's harder than getting a man to Mars, the economics of investing in the technology are difficult to justify relative to things like oil exploration, but it remains theoretically, if not technically, possible.

3) Completely Green Energy on Earth - Technical, political, and economic forces make this goal challenging but it is very possible if we try as a species.

Examples of things that cannot be done:

1) Faster than light travel - It's not physically possible with our current understanding of the universe, and nothing indicates this will be changing at any point. There are mathematical constructs that imply it's a possibility, but the physical requirements of these constructs are considered super unlikely to exist (and in some senses have very little meaning). Unless our understanding of the physical world changes to include materials like the ones described mathematically, this is thoroughly impossible.

2) Fly People 1000s of miles on 1 fluid ounce of gasoline - The energy isn't chemically in the substance. Unless you have some new fission and/or fusion mechanism (see earlier) this is physically impossible. Even if you could beat all of our observations around the engine cycles and overcome the theoretical maximum efficiencies (e.g. extract 100% of the energy from the gasoline), it would still not be possible because the raw energy required to perform the function of raising people into the air and changing their momentum is so much greater than what is chemically available in that much gasoline.

3) Pack enough energy safely into air via sound (or another mechanism) to allow for wireless charging - You should have seen this item coming. For reasons outlined by people who have spent much more time on this than I have, this is physically impossible. Long-range cohesive sound waves : not possible. Air efficiency for sound transmission : very very poor. Using EM runs the risk of all sorts of nasty side effects (it burns, it burns). Lasers are the only thing I can think of that could work, they're coherent and relatively efficient, they could target high density solar cells to charge the phone right? Yep, they sure could. Bill Gates investigated high energy lasers as a means of killing mosquitos in developing nations to prevent the spread of malaria, they built a fantastic system that worked perfectly, the concern over injury or loss of human life was just too great so they abandoned it. Would you want to get laser burns every so often in trade for wireless phone charging? I don't.
My Dutch professor in college actually wrote out the "ij", but the tail of the "i" connected with the "j", making it appear to be "ÿ". It kind of blew my mind the first time I saw him write it out haha
Always interested in more folks joining this conversation. It's what I do full time. I think my contact info is in my profile. I'm located in Austin so I'd have to fly out for drinks. ;)